REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

High-Performance School Buildings 2016

Authorizing legislation: Chapter 39.35D RCW: High-Performance Public Buildings

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=39.35D

School Facilities and Organization Lorrell Noahr, Interim Director of School Facilities and Organization

Prepared by:

• Nancy E. Johns, Coordinator, High Performance Schools nancy.johns@k12.wa.us | 360-725-4973

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction

High-Performance Green Building Initiatives ..................................................................... 3

High-Performance Building Standards Become Law for Washington K–12 School Major Projects ............................................................................................................................... 4

Implementation

High-Performance Requirements Phased in for K–12 Projects .......................................... 5

The Development of Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol, a High-Performance Green-Building Standard for Washington K–12 Schools .................................................... 6

District Reporting to OSPI Required Throughout the Project Life Cycle ............................ 7

Results

2014-16 Reporting Period ................................................................................................. 10

All Projects Met Minimum Point Requirements ................................................... 10

The Cost of Compliance ........................................................................................ 12

Energy Efficiency

Designing for Energy Efficiency ................................................................. 16

Operating Energy Efficiently ..................................................................... 17

Performance Observations – Operations and Maintenance .................... 18

Comparison of All Projects in All Reporting Periods ........................................................ 19

Points Earned by Reporting Year .......................................................................... 20

Range of Incremental Cost by Reporting Year ...................................................... 21

Links Between the Building Environment and Student Success Continue to Grow ... 22

Audio ................................................................................................................................ 22

Indoor Air Quality............................................................................................................. 22

Daylight ............................................................................................................................. 23

Materials .......................................................................................................................... 23

Incentives and Disincentives Related to Implementing Chapter 39.35D RCW – High-Performance Public Buildings

Incentives .......................................................................................................................... 24

Disincentives ..................................................................................................................... 24

Recommendations

Recommended in 2014 But Not Implemented ................................................................. 25

New This Reporting Period ............................................................................................... 25

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... 27

References .................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendices Appendix A: WSSP 2015 Scorecard .............................................................................. Appendix A-1

Appendix B: All School Projects Subject to High-Performance Building Requirements – August 2006 through May 2016 .............................................................................................. Appendix B-1

Appendix C: Performance Observations – Maintenance and Operations Comments 2014-2016 Reporting Period .......................................................................................................... Appendix C-1

Appendix D: Case Study Garfield Elementary, Olympia School District ......................Appendix D-1

Appendix E: Case Study Southeast Area Technical Skills Center, Cooperative of College Place, Prescott, Waitsburg, Dayton, Touchet, Walla Walla School Districts ......................... Appendix E-1

Appendix F: Case Study Cascade Middle School, Sedro-Woolley School District ....... Appendix F-1

Appendix G: Case Study Wapato High School, Wapato School District ..................... Appendix G-1

List of Tables Table 1: Status Summary of All Projects as of May 31, 2016 ......................................................... 6

Table 2: School Facilities Development Process ............................................................................. 8

Table 3: Percentage of Completed Projects to Earn Credits That Most Support the Link Between the School Environment and Student Health and Achievement ................................................. 24

List of Figures Figure 1: WSSP 2015 Points by Credit Category ............................................................................. 7

Figure 2: WSSP 2015 – All 8 Projects at D-9 Met Minimum Required Points .............................. 11

Figure 3: WSSP 2010 – All 51 Projects at D-9 Met Minimum Required Points ............................ 11

Figure 4: WSSP 2010 – All 37 Projects at D-11 Met Minimum Point Requirements .................... 12

Figure 5: WSSP 2006 – All 8 Projects at D-11 Met Minimum Credit Requirements .................... 12

Figure 6: WSSP 2015 Projects at D-9 Incremental Cost of Compliance ....................................... 13

Figure 7: WSSP 2010 at D-9 Incremental Cost of Compliance ...................................................... 14

Figure 8: WSSP 2010 at D-9 Incremental Cost of Compliance, continued ................................... 14

Figure 9: WSSP 2010 at D-11 Incremental Cost of Compliance.................................................... 15

Figure 10: WSSP 2010 at D-11 Incremental Cost of Compliance, continued ............................... 15

Figure 11: WSSP 2006 at D-11 Incremental Cost of Compliance.................................................. 16

Figure 12: Site Energy Use Intensity (EUI) at Design .................................................................... 17

Figure 13: Site Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Comparison of Design to Actual ................................ 18

Figure 14: Happy Valley Elementary, Bellingham School District. Window into the building systems ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 15: Total Points Earned by Reporting Year for Projects Completed From 2010 to 2016 Reporting Periods ......................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 16: Range of Total Incremental Cost by Reporting Year for Projects Completed From 2010 to 2016 Reporting Periods ................................................................................................... 21

Figure 17: Delta High School, Pasco School District ..................................................................... 23

1

Executive Summary The building in which a student learns is important for many reasons. Research shows that facilities can affect student learning as well as student health. Because of this, for many years school districts have become more mindful of the materials used in school construction. A high-performance, green building is one that, among other things, provides a healthy and comfortable indoor environment, uses energy and water efficiently, and is built with durable materials and equipment that are easy to maintain and operate.

The School Facilities and Organization section of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) manages the High-Performance School Building Program. The program is a result of the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 39.35D - High-Performance Public Buildings that requires state-assisted major building projects be designed and built to a high-performance, green-building standard.

Since the first volunteer pilot projects in 2006, 311 public school projects have been reviewed for applicability with the requirement. Of that total, 240 projects are designed and built, or are in the queue, to meet a high-performance standard. The list of projects includes major modernizations and additions, as well as new school buildings on an existing campus and new school facilities. The other 71 projects have requested and been granted an exemption. Most of the exemptions are early projects, 2006-2010, that were funded with district bonds passed prior to June 2009.

This report, due by September 1 of each even-numbered year (beginning in 2006 and ending this year), combines all school district reports on high-performance credits earned, project costs of compliance and annual operating results for five years following project completion. Results in this report are based on data provided by districts that reached reporting milestones during this reporting period, June 2014 through May 2016. This is the final report to the legislature; therefore, a separate section of the report has been added that compares data reported during the past 10 years. In summary, aggregating school district reported data has revealed that:

• The requirements for state-assisted K–12 schools to design and construct to a high-performance, green building standard is achievable. Over the past 10 years many of the high-performance requirements have become, or will soon be, standard best practices or required by building and energy code

• Most high-performance built schools are designed, and are operating, more energy efficiently than the national median for existing K–12 schools reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star Portfolio Manager.

• Performance observations and comments this reporting period are similar in nature to those reported in previous reporting periods. Comments this period include:

2

o “takes additional time to maintain,” particularly for site features like stormwater control and added landscape to reduce the heat-island effect;

o “requires more frequent filter and battery changes“ for HVAC systems that are achieving higher energy efficiency and automated water faucets;

o “lighting controls do not always function correctly,” referring to daylighting sensors that turn lights on and off and lighting control programs; and

o “holding up well” and “ease of maintenance,” referring to environmentally preferable and rapidly renewal materials.

• Most projects report incremental (added) costs for professional services and

construction to meet the high-performance building standard. The average incremental construction cost, reported on the final high-performance submittals received this reporting period, is $617,952.

School districts statewide are engaged in high-performance, healthy, green school activities beyond building new high-performance schools and meeting minimum credit requirements. They are EPA Energy Partner of the Year. They are U.S. Department of Education’s Green Ribbon Schools and Districts. They teach sustainability and collaborate with King County and Washington Green Schools outreach programs. They have green-cleaning policies, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, and source controls to prevent exposures to contaminants. The measures mentioned here, among others, support the research claims that the condition of school facilities plays a critical role in student achievement, student and staff health, and teacher retention. New schools are exciting and beautiful, but the initial cost of construction accounts for only 10 percent of the facility’s lifetime cost1. With proper funding from the state for maintenance and operations these buildings can remain healthy and safe environments for our students, and experience the long-term benefits of the initial investments.

1 Leopold, S. (2016, August2). Deferred School Maintenance: Pay Now or Pay More Later. School Construction News. Retrieved from http://www.schoolconstructionnews.com/articles/2016/08/2/deferred-school-maintenance-pay-now-or-pay-more-later.

3

Introduction High-Performance Green Building Initiatives The built environment has an impact on the natural environment, human health and well-being, and our economy. Every school day in the U.S., nearly 50 million students and 6 million adults are in close to 100,000 buildings, encompassing an estimated 7.5 billion gross square feet and 2 million acres of land2. There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that facilities have a direct impact on student learning as well as student and staff health3. In the United States alone buildings account for 39 percent of total energy use, 12 percent of the total water consumption, 68 percent of total electricity consumption and 38 percent of carbon dioxide emissions4.

Recognizing the impact buildings have on our environment, our economy and our communities did not happen in recent years. The current high-performance green buildings movement grew out of a need and desire to conserve energy and natural resources that became front page news in the 1960s and 1970s. The once grass-roots movement formalized in the 1990s when the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) formed committees and launched programs in support of tracking the impact our buildings have on the environment. President Clinton’s Administration launched the “Greening of the White House” initiative in 1993. That same year the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a not-for-profit non-governmental organization, was established with the vision to promote sustainability-focused practices in the building and construction industry. Five years later, in 1998, USGBC launched the pilot version of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a green building rating guide. LEED has become an international standard for measuring the sustainability of buildings. Washington state adopted LEED as a standard of achievement for public buildings and schools. Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) is an alternate to LEED for Washington State schools.

According to the EPA, and most of the green building industry, there are three primary categories of benefits to building green. The three categories are commonly referred to as the “triple bottom line.” The EPA’s list includes:

Environmental benefits o Enhance and protect biodiversity and ecosystems o Improve air and water quality o Reduce waste streams o Conserve and restore natural resources

2 21st Century School Funds, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., National Council on School Facilities. (2016). State of Our Schools. America’s K–12 Facilities. Retrieved from http://centerforgreenschools.org/state-our-schools. 3 Ibid. 4 Why Build Green? Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/whybuild.html.

4

Economic benefits o Reduce operating costs o Create, expand and shape markets for green product and services o Improve occupant productivity o Optimize life-cycle economic performance

Social benefits

o Enhance occupant comfort and health o Heighten aesthetic qualities o Minimize strain on local infrastructure5

High-Performance Standards Become Law for Washington K–12 School Major Projects Washington’s green building law was passed by the 2005 Legislature and signed into law on April 15, 2005. That year the federal government passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that includes federal building sustainable performance standards. The Washington law is codified in Chapter 28A.150 RCW–General Provisions and Chapter 39.35D RCW–High-Performance Public Buildings. According to the intent section of Chapter 39.35D RCW–High-Performance Public Buildings:

“(1) The legislature finds that public buildings can be built and renovated using high-performance methods that save money, improve school performance, and make workers more productive. High-performance public buildings are proven to increase student test scores, reduce worker absenteeism, and cut energy and utility costs.

(2) It is the intent of the legislature that state-owned buildings and schools be improved by adopting recognized standards for high-performance public buildings, reducing energy consumption, and allowing flexible methods and choices in how to achieve those standards and reductions. The legislature also intends that public agencies and public school districts shall document costs and savings to monitor this program and ensure that economic, community and environmental goals are achieved each year, and that an independent performance review be conducted to evaluate this program and determine the extent to which the results intended by this chapter are being met.

(3) The legislature further finds that state agency leadership is needed in the development of preparation and adaptation actions for climate change to ensure the economic health, safety, and environmental well-being of the state and its citizens.” The law requires public school district major facility projects receiving any state funding in a state capital budget to be designed and constructed to at least a LEED silver standard or Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP). WSSP, modeled after the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) green building standard, was developed by OSPI and school districts as an alternative to LEED. Districts are required to complete high- 5 Why Build Green? Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/whybuild.html.

5

performance submittals throughout the project life cycle, as well as completing five years of annual reporting after the project is complete.

School district major facility projects are new buildings on an existing school campus, a new school facility, or a modernization or addition to existing buildings. A major project is greater than 5,000 square feet and meets the 50 percent of the assessed value rule for modernizations. The projects are partially funded by state capital funds granted through the School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP), the K–3 Class-Size Reduction Grant program, or the STEM Grant program. The law is also applicable to major skill center projects funded as a direct appropriation in the state capital budget. Skill centers provide instruction in specialized, often vocational, preparatory programs that serve high school students from multiple school districts.

Implementation High-Performance Requirements Phased in for K–12 School Projects The 2005-2007 Capital Budget allocated $6.5 million for school district Volunteer Year projects. This allowed school districts who were ready to apply the standards on a voluntary basis to receive some pilot funding to design and build to meet the high-performance requirements. The lessons learned in the pilots helped to further refine OSPI’s and the district’s approach to the high-performance school buildings program. The tools, used to report on the credits, costs, and benefits that were developed in this early stage, are still being used today. In the recommendations section of this report a new process for continued annual reporting is suggested.

The law was written to be phased in for schools, starting July 1, 2007, for the largest school districts (2,000 or more full-time equivalent students) and July 1, 2008, for the remaining districts. The law applies to school projects that receive project approval from OSPI after those dates, unless an exemption is applicable. The most notable exemption is “not practicable–bond date” which allows an exemption for projects using local district funding from bonds that were voter approved prior to June 2008 for Class I districts and June 2009 for Class II districts. Other allowable exemptions include those for the renovation of a historical landmark, the construction of a transportation building (bus barn), and some site environmental situations.

Since the program inception, OSPI has tracked 311 projects for high-performance compliance. Of those, 239 projects were self-certifying using WSSP, one project was submitted for LEED certification, 65 projects had a “not practicable” exemption due to bond date, and six projects were exempt by law based on the size of the project and type of building. Ten years after the first school projects were subject to the high-performance building requirements, 27 projects have completed all of the submittals required during design, construction, and the five years of annual reporting. The status of all 311 projects is shown in Table 1. A complete list of all projects is included as Appendix B.

6

Table 1: Status Summary of All Projects as of May 31, 2016

Projects Status Number of Projects

D-3 Application & Approval 22

D-5 Preliminary Funding & Design 18

D-9 Contracts & Construction 81

D-11 Completion, Board Acceptance or Occupancy and Annual Reporting Underway 92

All Reporting Complete 27

Exempt 6

Not Practicable Exemption 65

Total Projects 311

The Development of Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol, a Green-Building Standard for Washington K–12 Schools The WSSP was developed through a stakeholder process to create a set of green building standards that define a sustainable Washington state school. The protocol was developed as an alternate to using LEED. First published in 2006, the WSSP includes a point-based scorecard (or checklist) of green building measures along with the criteria for all of the credits. The WSSP is a self-certifying design standard modeled after the Collaborative for High-Performance Schools (CHPS) standard. It is a pass-fail rating system with required and optional credits. OSPI, a stakeholder committee of school district staff, and design professionals wrote the first major update to the standard in 2010. A second update was completed in April 2015. WSSP 2015 is applicable to projects receiving D-4 Project Approval from OSPI after July 1, 2015. The protocol is available on the OSPI School Facilities High-Performance Schools website6.

The WSSP 2015, as shown in Figure 1, is organized into six categories that target environmental, economic, and social benefits. Each category includes required credits, those that must be achieved, and optional credits to pick from, based on the program and goals of the project, the site conditions, or other strategic reasons. A Class I district, with 2,000 or greater FTE students, must earn a greater number of points than a Class II district

6 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, School Facilities and Organization, High-Performance School Buildings Program. http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/Programs/HighPerformanceSchoolBuildings.aspx.

7

with less than 2,000 FTE students. The WSSP scorecard, that lists all of the credits and the point values, is included as Appendix A.

Figure 1: WSSP 2015 Points by Credit Category

Modernization and addition projects have been more challenged by the high-performance standards than by new building projects. This is because the projects do not touch all components and systems of a building, so certain categories of credits do not apply. Less applicable credits means there is less of a choice of points to earn. To better align the WSSP to all projects, the 2015 version of the standard adopted the CHPS method of distinguishing between modernization projects (additions are considered modernizations) and new construction when determining the required credits and the number of optional credits needed for compliance. The scope of work in the modernization dictates which required credits are applicable, and the amount of optional points is less than a new school facility or new building project.

District Reporting to OSPI Required Throughout the Project Life Cycle School district reporting of high-performance compliance begins with the Project Application and continues through the 5th year of operating and performance reporting. The two reporting workbooks developed in 2006 are still used by districts to plan and report their high-performance efforts. The WSSP Workplan workbook (used during project initiation, design, and construction) includes the credit scorecard, credit calculation worksheets, and incremental cost analysis. Once the project is complete, districts use the WSSP Annual Reporting workbook to report energy and water use, as well as building operating and performance observations. The annual report is due to OSPI in March, for five years following board acceptance or project occupancy. The WSSP 2015 Workplan and the Annual Reporting workbook are available on the OSPI High-Performance School

Site, 17%

Water, 9%

Materials, 21%

Energy, 42%

Indoor Environmental Quality, 32%

Planning, Education, Operation, 14%

6 CREDIT CATEGORIES—135 POINTS

8

Buildings Program website7. Projects that comply with LEED are required to provide the same reporting in a similar format.

High-performance school building reporting requirements are embedded in the School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) development process. The primary documents that form the basis of the SCAP development process are “D-form” documents. These documents, when properly completed and signed, form official notices of agreement and intent on behalf of the district and OSPI. Essentially, D-form documents are used to request and record required submittals and tasks that need to occur in a sequential order throughout the project life cycle (Table 2). Skill Center projects follow a modified D-form process and submit high-performance submittals in the same sequential order. Projects funded through other capital grant programs, such as the current K–3 CSR and STEM grants, do not follow the D-form process but do need to submit high-performance submittals at the appropriate time in the project life cycle.

Table 2: School Facilities Development Process

D-Form

Application

Design-Bid-Build Projects (SCAP) Projects

Planning Project Application

Predesign Analysis

Preparing for Construction

Construction Occupancy

D-3

Project Application

Intent to Comply

High

-Per

form

ance

Sch

ool R

equi

rem

ents

D-5

Preliminary Funding

Scorecard

D-9

Authorization to Sign Contracts

Scorecard

Cost

ELCCA

Strategies

D-11

Release Retainage

Scorecard

Cost

Certification

Annually for 5 years

Energy Use

Water Use

Performance

7 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, School Facilities and Organization, High-Performance School Buildings Program. http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/Programs/HighPerformanceSchoolBuildings.aspx.

9

Districts have a specific set of high-performance documentation that must be submitted in order to be in compliance. The submittals consist of the following documents:

Intent to Comply: Districts indicate on the D-3 Project Application which high-performance standard the project will follow, or request an exemption by including a letter describing the justification for an exemption.

Scorecard: The WSSP or LEED scorecards are commonly referred to as the checklist. The scorecard lists all credits and points attributed to each credit that are either required to be met or optional. It is completed prior to the design phase of the project and used as a green-building design guideline as the project progresses. The scorecard (included in the WSSP Workplan workbook) is required to be submitted with the D-5, D-9, and at project completion or D-11.

Cost Analysis: The cost analysis captures the incremental cost to design and construct a facility to meet a credit requirement. The incremental cost is the difference between the baseline cost and the actual cost to meet a high-performance requirement. The baseline cost is either the cost to meet building code, the cost of a standard district practice, or an alternate method of construction. The cost analysis (included in the WSSP Workplan workbook) is completed at D-9 and at project completion or D-11.

Energy Life Cycle Cost Analysis (ELCCA) Executive Summary: The executive summary of the ELCCA explains the different building designs studied and goes into depth about reasons for choosing a particular design over another. The ELCCA includes estimated annual energy consumption of the various designs using standardized modeling software. In turn, it is used to estimate the percentage of energy-use reduction above code-compliance when determining points earned in the Energy category of the high-performance project scorecard. The ELCCA Executive Summary is due at D-9.

Strategies Summary: The sustainable strategies summary tells the project story of why and how the district chose particular credits to earn and the design strategies implemented to meet the credit requirements. The Strategy Summary is due at D-9.

Certification of Compliance: The certification of compliance is a form letter addressed to the OSPI School Facilities and Organization disbursement officer, certifying the district has complied with all high-performance school requirements throughout the project life cycle and their commitment to provide five years of annual performance reporting. The certification letter is submitted with the D-11.

Energy and Water Use, Performance Observations: In March, for five years following school board acceptance or building occupancy, districts are required to submit an annual report that includes the building annual energy and water use, as well as performance observations about measures (based on credits earned) included in the project. Districts currently use the WSSP Annual Reporting workbook. Modeled after EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager, the workbook captures general building characteristics and monthly energy and water use. Districts can use the Energy and Water Use tabs to monitor their building’s utilities

10

use, identify spikes and take corrective action, request rate changes based on use, or estimate utility operating costs for future budgets. The performance observations are meant to be reported by facility maintenance and custodial staff or others familiar with the building performance. Not all projects report observations.

This year a query was sent out to nine districts with multiple high-performance projects. The query was sent to get a sense of whether or not the annual report is being used as intended, and whether it was seen as a burden or a benefit for the district. The responses received from eight districts show that seven districts capture all this same information in another format, and capture it for all their district buildings not just the buildings in this high-performance program. That indicates that the annual report is duplicating an existing effort and not providing new, valuable information. Two of the districts pay professional service teams to do the annual reports.

Results 2014-16 Reporting Period OSPI has consolidated all school district submittals that report on high-performance credits earned, the cost of compliance, and annual performance observations and energy and water use. Results in this section of the report are based on data reported by districts that reached reporting milestones from June 2014 through May 2016. Additionally, four school districts have provided a case study on projects completed this reporting period. Those studies are included as appendices D through G.

All Projects Met Minimum Point Requirements This reporting period introduced the new version of the protocol called WSSP 2015. Project milestone reports for 105 projects that reached D-9, construction, and D-11, occupancy, have been aggregated in Figure 2 through Figure 5 below. All of the projects met the minimum point requirements for compliance. Eight projects reached D-9 using WSSP 2015 and 51 projects reached D-9 using WSSP 2010. A total of 45 projects reached occupancy, perhaps board acceptance too, and submitted the D-11 final high-performance report. Thirty-seven are self-certified using WSSP 2010. There are also eight projects self-certified using WSSP 2006, the original version of the protocol that was replaced by WSSP 2010.

11

Figure 2: WSSP 2015 – All 8 Projects at D-9 Met Minimum Required Points

Figure 3: WSSP 2010 – All 51 Projects at D-9 Met Minimum Required Points

59

48 49 46 4448 49 48

15

35

55

75

95

115

135N

umbe

r of P

oint

s Ea

rned

Maximum Points Possible 135 Minimum Required New Construction, 40 Class II, 45 Class IMinimum Required Modernization, 29 Class II, 34 Class I

64

42

67

5452

5448

525046

55484648

565152

47

60

50

71

444848

5351

4850

4545

85

5452

55

45

63

5247

5246

5347

524649

62

495353

4956

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num

ber o

f Poi

nts

Earn

ed

Maximum Points Available 119 (2009 code) or 112 (2006 code) Minimum Points Required for Compliance 40 for Class II, 45 for Class I

12

Figure 4: WSSP 2010 – 36 Projects at D-11 Met Minimum Point Requirements

Figure 5: WSSP 2006 – All 8 Projects at D-11 Met Minimum Credit Requirements

The Cost of Compliance Making capital cost comparisons between multiple projects is difficult. Every project has a different program, different design standard, project-specific constraints, varying local construction costs, different site requirements, different designers and contractors, and have targeted different high-performance priorities. Districts report incremental costs at D-9 and D-11.

Comparison of the incremental costs for the 105 projects that reached reporting milestones during this period are shown in Figures 6–11. The incremental cost is defined as the

4249 51

5749

54

65

51 50 4857

62

49 49 50 47 46 47 43 45

68

51 55 51 47 49 53 5649 48 48 47 50 47 50

31

57

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num

ber o

f Poi

nts

Earn

ed

Maximum Points Available 119 (2009 code) or 112 (2006 code)Minimum Points Required for Compliance 40 for Class II, 45 for Class I

44

53

73

4942 41

5044

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Num

ber o

f Poi

nts

Earn

ed

Maximum Points Possible 96 Minimum Points Required for Compliance 40

13

difference between a district’s baseline cost and the cost to meet the high-performance credit. A district baseline is either the cost to meet code, the cost to meet the district standard, or the cost of an alternate method of doing the work. The figures show a mix of elementary, middle, high school, and skill center projects, as well as a mix of modernizations and new construction. The incremental costs at D-9 range from a deferred, or avoided, cost of $4.5 million to a premium, or additional, cost just over $5 million. The D-9 incremental cost represents best-known estimates prior to construction. The average incremental cost at D-9 is $322,698, after excluding the high and low outliers. At D-11, districts are asked to report incremental costs that reflect actual cost based on bid and/or contractor pricing at project completion. The incremental costs at D-11 range from a deferred, or avoided, cost of $1.3 million to a premium, or additional, cost just over $8.8 million. The average incremental cost at D-11 is $617,952 after excluding the high and low outliers. Projects shown in the D-9 table are not duplicated in the D-11 table.

The 256,000 square foot high school reporting the premium cost of just over $5 million at D-9 reported a $5 million incremental cost for energy efficiency performance that is 41 percent better than code required at project permitting. According to project documents, the chosen HVAC system has the lowest life cycle cost and has a calculated Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 23.9. EUI’s will be discussed in the Energy Efficiency section of this report; however, it should be noted here that this is a very energy efficient design for a high school. A middle school at D-9 claiming a total incremental cost savings of over $4.5 million reports a cost savings of $7 million by building a 2-story building opposed to a single story building, earning the minimal footprint credit. The elementary school claiming an incremental cost of $8.8 million included a $6.3 million incremental cost for daylighting classrooms.

Figure 6: WSSP 2015 Projects at D-9 Incremental Cost of Compliance

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

14

Figure 7: WSSP 2010 at D-9 Incremental Cost of Compliance

Figure 8: WSSP 2010 at D-9 Incremental Cost of Compliance, continued

-$5,000,000

-$4,000,000

-$3,000,000

-$2,000,000

-$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000In

crem

enta

l Cos

t

-$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

15

Figure 9: WSSP 2010 at D-11 Incremental Cost of Compliance

Figure 10: WSSP 2010 at D-11 Incremental Cost of Compliance, continued

-$2,000,000

-$1,500,000

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

16

Figure 11: WSSP 2006 at D-11 Incremental Cost of Compliance

Designing for Energy Efficiency Schools, like other Washington state-funded buildings more than 25,000 square feet, are required to complete an Energy Life Cycle Cost Analysis (ELCCA)8. The engineering comparisons made in the ELCCA modeling are relative comparisons of different energy-using systems in the same envelope. The purpose of the modeling is to provide information so the owner can make informed decisions about the first cost, annual costs of operations and replacement costs of various systems, known collectively as the “life-cycle cost.” Among other findings, the ELCCA includes energy consumption estimates for each of the modeled systems. The energy consumption estimates in an ELCCA are not precise predictors of actual energy consumption because they are based on the best knowledge and reasonable assumptions at design.

Fifty-nine schools currently in the construction phase have conducted an ELCCA, or completed a Public Facility Energy Characteristics (PFEC) report if the project was less than the threshold for an ELCCA. The PFEC simply lists the building profile and type of windows, envelope and other energy-related building components, as well as listing the modeled energy consumption. Fifty-eight schools have reported to OSPI. Both the ELCCA and the PFEC include the estimated annual energy use stated as an Energy Use Intensity (EUI). EUI is a common term used to express the energy performance of a building. The (site) EUI is calculated by taking the total energy consumed in one year and dividing it by the total square footage of the building. Fifty-four of the 58 schools shown in Figure 12 have a design EUI lower than the K–12 school national median9. The national median 8 Washington State RCW, ch. 39 § 35. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=39.35&full=true. 9 Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, March). U.S. Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Energy Star Portfolio Manager Technical Reference. Retrieved from https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/tools-and-resources?search=U.S.+Energy+Use+Intensity+by+Property+Type&=Apply.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

$5,000,000In

crem

enta

l Cos

t

17

shown here is from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) and represents energy use, not design estimates, of existing elementary, middle and high schools with varying age, condition and location.

Figure 12: Site Energy Use Intensity (EUI) at Design

A low site EUI is generally an indicator of an energy efficient design. However, school buildings have a wide range of EUIs due to a variety of statistically significant design and operating characteristics. Those include building location, operating hours, occupancy loads, and extra energy-using equipment included in the building to meet educational program requirements such as industrial machinery for technical education. Jane Addams K–8, a new school in Seattle, has been designed with an EUI of 17, the lowest of the 58 projects at ELCCA. This new school is a 3-story, 91,000 square foot building. The 2012 Washington State Energy Code, along with stricter Seattle municipal codes apply, making this design more energy efficient to meet code than a school outside Seattle. The district chose to use a hybrid ground source heat pump system with the lowest life-cycle cost and the renewable energy source of the ground. There are no high-use-energy extras in this building such as a swimming pool or technical-program machinery. McCarver Elementary, a 1924 school building in Tacoma undergoing a major modernization, is nearly the same size as Jane Adams. Through upgrades to the roof, glazing, walls, lighting and HVAC system the project is expected to reduce the energy use by over 50 percent compared to current operations. The district choose a new HVAC system for this modernization that has the lowest life cycle cost, and the lowest first cost plus replacement cost over 30 years. The modeled EUI after modernization is 32. That is nearly double the EUI of Jane Adams, however, over 50 percent less than the current EUI, and significantly less than the national K–12 median.

Operating Energy Efficiently Annual tracking of energy, as part of the annual reporting, allows districts to use routinely reported data to monitor the energy efficiency of a new or modernized facility. Actual energy use may be higher than the modeled energy use. That does not necessarily mean a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Site

EU

I

58 Elementary, Middle, High School Projects

18

building is not energy efficient or is not meeting the energy target. Buildings may use more or less energy than modeled at design for many reasons, including modifications to the building design after the energy modeling, energy management practices, as well as variations in climate, building activities and schedules. Figure 13 shows the actual annual energy use in EUI compared to the design EUI for 10 randomly selected projects that are in the five-year annual reporting period. The two schools with the lowest EUI, Spiritridge Elementary and Machias Elementary, each have geothermal well systems. Machias also has a 100KW solar photovoltaic array.

Figure 13: Site Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Comparison of Design to Actual

Performance Observations – Operations and Maintenance School districts report operations and maintenance observations on the annual reports for five years. Annual reports are prepared by people in different positions at different districts, which make for a range of comments from none at all, to the ease of cleaning, to the cost of replacement. The reports are intended to capture experiential performance of the building systems and materials used in the project. Positive and negative observations, and lessons learned, are expected to be reported. Some of the things learned are things not to do again.

Industry-wide, many buildings that perform below design expectation can trace that performance back to building operations and operators, as well as occupants, which can be correlated to awareness and training. Often building operators and occupants are not clear on their role in operating and caring for their new building. The building systems may not be the traditional district standard and the building products may need different care and

61

41

61

47

24

40

61

35

1927

4436

68

28

38 38

50

61

2920

01020304050607080

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (E

UI)

School Name and Reporting Year

Design EUI

Actual EUI

19

maintenance. In schools, a student awareness program can go a long way to maintaining the sustainability goals of the building, while providing hands-on learning experiences. Energy and water use, waste management, office-product procurement and transportation, to name a few, can all be incorporated in science, math, language arts and history curricula.

The demand for, and availability of, green building products and systems has significantly increased since the high-performance school program began in 2006. Manufacturers continue to respond to the building industry’s demand for environmentally friendly materials and systems that are more efficient. This is, in part, a result of government entities requiring that these standards be met for government-sponsored projects. Some districts have incorporated new materials and systems they have less experience with regarding durability, user operations, and useful life. These new materials and systems, selected for low volatile organic compound content or the energy efficiency, need to be monitored in order to establish a true value to the project over time. Districts that train their building occupants and operators, and assess and voluntarily record the performance of the new building materials, systems, and advanced technology, are creating an invaluable foundation to guide subsequent school construction projects. Additionally, buildings with trained operators and occupants have a much better chance of operating as designed.

Forty-six projects reported performance observations this year. The reports have been consolidated and included in Appendix C.

Comparison of Projects in All Reporting Periods Twenty-seven projects have finally completed all of the reporting required by the legislature. The completed projects include all 18 of the 2006 volunteer projects, plus nine others. The time for a district to complete the high-performance school reporting can take up to nine years from the initial D-3. A typical timeframe is as follows;

1. Projects have up to two years plus 90 days to make it through the SCAP D-form process from D-3 to D-9 submittals.

2. Construction starts after a D-9 is complete, and may take 15 months, including occupancy.

3. Board acceptance follows occupancy, which triggers the final high-performance submittal at D-11. There is often a time delay (months to years) receiving the D-11 submittal which is part of project closeout.

Figure 14: Happy Valley Elementary, Bellingham School District. Window into the building systems.

20

If there is a six-month delay from occupancy to board acceptance, a 15-month construction to occupancy schedule, and annual reporting starts that following year, it will take the district nine years to complete the high-performance reporting on a single project.

School districts have documented the credits earned, the costs and savings, the energy and water use and operating observations, per the legislative proviso. Economic, community and environmental benefits can be understood best by reviewing the credits earned and reading the criteria of the credit. For example, credit S1.2 – Greenfields, in the site category, states that a project will earn 2 points for building on a site that has previously been developed, as opposed to choosing a site that could support open space, habitat or agriculture. The environmental and community benefits are as stated – open space, habitat and agriculture. An economic benefit of not building on greenfields is the cost for site infrastructure (utilities, roads) because infrastructure is typically in place at a site that has previously been used for a building. Another example is to earn indoor environmental quality credits that target best practices to build and maintain healthy indoor air quality. To earn these credits building systems and materials must be chosen to eliminate or reduce indoor air pollutants such as soils, moisture and chemical-material odors. A third example, superior energy efficiency, has an obvious economic, community and environmental impact of reducing the amount and cost of energy. The reduction of energy use in buildings is also a reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that contribute significantly to our greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.

Points Earned by Reporting Period

The credits and the number of points possible remained consistent between WSSP 2006 and WSSP 2010. The 2006 protocol included 96 possible points. The 2010 version included 119 possible points. WSSP 2015 includes 135 possible points. Figure 15 compares the number of points earned by completed projects (D-11) broken down by four reporting periods, 2010 through 2016. No projects were complete in the first reporting period, 2006 through 2008 because the high-performance criteria had just started to be implemented. The average points earned remained consistent between 45 and 47 points until this reporting period when the average points jumped to 50. All of the completed projects to date have used the 2006 or 2010 version of WSSP. Seventy-four percent of all completed projects are reported in the 2014 and 2016 reporting periods.

21

Figure 15: Total Points Earned by Reporting Year for Projects Completed From 2010 to 2016 Reporting Periods

Range of Incremental Cost by Reporting Period

The incremental costs and savings, reported by credit, are inconsistent from district to district, and project to project. Before making cost comparisons or arriving at any data-driven conclusions further research into the project would need to be done in order to determine how the cost was calculated. Figure 16 below includes incremental cost totals for all of the same projects in four reporting periods, 2010 through 2016. No estimated costs were reported during the initial reporting period, 2006 through 2008. Projects completed in the 2014 reporting period show the lowest average incremental cost of the four reporting periods. Eight projects in this period reported a total incremental cost between zero and $10,000 dollars.

Figure 16: Range of Total Incremental Cost by Reporting Year for Projects Completed From 2010 to 2016 Reporting Periods

0

5

10

15

20

38-44 45-50 51-55 56-60 60+

Coun

t of P

roje

cts

Range of Total Points Earned

2010 2012 2014 2016

0

5

10

15

20

</=$0 $1 - $150,000 $150,001 -$500,000

$500,001 -$1,000,000

$1,000,001 -$2,000,000

>$2,000,000

Coun

t of P

roje

cts

Range of Total Incremental Cost2010 2012 2014 2,016

22

Links Between the Building Environment and Student Success Continue to Grow Today, the design of educational facilities focused on health, sustainability, durability and flexibility, in both new construction and modernizations, is the rule rather than the exception. The health and well-being of students and staff, as well as student achievement and teacher retention, is being credited, or not, in part, to the school building environment. Savings derived from school occupant health and performance far outweigh the total savings from water and energy efficiency combined10. While “high-performance, green schools” do not necessarily equate to “healthy schools” both LEED and WSSP include all of the characteristics for a school to be healthy and high performing. A number of notable findings are listed below, by building attribute type, and the WSSP credits that relate to that building attribute.

Audio Schools that include audio reinforcing technology in every classroom are showing gains in student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Extensive research on the use of audio enhancement consistently indicates significant benefits for education, particularly with the academic achievement and test scores. Also, teachers are less likely to strain their voices and report being more efficient due to not having to continuously repeat their statements. The audio industry has made numerous design improvements and cost efficiencies that offer a product selection that can easily meet a school’s design requirements at reasonable rates, between $1,000 to $2,000 per classroom11.

WSSP credits that apply: IEQ4.2 Enhanced Audio, plus IEQ4.0, IEQ4.1.

Indoor Air Quality The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports there is evidence from scientific literature about the direct relationship of the indoor air quality to improved academic performance. According to the EPA’s website12.

Studies demonstrate a connection between improvements in indoor air quality (IAQ) — either from increased outdoor air ventilation rates or from the removal of pollution sources — and improved performance of children and adults.39, 70, 69, 31, 56, 3

WSSP credits that apply: IEQ3.0 Ventilation, Filtration & Moisture Control, IEQ3.1 Low-Emitting Interior Finishes, IEQ3.3 Source Control, IEQ 3.4 Ducted HVAC Returns, plus M2.5, M2.6, E2.1, E2.2, E2.3, E4.0, E4.1.1, E4.1.2, E4.1.3, E5.1, IEQ3.5,IEQ3.6, IEQ6.1, IEQ6.2, PEO3.3,4, PEO3.3.5, PEO3.3.9.

10Coalition for Healthier Schools. (2016, February). Towards Healthy Schools 2015. Retrieved from http://www.efc.gwu.edu/library/towards-healthy-schools-2015-progress-on-americas-environmental-health-crisis-for-children/. 11 LaRowe, A. (2016, May). Did You Hear Me. School Planning and Management. Retrieved from https://webspm.com/articles/2016/05/01/audio-enhancement-systems.aspx. 12 Evidence from Scientific Literature about Improved Academic Performance. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/evidence-scientific-literature-about-improved-academic-performance.

23

Daylight Recent studies show that daylighting in schools may significantly increase students’ test scores and promote better health and physical development and can be attained without an increase in school construction or maintenance costs13. Incorporating design components such as light sensors, and optimizing mechanical and electrical systems due to reduced cooling and lighting loads, can actually reduce the initial capital cost because of the reduced size and cost of HVAC equipment. Furthermore, the operations and maintenance costs are reduced due to a smaller electrical load and a smaller number of lighting fixtures to maintain14.

WSSP credits IEQ1.1 Daylighting, IEQ1.2 Permanent Shading, plus IEQ1.3 Views.

Materials The primary sources of indoor exposure to airborne chemicals are products used in interior environments, including furnishings, building materials and other household and office products that can emit thousands of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particles into the air. Of all the culprits that can affect indoor air quality (IAQ), chemical emissions are the most harmful as they can contribute to a wide range of health effects.15

Cleaning products may be hazardous to the environment and to the health of students, maintenance workers, and other school staff. "Green cleaning” reduces environmental and health risks by selecting alternative, environmentally-sensitive products, by applying these products properly, and by implementing maintenance practices that minimize exposure to cleaning products.16 The Healthy Schools Campaign has been promoting green cleaning since the release of their Quick & Easy Guide to Green Cleaning in Schools that was first released in 2006.

WSSP credits IEQ3.1 Low-Emitting Interior Finishes, M2.5 Environmentally Preferable Products, M2.6 Building Materials Health Product, IEQ3.2 Low-Emitting Furniture, PEO3.3 Green Cleaning.

13 Plympton, Patricia, Conway, Susan, Epstein, Kyra. (200, June 16). Daylighting in Schools: Improving Student Performance and Health at a Price Schools Can Afford. Retrieved from www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28049.pdf. 14 Ibid. 15 Overview of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). (n.d.) http://greenguard.org/en/indoorAirQuality.aspx. 16 Green Cleaning in Schools: Developments in State Policy. (n.d.) http://www.eli.org/buildings/green-cleaning-schools.

Figure 17: Delta High School, Pasco School District

24

The information above is a sample of what has been studied that link building environments to student achievement, student and staff health, as well as teacher retention. Two additional studies that focus on benefits associated with healthy, green schools are listed in the reference section of this report.

The table below includes the percentage of projects that earned credits listed above.

Table 3: Percentage of Completed Projects to Earn Credits That Most Support the Link Between the School Environment and Student Health and Achievement

Credit Category Name 2010 2012 2014 2016 WSSP Version 2006 2006 2006 2010 2006 2010 IEQ4 – Acoustics/Audio 63% 73% 67% 75% 100% 82% IEQ3 – Indoor Air Quality 90% 74% 72% 75% 88% 75% IEQ1 - Daylighting 69% 61% 53% 63% 50% 58% M2 – Sustainable Materials 66% 61% 48% 63% 100% 63%

Incentives and Disincentives Related to Implementing Chapter 39.35D RCW: High-Performance Public Buildings Incentives There are two incentives for school districts and OSPI. These were more significant in 2005 when the RCW was written. Their significance is diminishing, and will sunset, as building and energy codes continue to advance, and owners, designers and manufacturers continue to embrace sustainability, new technology and best practices.

1. Stipulating LEED silver or meeting WSSP minimum points establishes a common benchmark of sustainable design and operation for Washington K–12 schools.

2. The reporting requirements, throughout the D-form process and the annual reporting, raises awareness of the sustainable design features that support and promote economic, environmental and social benefits for students, staff, the community and the state.

Past high-performance building reports to the Legislature included lists of incentives centering on building high-performance schools, not on building high-performance schools because it is the law.

Disincentives 1. Some measures are considered standard practice now. Standards established by

code and by districts have evolved over the past 10 years to account for new materials, new building systems, improved technology, safety concerns and health rules.

25

2. Most projects are reporting incremental costs (beyond the standard) for design and construction to meet the high-performance building standard, yet, the state provides no incentive funding.

3. The incremental cost benefit over the life cycle of the building may not be realized without training operators and occupants about their role in maintaining the buildings’ intent. There is currently no funding for building operator or occupant training in the capital-funding model.

4. Annual reporting for five years may create a hardship for districts with or without facility services departments. The transition of monitoring and reporting from capital development staff to operating staff creates an unrecognized workload.

5. The information collected in the annual report is, for many schools, a duplicated effort of work that is already taking place. Duplication of efforts cost school districts more professional fees, or staff time. These costs are not a state-recognized cost of a project, therefore not funded with state capital dollars.

Recommendations Recommended in 2014 But Not Implemented Legislature

1. Provide capital incentive funds to increase energy efficiency beyond code minimum and for the use of renewable sources. The incentive funds will be administered through the School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP). Projects will be incentivized using a formula-based method of allocation based on energy-efficient design specifications verified by OSPI.

2. Incorporate high-performance building annual reporting into the Inventory and Condition of Schools (ICOS) web-based system where inventory and condition details about facilities and sites operated by districts are documented and stored. ICOS benefits districts by providing functionality for inventory tracking, condition rating, record keeping, and comparative and report analysis. OSPI will require additional funding for programming changes.

New This Reporting Period Legislature and OSPI

1. Require a Post-Occupancy Evaluation for all projects subject to high-performance requirements. Develop this tool in conjunction with school district personnel or adopt UC Berkeley Center for the Built Environment as a standard format. Recognize the expense (estimated at $2,500 per project) in the capital funding provided for SCAP.

2. The five years of annual reporting should not be a separate requirement under Chapter 39.35D RCW – High-Performance Public Buildings. The annual assessment of operations, including energy and water use review, for new and new-in-lieu projects, should be covered by the annual building condition assessment required

26

by OSPI’s Asset Preservation Program (APP), and completed in ICOS. APP applies to all buildings receiving state assistance after 1993. The asset preservation program (WAC 392-347-023) is a systematic approach to ensure performance accountability; promote student health and safety by maintaining and operating building systems to their design capacity; maintain an encouraging learning environment; and extend building life, thus minimizing future capital needs.

OSPI 1. Broaden the OSPI Asset Preservation Program requirement to include major

modernizations that must comply with high-performance building requirements. 2. Remove the requirement to report incremental costs on the high-performance

project submittals completed during the D-form process.

Conclusion School districts statewide are engaged in “green school” activities beyond building new high-performance schools. Since 2009, OSPI has granted $144 million in state capital dollars to assist with school district energy efficiency projects, resulting in a total of $339 million dollars of improvements. These projects focused on efficient use of natural resources, such as energy and water, while striving to improve the indoor environment. Our schools and districts are Energy Partner of the Year with EPA. They are U.S. Department of Education’s Green Ribbon Schools and Energy Star Certified. They are engaged in green school challenges with Washington Green School and teach sustainability through King County Green Schools outreach program. Our school districts have water bottle filling stations to reduce waste, gardens to grow sustainable produce, student-managed recycling programs and STEM curricula that use the buildings as teaching tools.

The use of the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol, as a design and planning tool for major school construction projects, has shown to be achievable and generally acceptable for the past 10 years. However, many of the credit requirements are, or will soon be, standard best practices or required by building and energy code. The protocol was recently updated in 2015. It will require continued updating at least every two years to remain current with materials, technology and code.

Districts with completed projects are producing annual reports of energy use, water use, and performance observations. These reports are required by the proviso. Annual reporting for high-performance school projects that started nine years ago is finally complete. For a number of districts these annual reports are a duplicated effort, with no added value. For other districts, the annual reports pose another task to be completed by in-house staff, with no additional funding. Some districts are paying professional service companies to complete their annual reports.

The incremental cost of compliance to meet high-performance requirements is also reported by districts and captured by OSPI. School districts design their own buildings and

27

select optional credits to achieve for each individual project based on local community objectives, program goals of the project, district standards, site conditions, or other strategic reasons. Some districts make choices that are more costly than others, contributing to the wide variance in costs. The project-to-project and district-to-district cost differences do not enable OSPI to draw any conclusions on the “typical square foot incremental cost” of high-performance schools. This same statement has been repeated in each of the five reports to the legislature. After 10 years we cannot give a definitive answer on whether or not a high-performance school costs more to build, and, if so, how much. The question also remains whether an incremental cost to meet a credit, one that defines a characteristic or attribute identified, as a project goal of the owner, is truly an incremental, extra cost to the project, and should be called out as such.

No reporting or analysis methodology has been developed by OSPI, to correlate Washington student achievement, staff and student attendance, health and wellness benefits or teacher retention to schools built to high-performance standards. However, the links between the school building environment and student and teacher well-being have been published, and will continue to be studied and published by experts. Two sources are listed in the reference section, as well as those cited on pages 22 and 23.

During the past 10 years, 240 partially state-funded school projects larger than 5,000 square feet, and modernization projects with a value greater than 50 percent of the current assessed value have been or are currently in the queue for design and construction as a high-performance school (and all that this entails). With proper funding from the state for maintenance and operations these buildings can remain healthy and safe environments for our students, and experience the long-term benefits of the initial investments.

Acknowledgments This report is made possible by the many school district staff and their professional service providers who incorporated high-performance measures into their major capital projects and reported their accomplishments to OSPI. Acknowledgment is also due the WSSP Committee members, many of whom were instrumental in developing the first version of the protocol, as well as the WSSP 2015. The committee members are Carter Bagg, Nancy Bernard, Greg Brown, Tom Carver, Vernon Enns, Nancy Johns, Forrest Miller, Ed Peters, and Bruce Pitts.

References Coalition for Healthier Schools, Coordinated by Health Schools Network. (January 2013) Towards Healthy Schools 2015. Progress on America’s Environmental Health Crisis for Children Retrieved from http://www.healthyschools.org/HealthySchools2015.pdf.

McGraw Hill Construction Smart Market Report (2013) New and Retrofit Green Schools: The Cost Benefits and Influence of a Green School on its Occupants. Retrieved from http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/resources-list?field_resource_type_value=Reports.

Appendix A: WSSP 2015 Scorecard

Appendix A-1

Category Credit Number

Possible Points Yes No Maybe

Site S1.0 R17 points S1.1 1

S1.2 1S1.3 1S1.4 1-2S1.5 1S1.6 1-2S2.1 1S2.2 1S2.3 1S3.0 RS3.1 R-1S3.2 R-1S3.3 1S4.1 1S4.2 1S5.1 1

17 0 0 0Water W1.0 R9 points W1.1 1-2

W1.2 1W1.3 1W2.1 1-2W2.2 1-3

9 0 0 0Materials M1.0 R21 points M1.1 1-2

M1.2 1-3M1.3 1M1.4 1-2M1.5 1M2.1 1-2M2.2 1M2.3 1-2M2.4 1-2M2.5 1-4M2.6 1

21 0 0 0Energy E1.0 R42 points E1.1

E1.1.1 4-20E1.1.2 1E2.0 RE2.1 1E2.2 1-2E2.3 1E3.1 1-5E3.2 1-2E3.3 1-3E4.0 RE4.1E4.1.1 1E4.1.2 1E4.1.3 1E5.1 R , 1-4

Superior Energy Performance

Distributed Generation (5-10% bldg supply)4) Commissioning Fundamental Commissioning

3) Alternative Energy On-Site Renewable Energy (5-10% bldg supply)Green Power Contract

Occupancy Controls

Superior Energy Performance Superior Energy Performance Energy StarDaylight-Responsive Controls

Demand Control Ventilation

2) Controls

0 0

Enhanced Commissioning Commissioning ReviewVerification and AssurancesSystems Manual

042

5) Management Energy Management Systems

Total possible

Minimum Energy Performance1) Efficiency

Regional/Local Materials

Total possible

Environmentally Preferrable Products - Multiple Building Materials Health Product Disclosure

Rapidly Renewable MaterialsCertified Wood (50%, Chain of Custody)

Resource Reuse - Furniture and Equipment 2) Sustainable Materials Recycled Content (10%/4 mtls, 20%/8 mtls)

Building Reuse - Structure/Shell (50%, 75%, Building Reuse - Interior Non-Structural

Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%, 40%)Total possible

Storage and Collection of Recyclables1) Waste Reduction & Efficienct Material Use

Landscape Water Use BudgetIrrigation Water Reduction (50%, 100%)

Materials Reuse (5%, 10%)

Control Irrigation Water Use

2) Indoor Systems

Construction Site Waste Management (50%,

Minimal Footprint2) Transportation Public Transportation

Reduce Heat Island - Roof Design5) Outdoor Lighting Light Pollution Reduction

On-site Stormwater Management and Flow Stormwater Treatment

4) Outdoor Surfaces Reduce Heat Island - Site

2015 WSSP Scorecard Effective for projects receiving OSPI approval (D4) after July 1, 2015

District:________________________ Contact Name & Phone:_______________________________ Date:______________

Project Name and Type:__________________________________________D Phase:________Use this scorecard only for Design (D5) submittal.

Please use the 2015 Workplan for D9 and D11 reporting. The Workplan includes this scorecard, tabs for credit worksheets, cost analysis and design premiums.

GreenfieldsCentral LocationJoint Use of On-Site Facilities

Group

1) Selection & Use Code ComplianceSensitive Areas

Bicycle Lanes & Security

Credit Name

Soil Management

Irrigation System Testing and Training

HVAC Controls and Operable Windows

Minimize Parking3) Stormwater Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Joint Use of Off Site Facilities

Total possible

Potable Water Use Reduction for Sewage

1) Outdoor Systems

Appendix A-2

Indoor Environmental Quality

IEQ1.1 1-4

32 points IEQ1.2 R-1IEQ1.3 R-1IEQ2.1 R, 1-2IEQ3.0 RIEQ3.0.1 1IEQ3.1 1-6IEQ3.2 1IEQ3.3 2IEQ3.4 1IEQ3.5 1-2IEQ3.6 1-2IEQ3.7 2IEQ4.0 RIEQ4.1 1-4IEQ4.2 1IEQ5.0 RIEQ6.1 1IEQ6.2 1

32 0 0 0

Planning, Education, and Operations PEO1.1 Integrated Design Workshop

1

14 points PEO 1.2 1PEO1.3 1-2PEO2.1 1-2PEO 3.0 Operational Performance Monitoring RPEO3.1 1-2PEO3.2 R, 1-2

3) Operational PEO3.3 RNo More 1than 4 1Points of the 10 1

possible 111111114 0 0 0

GRAND TOTAL Possible Points

40 or 45

29 or 34

Daylighting Classrooms

Permanent ShadingOutdoor View Windows

1) Daylighting

3) Indoor Air Quality

2) Electric Lighting Minimum Requirements (Ventilation, Filtration, & Evaluate Envelope

0 0

Minimum required for Washington Sustainable School Two-tier system:

For Class I Districts: Minimum 45 points For Class II Districts: Minimum 40 pointsModernization

0

New Facility and new Building on Existing Facility

For Class I Districts: Minimum 34 points For Class II Districts: Minimum 29 points

Total possibleGreen School Program

Green Building Learning

Post Occupancy Evaluation

2) Education

ELCCA/LCCA

Durability, Efficiency & Innovation

Environmentally Preferrable Purchasing

4) Acoustics

5) Thermal Comfort Thermal Code ComplianceUser Control - WindowsUser Control - Temperature

1) Planning

6) User Controls

Total possible

Green Cleaning Policy and Program

APP Maintenance Plan on Modernization

Food Related Waste Prevention & Mgmt

IAQ Management Plan

Resource Conservation Plan

Maintenance Plan - APP

Integrated Pest Management Transportation Options Fuel Efficient Buses and

Low-Emitting Interior FinishesLow-Emitting FurnitureSource ControlDucted HVAC Returns

135

Max "Project or District Operational Activity” points that can be

Electric Lighting Quality

Particle Arrestance FiltrationIAQ Management (construction, pre-occupancy)Natural CoolingMinimum Acoustic PerformanceImproved Acoustical PerformanceAudio Enhancement

Appendix B: All School Projects Subject to High-Performance Building Requirements – August 2006 through May 2016

Appendix B-1

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

1/16/16 Adna Adna Elementary Modernization Yes Design

11/18/15 Anacortes Anacortes High Replacement Yes Approval

Auburn Auburn High School Modernization Yes Construction

Bainbridge Bainbridge HS Bldg 200 Volunteer Occupancy

2009 Complete

Bellevue Ardmore Elementary Yes Occupancy 2010 Complete

Bellevue Bellevue High Replacement & Mod Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 1

Bellevue Eastgate Elementary Replacement Yes Occupancy

2009 Complete

Bellevue Sherwood Forest Elementary Volunteer Occupancy

2008 Complete

Bellevue Spiritridge Elementary Replacement

Yes Occupancy 2011 Year 4

1/26/16 Bellingham Sehome High Replacement Yes Approval

11/18/14 Bellingham Happy Valley Elementary Replacement

Yes Construction

Bellingham Shuksan Middle Yes Occupancy 2009 Complete

Bellingham Wade King Elementary Volunteer Occupancy

2008 N/A

Appendix B-2

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Bellingham Birchwood Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2014 N/A

Bethel Clover Creek Elementary Replacement

Yes Occupancy Complete

Bethel Liberty Junior High Volunteer Occupancy 2009 Complete

Bethel Pierce County Skills Center Phase 1 Yes Occupancy

2010 Year 3

Bethel Pierce County Skills Center Phase 2a and 2 b one project

Yes Occupancy 2010 Year 3

Bethel Pierce County Skills Center Phase 3 Yes Occupancy Year 1

Bethel Shining Mountain Elementary Replacement & Mod

Yes Occupancy 2012 Year 2

Bethel Spanaway Elementary Replacement

Yes Occupancy 2012 Year 3

Bethel Spanaway Lake High Addition Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 4

Bickleton Bickleton K-8 Replacement, Add & Mod

Yes Occupancy 2011 Year 4

Blaine Blaine High School Science Bldg Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 3

9/15/15 Blaine New High & Mod Yes Design N/A

Camas Garfield Bldg Repl (N/L) Camas HS

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Appendix B-3

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Camas Hayes Freedom HS (N/L)

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

5/23/16 Carbonado Carbonado Main Building Modernization

Yes Approval

11/18/15 Cascade Osborn Elementary Replacement Yes Design

11/18/15 Cascade Cascade High Replacement Yes Design

Central Kitsap

Jackson Park Elementary AKA John D. Bud Hawk Elementary at Jackson Park

Yes Occupancy 2014 Not due yet

1/21/15 Central Kitsap

Silverdale Elementary Replacement & Mod

Yes Construction

9/15/15 Central Valley

Spokane Valley Technical Modernization Phase 3

Exempt by law Approval

7/15/15 Central Valley

Chester Elementary Modernization Yes Construction

7/1/15 Central Valley

Greenacres Elementary Modernization

Yes Construction

7/1/15 Central Valley

Opportunity Elementary Modernization

Yes Design

7/1/15 Central Valley

Sunrise Elementary Modernization Yes Design

7/1/15 Central Valley

Evergreen Middle Modernization Yes Construction

Appendix B-4

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Central Valley Spokane Valley Tech Yes Occupancy

2014 Year 1

Centralia Oak View Elementary Add Volunteer Occupancy

2008 Complete

1/26/16 Chehalis New K-2 Elementary Yes Approval

1/26/16 Chehalis New 3-5 Elementary Yes Approval

Cheney Betz Road Middle Yes Occupancy 2012 Year 2

Cheney Abbott Road Middle Yes Occupancy 2012 Year 2

Clover Park Harrison Prep & Associated Elementary School

Yes Construction

Clover Park Lakes High & Aux Gym Replacement

Not practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Clover Park Hudtloff Middle Yes Occupancy 2013 Year 2

Clover Park Hillside Elementary Yes Occupancy 2013 Year 2

Clover Park Carter Lake Elementary Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 2

Clover Park Beachwood Elementary Yes Occupancy

2015 Not due yet

11/18/14 Clover Park Evergreen Elementary Yes Construction

Appendix B-5

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Clover Park Greenwood Elementary Yes Construction

Clover Park Clarkmoor Elementary Replacement

Yes Construction

College Place

New College Place Elementary Yes Construction

College Place

New College Place High School-Mod Yes Construction

Colton Colton School Add & Mod Yes Construction

Conway Conway School Replacement & Mo Yes Occupancy Year 1

Davenport Davenport K-8 Replacement & Mod Yes Occupancy

2012 Year 2

Deer Park Deer Park High Add & Mod Yes Occupancy

2010 Complete

Eastmont Grant Elementary Mod Yes Occupancy

2012 Year 3

Eastmont Sterling Intermediate Mod Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 2

Eastmont Eastmont High Ad & Mod Yes Occupancy

2014 Not due yet

East Valley (Yakima)

Terrace Heights Elementary Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 2

Eatonville Eatonville Middle Add & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Appendix B-6

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Eatonville Eatonville High School

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Eatonville Eatonville Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Eatonville Weyerhaeuser Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

5/23/16 Edmonds Madrona School Replacement Yes Approval

3/25/16 Edmonds Lynwood Elementary Replacement & Mod

Yes Approval

3/25/16 Edmonds Mount Lake Terrace Elementary Replacement

Yes Approval

1/21/15 Edmonds Alderwood Middle School Replacement Yes Construction

Edmonds Meadowdale Middle Replacement Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 4

1/21/15 Edmonds Lynndale Elementary Replacement Yes Construction

Edmonds Lynnwood High Volunteer Occupancy 2009 Complete

11/18/15 Ellensburg Morgan Middle Replacement & Mod Yes Design

1/15/16 Elma East Grays Harbor Transportation Co-op

Exempt by law Approval

Entiat Paul Rumburg Elementary Mod Yes Occupancy

2015 Year 1

Appendix B-7

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

1/26/16 Enumclaw Enumclaw High Modernization Yes Approval

9/15/15 Enumclaw Black Diamond Elementary Replacement

Yes Design

Everett Everett High Little Theatre Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Everett Forest View Elementary Volunteer Occupancy

2007 Complete

Everett Everett High Gym Building

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2014 N/A

Everett James Monroe Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Everett Jefferson Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Everett View Ridge Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Everett Whittier Elementary Not

Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Evergreen (Clark) Crestline Elementary Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 1

Evergreen (Clark)

(HELA) Health and Bioscience Academy Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 2

Evergreen (Clark) Host

Clark County Skills Center Yes Occupancy

2015 Year 1

Federal Way Federal Way High Addition & Replacement

Yes Construction

Appendix B-8

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Federal Way Lakeland Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Federal Way Lakota Middle Not

Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Federal Way Panther Lake Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2009 N/A

Federal Way Sunnycrest Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2014 N/A

Federal Way Valhalla Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2009 N/A

Freeman Freeman Elementary Add & Mod Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 4

Freeman Freeman High Mod Yes Occupancy 2010 Year 4

Grand Coulee Dam Lake Roosevelt K-12 Yes Occupancy

2015 Year 1

5/15/15 Granger Roosevelt Elementary Yes Construction

Grapeview Grapeview K-8 School Modernization

Yes Construction

1/14/16 Highline PSSC-Health Sciences Yes Construction

Highline McMicken Heights Elementary Replacement

Yes Occupancy 2011 Year 3

Highline Parkside Elementary Volunteer -

not state funded

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Appendix B-9

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

7/1/15 Hockinson Hockinson Middle Replacement Yes Construction

Issaquah Creekside Elementary Yes Occupancy Year 5

Kennewick Cascade Elementary Yes Occupancy Year 3

Kennewick Cottonwood Elementary Yes Occupancy

2010 Complete

Kennewick Canyon View Elementary Add & Mod

Yes Occupancy 2010 Complete

Kennewick Lincoln Elementary Yes Occupancy 2014 Year 2

Kennewick Eastgate Elementary Yes Occupancy 2015 Not due yet

Kennewick Southgate Elementary Add & Mod

Yes Occupancy 2011 Complete

Kennewick Sunset View Elementary Add & Mod

Yes Occupancy 2012 Year 4

11/18/14 Kennewick Desert Hills Middle Add & Replacement Yes Construction

11/18/14 Kennewick Sage Crest Elementary Yes Construction

11/18/14 Kennewick Middle #5 Yes Construction

11/18/15 Kennewick Westgate Elementary Add & Replacement

Yes Construction

Appendix B-10

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

4/19/16 Kennewick Tri-Tech Skills Center East Growth Yes Approval

1/26/16 Kent Covington Elementary Replacement

Yes Approval

Kent Mill Creek Middle Replacement & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy N/A

Kent Kent Meridian High Main Gym

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy N/A

11/18/15 Lake Stevens New Elementary #7 Yes Approval

Lake Washington

Finn Hill Jr Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Lake Washington

John Muir Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Lake Washington

Helen Keller Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Lake Washington

Carl Sandburg Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Lake Washington

Lake WA High Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Lake Washington

International Community School and Community Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2013 N/A

Lake Washington

Alexander Graham Bell Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2013 N/A

Appendix B-11

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Lake Washington

Benjamin Rush Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2013 N/A

Lake Washington

Rose Hill Jr High Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2013 N/A

Lake Washington

Rachel Carson Elementary Volunteer Occupancy

2008 Complete

11/18/14 Lakewood Lakewood High Add & Replacement Yes Construction

La Conner La Conner Middle Replacement Yes Construction

9/15/15 Lopez Island Lopez Island K-12 School Mod Yes Approval

11/18/15 Lynden Fisher Elementary Replacement Yes Design

11/18/15 Lynden Lynden Middle Replacement Yes Design

1/26/16 Manson Art, Music, Shop Mod at Jr/Sr High

Exempt by law Approval N/A

Marysville Grove Elementary Volunteer Occupancy 2008 Complete

Marysville Transportation Coop Facility

Exempt by law Construction

9/15/15 Marysville Marysville-Pilchuck High Cafeteria Replacement

Yes Construction

9/15/15 Mead Northwood Middle Replacement Yes Design

Appendix B-12

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Mercer Island

Islander Middle Add & Replacement Yes Construction

Meridian Meridian Elementary-Irene Rather

Yes Occupancy 2014 Year 2

Meridian Meridian High Ad & Replacement Yes Occupancy

2014 Year 2

1/26/16 Monroe Park Place Middle Replacement & Modernization

Yes Design

Montesano Beacon Ave Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Moses Lake New Moses Lake High Pool Building

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2014 N/A

Moses Lake Sage Point Elementary Yes Occupancy

2009 Year 3

Moses Lake Chief Moses Middle Gym Ad

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2009 N/A

Moses Lake Park Orchard Elementary Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 2

Moses Lake Central Washington Transportation Cooperative

Exempt by law

Occupancy 2013

Moses Lake host

Columbia Basin Skills Center Yes Occupancy

2015 Year 1

Mount Vernon

Mount Vernon High Gym Mod Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 3

3/25/16 Mount Vernon

Madison Elementary Replacement Yes Approval

Appendix B-13

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Mount Vernon

Northwest Career & Tech Academy (NCTA) Mt Vernon

Yes Occupancy 2010 Complete

Mount Vernon

Northwest Career & Tech Academy (NCTA) Anacortes

Yes Occupancy 2010 Complete

1/26/16 Mukilteo Olympic View Middle Gym Replacement

Yes Design

9/19/14 Mukilteo Lake Stickney Elementary Yes Construction

9/15/15 Mukilteo New Kindergarten Center at Fairmount Elementary

Yes Approval

Mukilteo Sno-Isle Technical Skills Center

Not applicable

funding date

Occupancy 2011

11/18/14 Naches Valley

Naches Valley K-4 Elementary Replacement

Yes Construction

11/18/15 Nooksack Valley

Nooksack Valley Middle Replacement Yes Approval

11/18/15 Nooksack Valley

Nooksack Valley High Replacement & Mod

Yes Design

North Franklin

Connell Elementary Replacement Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 4

North Franklin

Olds Junior Mod & Add Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 3

11/18/14 North Mason

Hawkins Middle Replacement & Mod Yes Construction

North Mason New High School Yes Construction

Appendix B-14

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

1/26/16 North Thurston

North Thurston High Replacement & Mod Phase 2

Yes Approval

9/19/14 North Thurston

Evergreen Forest Elementary Yes Construction

9/19/14 North Thurston New Middle #5 Yes Construction

9/19/14 North Thurston

North Thurston High Add & Replacement Yes Construction

North Thurston

Chinook Middle Ad & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

North Thurston

Nisqually Middle Add & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Northshore Bothel High Phase 3 Mod & Add Volunteer Occupancy

2008 Complete

Northshore Kenmore Jr High Replacement Phase 3

Yes Occupancy 2012 Year 3

Northshore Woodinville High Replacement Phase 1&2

Yes Occupancy 2013 Year 3

Northshore Woodinville High Replacement Phase 3

Yes Construction

Northshore New High School #4 (North Creek) Yes Construction

Oak Harbor Oak Harbor High Replacement & Mod Yes Occupancy

2010 Year 4

Ocosta Ocosta Elementary Replacement Yes Construction

Appendix B-15

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Olympia Garfield Elementary Yes Occupancy 2015 Year 1

Olympia Olympia Regional Learning Academy (ORLA)

Yes Construction

Orcas Island Orcas Island Middle/ High Replacement & Modernization

Yes Construction

Orient Orient Elementary Ad & Modernization Yes Occupancy

2012 Year 3

Othello Transportation Coop Facility

Exempt by law

Occupancy 2014 N/A

Othello High Classroom Add Not

Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Othello Lutacaga Elementary Ad & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Othello McFarland Junior Ad & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2008 N/A

Othello Othello High Ad & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2008 N/A

Othello Hiawatha Elementary Ad & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Othello Scootney Elementary Ad & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Pasco Barbara McClintock STEM Elementary Yes Occupancy

2015 Not due yet

Pasco Marie Currie STEM Elementary Yes Occupancy

2015 Not due yet

Appendix B-16

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Pasco Pasco #13 Elementary Yes Occupancy

2014 Not due yet

Pasco Delta High School Yes Occupied 2015 Not due yet

11/18/15 Pasco Marie Curie Elementary Addition

Exempt by law

Occupancy 2015 N/A

11/18/15 Pasco Pasco High Addition Exempt by law Construction N/A

9/15/15 Pioneer Pioneer Intermediate/Middle Replacement

Yes Construction

Pomeroy Pomeroy Jr/Sr High Occupancy 2012 Year 4

Pullman Pullman High Replacement and Modernization

Yes Construction

5/13/16 Puyallup Shaw Road Elementary Addition Yes Design

5/23/16 Quincy Pioneer Elementary Addition Yes Approval

5/23/16 Quincy George Elementary Addition Yes Approval

5/23/16 Quincy Mountain View Elementary Addition Yes Approval

Quillayute Valley

Forks High replacement & Ad Yes Occupancy

2012 Year 4

3/1/14 Renton New Middle #4 (Hillcrest Center Replacement)

Yes Construction

Appendix B-17

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Renton Hazen High Addition Yes Occupancy Year 2

1/26/16 Richland Jefferson Elementary Replacement

Yes Approval

Richland Marcus Whitman Elementary Replacement & Ad

Yes Construction

Richland Lewis and Clark Elementary Replacement & Add

Yes Construction

Richland Sacajawea Elementary Replacement & Add

Yes Construction

Richland South Richland Elementary #10 Yes Construction

1/21/15 Richland Richland West Area Middle School #4 Yes Construction

Ridgefield Union Ridgefield Elementary Yes Occupancy

2014 Year 1

Ridgefield South Ridge Elementary Yes Occupancy

2015 Year 1

Riverview Carnation Elementary Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Riverview Cherry Valley Elementary replacement & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Riverview Riverview Alternative

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2011 N/A

Royal Intermediate School Addition Yes Occupancy

2016 Not due yet

Appendix B-18

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

1/26/16 Seattle Loyal Heights Elementary Modernization

Yes Design

5/15/15 Seattle Meany Middle Modernization Yes Construction

9/19/14 Seattle Olympic Hills Elementary Yes Design

9/19/14 Seattle Wilson Pacific Middle Replacement Yes Construction

8/1/14 Seattle Arbor Heights Elementary Replacement

Yes Construction

8/1/14 Seattle Jane Adams K-8 at Pinehurst Yes Construction

Seattle World School at TT Minor Elementary Yes Construction

Seattle Denny Middle /Chief Sealth High Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 5

Seattle Hamilton Int Middle Volunteer Occupancy 2010 Year 5

Seattle Ingraham High Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy N/A

Seattle Cedar Park Elementary Yes Construction

Seattle Nathan Hale High New and Mod– Phase 1 and Phase II

Yes Occupancy 2010,2011 Year 5

Seattle Horace Mann Elementary Modernization

Not Practicable

Historic Bldg Occupancy

Appendix B-19

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Seattle Genesee Hill Elementary Replacement

Yes Construction

Sedro-Woolley

Cascade Middle School Modernization and Addition

Yes Occupancy 2014 Year 1

Selah Selah Middle School Yes Occupancy 2015 Year 1

Selah Selah High School Additions Yes Occupancy

2014 Year 1

Shoreline Shorecrest High Replacement & Mod Yes Occupancy

2012, 2014 Year 1

Shoreline Shorewood High Replacement Yes Occupancy

2013, 2014 Year 1

Snohomish Snohomish High Yes Occupancy 2011 Year 5

Snohomish Machias Elementary Replacement Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 4

Snohomish Riverview Elementary Replacement

Yes Occupancy 2013 Year 4

Snohomish Valley View Middle Replacement Yes Occupancy

2012 Year 1

Snoqualmie Valley New Elementary #6 Yes Construction

1/26/16 Spokane Franklin Elementary Replacement & Modernization

Yes Approval

Spokane Shadle Park High Mod Volunteer Occupancy

2010 Complete

Appendix B-20

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Spokane New Tech Skills Center Yes Occupancy

2015 Not due yet

9/23/15 Spokane New Tech Skills Center Phase 2

Exempt by law Approval

Spokane Salk Middle School Gymnasium Yes Occupancy

2015 Not due yet

7/1/15 Spokane Salk Middle School Replacement Yes Construction

Spokane Westview Elementary Replacement

Yes Occupancy 2012 Year 3

Spokane Ferris High Replacement Yes Occupancy

2014 Year 1

Spokane Jefferson Elementary Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 1

Spokane Finch Elementary Yes Occupancy 2015 Not due yet

Spokane Hutton Elementary Replacement & Mod Yes Construction

Spokane

Mullan Road Elementary Replacement & Modernization

Yes Occupancy 2015 Not due yet

Steilacoom Pioneer Middle School Volunteer Occupancy

2008 Complete

Sumner Bonney Lake Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Sumner Victor Falls Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Appendix B-21

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Sumner Lakeridge Middle Not

Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Sumner Maple Lawn Elementary

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

Sumner Sumner Middle Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Complete N/A

11/18/14 Sunnyside Washington Elementary Replacement

Yes Construction

Sunnyside Sunnyside High Add & Mod Yes Occupancy

2013 Year 2

Sunnyside Sunnyside High Addition Yes Occupancy

2015

Sunnyside Yakima Valley Tech Skills Center Phase 3 - Sunnyside branch

Yes Occupancy 2014 Year 2

9/19/14 Tacoma McCarver Elementary Mod Yes Construction

9/19/14 Tacoma Stewart Middle Modern Yes Construction

9/19/14 Tacoma Wilson High Replacement & Mod Phase 2

Yes Construction

Tacoma Baker Middle Replacement Yes Occupancy

2011 Year 5

Tacoma First Creek Middle Not

Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2009 N/A

Tacoma Gray Middle Volunteer Occupancy 2009 Complete

Appendix B-22

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

Tacoma Geiger Elementary Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Tacoma Washington Elementary Mod Yes Construction

1/26/16 Tahoma Lake Wilderness Elementary Addition & Replacement

Yes Approval

11/18/14 Tahoma New Tahoma High and Regional Learning

Yes Construction

Touchet Touchet School Modernization Yes Construction

11/18/15 Toutle Lake Toutle Lake School Replacement & Modernization

Yes Design

3/25/16 Tumwater East Olympia Elementary Modernization

Yes2015 Approval

7/1/15 Tumwater Littlerock Elementary Replacement

Yes WSSP Construction

9/19/14 Tumwater Peter G Schmidt Elementary replacement

Yes. 62. 3/5/15 Construction

9/19/14 Tumwater Tumwater High New PE Facility

Exempt by law Construction

Tumwater New Market Skills Lab Bldg D Volunteer Occupancy

2007 Complete

University Pl Curtis High Gym Replacement

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Appendix B-23

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

University Pl Curtis High Aquatic Ctr Replacement & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

Valley Valley K-8 School Add Yes Occupancy

2010 Year 4

Vancouver Vancouver Arts & Academy Mod

Volunteer Occupancy 2008 Complete

Vashon Vashon Island High Yes Occupancy 2014 Year 1

Walla Walla South East Area Technical (SEA Tech) Skills Center

Yes Occupancy 2014 Year 1

Wapato Wapato High Addition & Mod Yes Occupancy

2015 Year 1

Warden Warden Middle/High Gym Mod

Yes Occupancy 2012

Year 2 Warden Warden Vo-Ag Mod and Addition Yes Occupancy

2013

Warden Cafeteria Ad & Mod Yes Occupancy 2012

5/15/15 Washougal Jemtegaard Middle Replacement Yes Design

Wellpinit Elementary-High Mod Yes Occupancy Year 2

Wenatchee Wenatchee Valley Tech Renovation Yes Construction

11/18/14 Wenatchee Lincoln Elementary Modernization Yes Construction

Appendix B-24

New This Reporting

Period

School District Name

School Name & Project Type

High Performance Compliance

Project Status -

Approval thru

Occupancy

Annual Reporting Status (For 5

years following board acceptance

or occupancy)

11/18/14 Wenatchee Washington Elementary Replacement

Yes Construction

West Valley 9th Grade Center Modernization

Exempt by law Occupancy N/A

White Pass White Pass Elementary Ad & Mod

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2012 N/A

White Pass White Pass Junior/Senior

Not Practicable Bond Date

Occupancy 2010 N/A

Willapa Valley

Willapa Valley High & Middle Volunteer Occupied

2009 Complete

Willapa Valley

Elementary Remodel and Modernization

Exempt by law

Occupancy 2013 N/A

Woodland New Woodland High Yes Construction

Yakima A.C. Davis High Mod Yes Construction

Yakima Yakima Valley Tech Skills Center Phase 2 Yes Occupancy

Year 4

Yakima Yakima Valley Tech Skills Center Phase 1 Yes Occupancy

Yakima Stanton Alternative High Replacement & Ad

Occupancy 2012 Year 3

Yakima Eisenhower High Replacement & Ad Yes Occupancy Year 1

Appendix C: Performance Observations – Maintenance and Operations Comments 2014-2016 Reporting Period

Appendix C-1

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Bellevue High Yakima Warden Cheney Cheney

School Name Bellevue High Eisenhower High

Warden Gym Mod

Westwood Middle

Betz Road Middle

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2

Site Group Credit Name Points Possible No

comments No comments

No comments

1) Selection & Use S1.4 Joint Use of On-

Site Facilities 1-2 high community usage

2) Transportation S2.1 Public 1 not enough usage Water 1) Outdoor Systems W1.0 Water Use

Budget R W1.1 Irrigation Water

Reduction (50%) 1-2 massive leak caused wasted water

Materials 1) Waste Reduction

& Efficient Use

M1.1 Waste Reduction

(50%, 75%) 1-2 SOMAT System - Good Performance

E1.1 Superior Energy Performance

4-12

continue to have lighting control issues causing increased energy usage

E2.1 HVAC and Operable Windows 1

Issues with window seals falling out. Poor install, repairing as needed

Indoor Environmental Qualities

IEQ3.6 IAQ Management (construction, pre-occupancy)

1-2

all ducts sealed during construction & cleaned pre-occupancy

Appendix C-2

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Meridian North Franklin Sunnyside High

North Franklin Northshore

School Name Meridian High Olds Junior High

Sunnyside High Connell Elementary

Kenmore Junior High

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Site Group Credit Name Points

Possible 1) Selection & Use

All OK no comments

S1.0 Code Compliance R S1.4 Joint Use of On-Site Facilities 1-2

Community pays for any facility use

S2.2 Bicycles 1

bicycle racks were installed but not many kids ride bikes to school

S3.1 On-site Infiltration

1

Areas are subject to heavy weed growth

storm water is managed through swale that have been planted in grass these sloped area are difficult to mow

S3.2 Runoff Treatment or Reduction

1

Pervious concrete continues to be a maintenance issue , a constant issue during rain events, water takes a long time to infiltrate thru.

SWAILS HARD TO MAINTAIN AREAS

S4.1 Heat Island Reduction Through

Landscaping 1

OK-Tree expensive to maintain

Water 1) Outdoor Systems W1.2 Scheduling Controller

1

EASY TO SET SCHEDULE WORKS WELL

Appendix C-3

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Meridian North Franklin Sunnyside High

North Franklin Northshore

School Name Meridian High

Olds Junior High Sunnyside High Connell

Elementary Kenmore Junior High

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Site Group Credit Name Points Possible W2.2 Potable Water Use Reduction

(20%, 30%) 1-2

SEEM TO WORK WELL NO COMPLAINTS ON ODOR

OK- expensive to maintain

Materials M1.4 Salvaged or Refurbished

Bldg. Materials (5%, 10%) 1-2

REUSED CABINETS IN FACILITY SHOP

Energy E1.1 Superior Energy Performance

4-12

EQUIPMENT REQUIRES VERY FRREQUENT FILTER CHANGES

E2.2 Daylight-Responsive Controls 1

WORKNG WELL NO CONPLAINTS AT THIS TIME

E4.1 Additional Commissioning

2

LOTS OF ISSUES WITH EH SYSTEM REQIRED LOTS OF TUNNING TO MAKE SYSTEM FUNCTION WELL

E5.1 Energy Management Systems 1 CONTROL SYSTEM WORKS GREAT

Indoor Environmental Quality IEQ2.1 Electric Lighting Quality

1

ROOM LIGHTING STAYS CONSISTENT NOT TO BRITE OR TO DARK DEPENDING ON THE SUN OUTSIDE

IEQ3.7 Natural Cooling 3

ECONOMIZER FUNCTION LOTS OF OUTSIDE AIR

IEQ6.2 User Control (temperature and lighting controls) 1

LIGHTING PROGRAM IS DIFFICULT TO OPERATE

Appendix C-4

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Mount Vernon Northshore Tacoma Bickelton Freeman

School Name Mount Vernon High

Woodinville High Phase 3

Baker Middle Bickelton K-8

Freeman Elementary

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 3 Year 3 year 4 year 4 Year 4

Site Group Credit Name Points Possible

1) Selection & Use

No comments

S1.4 Joint Use of On-Site Facilities

1-2

Extra cost associated with on-site facility use. Non-school hours require custodial OT and they only make up a small portion of energy costs.

S2.3 Parking

1

Parking is reported to be horrible. Teachers have to park in the adjacent neighborhoods.

S3.2 Runoff Treatment or Reduction 1

Roof drains re-directed. Problem solved.

S4.1 Heat Island Reduction Through Landscaping

1

More landscaping is hard for the team to keep up with and the public often complains.

S5.1 Light Pollution Reduction

1

No perceived security risk, but there is occasional vandalism.

Appendix C-5

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Mount Vernon Northshore Tacoma Bickelton Freeman

School Name Mount Vernon High

Woodinville High Phase 3

Baker Middle Bickelton K-8

Freeman Elementary

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 3 Year 3 year 4 year 4 Year 4

Water W2.1 Potable Water Use for Bldg

Sewage Reduction (45%) 1

High Maintenance battery replacement

W2.2 Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%) 1-2

High Maintenance battery replacement

Energy 1) Efficiency E1.0 Minimum Energy Performance

R

Water source heat pumps are lemons. High maintenance required.

E1.1 Superior Energy Performance

4-12

Roof mounted heating coil burst in cold weather due to freeze stat placed in wrong location

Indoor Environmental Quality IEQ3.0 Ventilation, Filtration, &

Moisture Control Minimums R Exhaust cooling of gym inefficient

IEQ3.7 Natural Cooling

3

Night-time purge needed in warmer weather due to heat gain

IEQ4.0 Minimum Acoustic Performance R

Acoustic panels not suitable for soccer in field house

Appendix C-6

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Edmonds Oak Harbor Pomeroy Bellevue Kennewick

School Name Meadowdale Middle

Oak Harbor High

Pomeroy Junior/Senior Spiritridge Sunset

View

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4

Site Group Credit Name Points Possible

1) Selection & Use

No comments

No comments

S1.4 Joint Use of On-Site Facilities 1-2

Continued increase

S2.2 Bicycles 1

Students still using bicycle racks

S3.0 Sedimentation and Erosion Control R

15 filters replaced this year.

Checked basins a small amount of debris has accumulated as designed to

S3.2 Runoff Treatment or Reduction

1

Pond continues to be effective at reducing runoff rates.

Roof drains have been cleaned, still working as designed

S4.2 Heat Island

Reduction Through Roof Design 1

Gellpie has finally found the problem with the gym roof and has resolved that issue

Water W1.1 Irrigation Water

Reduction (50%)

1-2

Irrigation system properly and efficiently controlled.

continued increase in irrigation due to landscape replacement.

Appendix C-7

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Edmonds Oak Harbor Pomeroy Bellevue Kennewick

School Name Meadowdale Middle

Oak Harbor High

Pomeroy Junior/Senior Spiritridge Sunset

View

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4

W1.2 Scheduling Controller

1

Irrigation is working as designed, we need to add one sprinkler head to the court yard

W2.1 Potable Water Use for Bldg Sewage Reduction (45%)

1

All repairs are maintenance-related.

I have changed two flushing valves in the gym lockerooms

W2.2 Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%)

1-2

We still have the issue with the water being too cold with the faucet not running long enough

Materials M1.1 Waste Reduction

(50%,75%)

1-2

Clearwater recycling is still providing us with the recycling service with students helping

M2.2 Rapidly Renewable Materials

1

This type of floor is holding up well with ease of maintenance

E1.1 Superior Energy Performance 4-12

I cleaned the pump screen this spring, no contaminates

Appendix C-8

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Edmonds Oak Harbor Pomeroy Bellevue Kennewick

School Name Meadowdale Middle

Oak Harbor High

Pomeroy Junior/Senior Spiritridge Sunset

View

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4

E2.1 HVAC and Operable Windows 1

This system works very well, easy to change settings makes it easy to use

E4.1 Additional Commissioning 2

Additional Commissioning will occur this summer

5) Management

Subtotal Energy 24 Indoor Environmental Quality

IEQ2.1 Electric Lighting

Quality 1

Have changed approximately four more ballast and 20-24 more bulbs

3) Indoor Air Quality

IEQ3.0 Ventilation, Filtration, & Moisture Control Minimums

R

IEQ3.1 Low-Emitting

Interior Finishes

1-4

Flooring adhesion remains an issue. Many tiles replaced as they fail. Less repairs required each year.

Appendix C-9

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Edmonds Oak Harbor Pomeroy Bellevue Kennewick

School Name Meadowdale Middle

Oak Harbor High

Pomeroy Junior/Senior Spiritridge Sunset

View

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 4

IEQ3.3 Source Control 1

The system works very well

IEQ3.4 Ducted HVAC Returns 1

good IEQ3.5 Particle

Arrestance Filtration

1

Maintenance program is active and effective.

Filter locations makes it easy to change filters

IEQ6.2 User Control (temperature and lighting controls)

1

Lighting control system hardware is updated upon failure.

Appendix C-10

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Yakima Bellevue Kennewick Kennewick Deer Park

School Name Yakima Valley Tech Skills

Ardmore Elementary Canyon View Cottonwood Deer Park

High

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 4 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Site Group Credit Name Points

Possible 1) Selection & Use

No comments

No comments

S1.4 Joint Use of On-Site Facilities

1-2

community use increasing

Providing the joint use of on-site facilities has definitely resulted in increased utility and custodial costs when the facilities are being used by organization for which the rental fees are waived.

Providing the joint use of on-site facilities has definitely resulted in increased utility and custodial costs when the facilities are being used by organization for which the rental fees are waived.

S2.1 Public 1 not enough usage

S2.2 Bicycles 1 adequate S2.3 Parking 1 adequate S3.1 On-site Infiltration

1

In an effort to increase on-site infiltration and improve the aesthetics of the site, planting beds and trees were incorporated in the school design. However, the addition of these areas has likely resulted in increased maintenance and water usage.

In an effort to increase on-site infiltration and improve the aesthetics of the site, planting beds and trees were incorporated in the school design. However, the addition of these areas has likely resulted in increased maintenance and water usage.

Appendix C-11

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Yakima Bellevue Kennewick Kennewick Deer Park

School Name Yakima Valley Tech Skills

Ardmore Elementary Canyon View Cottonwood Deer Park

High

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 4 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Site Group Credit Name Points

Possible S3.2 Runoff Treatment or

Reduction 1

good

S4.1 Heat Island Reduction Through Landscaping

1

Heat Island reduction through landscaping was incorporated in the school design. However, the addition of these areas has likely resulted in increased water usage and maintenance.

Heat Island reduction through landscaping was incorporated in the school design. However, the addition of these areas has likely resulted in increased water usage and maintenance.

Water W1.1 Irrigation Water

Reduction (50%)

1-2

more improvement needed--some landscaping replaced last year requiring additional irrigation

Appendix C-12

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Yakima Bellevue Kennewick Kennewick Deer Park

School Name Yakima Valley Tech Skills

Ardmore Elementary Canyon View Cottonwood Deer Park

High

Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 4 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Site Group Credit Name Points

Possible W2.2 Potable Water Use

Reduction (20%, 30%) 1-2

Water savings through the use of water efficient systems are unclear. Many of the fixtures will sometime have to be flushed twice. Also, it would seem that sinks with aerators are ran twice during hand washing due to the reduced pressure. Aerators have also presented problems in school kitchens; many of the kitchen staff find the resulting water pressure inadequate.

Water savings through the use of water efficient systems are unclear. Many of the fixtures will sometime have to be flushed twice. Also, it would seem that sinks with aerators are ran twice during hand washing due to the reduced pressure. Aerators have also presented problems in school kitchens; many of the kitchen staff find the resulting water pressure inadequate.

Appendix C-13

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Freeman High Anacortes

Mount Vernon Spokane Kennewick

School Name Freeman High

NCTA Anacortes

NCTA Mt Vernon Shadle Park High Southgate

Elementary Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Site Group Credit Name Points

Possible S1.4 Joint Use of On-Site

Facilities

1-2

Providing the joint use of on-site facilities has definitely resulted in increased utility and custodial costs when the facilities are being used by organization for which the rental fees are waived.

S3.1 On-site Infiltration

1

additional mowing and weed eating

In an effort to increase on-site infiltration and improve the aesthetics of the site, planting beds and trees were incorporated in the school design. However, the addition of these areas has likely resulted in increased maintenance and water usage.

Water 1) Outdoor Systems W1.1 Irrigation Water

Reduction (50%)

1-2

System still okay. Bubblers are proving advantageous because they don't spray on building and sidewalks.

Appendix C-14

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Freeman High Anacortes

Mount Vernon Spokane Kennewick

School Name Freeman High

NCTA Anacortes

NCTA Mt Vernon Shadle Park High Southgate

Elementary Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Site Group Credit Name Points

Possible W1.2 Scheduling Controller

1

The water sensor controller is working fine now.

W2.1 Potable Water Use for Bldg Sewage Reduction (45%) 1

batteries/ controls have often replacements

W2.2 Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%)

1-2

batteries/ controls have often replacements

Some isolated problems with flushing, but most devices working okay. Battery changing occurring annually and batteries performing okay.

Water savings through the use of water efficient systems are unclear. Many of the fixtures will sometime have to be flushed twice. Also, it would seem that sinks with aerators are ran twice during hand washing due to the reduced pressure. Aerators have also presented problems in school kitchens; many of the kitchen staff find the resulting water pressure inadequate.

Energy E1.1 Superior Energy

Performance 4-12

Still some glycol leak problems due to failed joints. Still can't find the minor leak source.

Appendix C-15

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2006

School District Freeman High Anacortes

Mount Vernon Spokane Kennewick

School Name Freeman High

NCTA Anacortes

NCTA Mt Vernon Shadle Park High Southgate

Elementary Credit Category and Group Annual Report Period Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Year 5 Site Group Credit Name Points

Possible E2.2 Daylight-Responsive

Controls

1

Often lights come on when not supposed to be on. Controls are not reliable in about 10% of system.

IEQ1.1 2% Daylight Factor (75%, 100% critical visual spaces)

1-3 repairs needed at times No Comment No Comment

IEQ3.1 Low-Emitting Interior Finishes 1-4 paint not

durable Paint still performing well.

IEQ3.5 Particle Arrestance Filtration 1

some filters need more often replacement

Appendix C-16

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Sedro Woolley Evergreen Evergreen Spokane Olympia Evergreen

School Name

Cascade Middle

Clark County Skills

Crestline Elementary Ferris High

Garfield Elementary HELA

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1

Credit Name Points Possible

Site 1) Selection & Use

S1.0 Code Compliance R

No Comments

No Comments

No Comments

S3.1 On-site Infiltration and Flow Control

1

Swales performing satisfactorily. Sometimes a little swampy, but that dissipates.

S4.2 Reduce Heat Island - Roof Design

1

White roof is holding up well. No negative impact.

Roof performing satisfactorily.

Water 1) Outdoor Systems

W1.1 Irrigation Water Reduction (50%, 100%)

1-2

Drip irrigation and bubblers performing okay.

W1.2 Control Irrigation Water Use

1

Controller performing satisfactorily.

2) Indoor Systems W2.1

Potable Water Use Reduction for Sewage (25%, 45%)

1-2

The low flow water fixtures are found to be working well.

Appendix C-17

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Sedro Woolley Evergreen Evergreen Spokane Olympia Evergreen

School Name

Cascade Middle

Clark County Skills

Crestline Elementary Ferris High

Garfield Elementary HELA

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1

Credit Name Points Possible

W2.2

Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%, 40%)

1-3

Several leaks have been detected and repaired during this last year. Most water saving features are working as designed.

Materials 1) Waste Reduction & Efficient Material Use

M1.0 Storage and Collection of Recyclables

R

E1.1a Superior Energy Performance (2009 NREC)*

4-20 (’09)

HVAC systems working as designed.

2) Controls E2.1

HVAC Controls and Operable Windows

1

Training for HVAC controls are still pending

E2.2 Daylight-Responsive Controls

R (’09)

The black-out blinds used are very frail

E4.1 Enhanced Commissioning (1-3 possible)

Still operating per commissioning report. No changes.

Appendix C-18

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Sedro Woolley Evergreen Evergreen Spokane Olympia Evergreen

School Name

Cascade Middle

Clark County Skills

Crestline Elementary

Ferris High Garfield Elementary HELA

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1

Credit Name Points Possible

Indoor Environ-mental Quality 3) Indoor

Air Quality IEQ3.0

Minimum Requirements (Ventilation, Filtration, & Moisture Control

R

Operating at minimum ventilation requirements is found to be adequate & O&M staff appreciate the accessibility of the HVAC filters

IEQ3.0.1 Evaluate

Envelope 1

One roof leak was repaired under warranty.

IEQ3.1

Low-Emitting Interior Finishes

1-4

The interior finishes are working well

IEQ3.2 Low-Emitting Furniture

1

Staff find that the furniture is of good quality

IEQ3.7 Natural

Cooling 3

Building heats up more than normal, but still ok.

Warmer days can be a problem

IEQ4.1 Improved Acoustical Performance

1-4 Improvement is noticeable

5) Thermal Comfort

IEQ5.0 Thermal Code Compliance

R

Three recorded maintenance requests show thermal comfort issues during the first three months of operation. No reported thermal comfort issues since.

Appendix C-19

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Sedro Woolley Evergreen Evergreen Spokane Olympia Evergreen

School Name

Cascade Middle

Clark County Skills

Crestline Elementary Ferris High

Garfield Elementary HELA

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1

Credit Name Points Possible

6) User Controls IEQ6.1 User Control

- Windows 1

Window latches break easily.

IEQ6.2

User Control - Temperature & Lights

1

Six maintenance requests have been made related to user lighting controls. The chosen lighting controls are not very user friendly. The three thermal comfort issues reported on line 79 indicate some initial lack of user control regarding temperature controls.

Plan

ning

, Ed

ucat

ion,

and

O

pera

tion 1)

Planning PEO1.2

Durability, Efficiency & Maintainability of Features

1

Masonry wall finishes attracting graffiti. Difficult to remove.

2) Education PEO2.1

Green Building Learning Opportunities

1

Rain gardens provide learning lab.

Appendix C-20

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Walla Walla Warden Eastmont Sunnyside Meridian Kennewick

School Name

SEA Tech Skills

Warden VO Ag and Cafeteria

Sterling Intermediate

Yakima Valley Tech Skills Phase 3

Irene Reither Elementary

Lincoln Elementary

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2

Credit Name Points Possible

Site 1) Selection & Use R No

Comments No Comments

S2.2 Bicycle Lanes & Security 1

No one rides there bike to school

S3.1

On-site Infiltration and Flow Control

1

swales are hard to maintain sprinklers always kill grass due to to much water in them

Heavy weed growth in these areas continues

In an effort to increase on-site infiltration and improve the aesthetics of the site, planting beds and trees were incorporated in the school design. However, the addition of these areas has likely resulted in increased maintenance and water usage.

S4.2 Reduce Heat Island - Roof Design

1

Like the TPO roof they installed

Water 1) Outdoor Systems R

W1.1

Irrigation Water Reduction (50%, 100%)

1-2

system has had lots of breaks in the piping

Appendix C-21

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Walla Walla Warden Eastmont Sunnyside Meridian Kennewick

School Name

SEA Tech Skills

Warden VO Ag and Cafeteria

Sterling Intermediate

Yakima Valley Tech Skills Phase 3

Irene Reither Elementary Lincoln

Elementary

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2

Credit Name Points Possible

W1.2 Control Irrigation Water Use

1

Minimal water usage for irrigation, controlled by programmable system to maximize water usage.

W2.2

Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%, 40%)

1-3

Water savings through the use of water efficient systems are unclear. Many of the fixtures will sometimes have to be flushed twice. Also, it would seem that sinks with aerators are ran twice during hand washing due to the reduced pressure. Aerators have also presented problems in school kitchens; many of the kitchen staff find the resulting water pressure inadequate.

Energy 2) Controls E2.1

HVAC Controls and Operable Windows

1

7 Work Orders-Controls-Minor Adjustments

HVAC controls work great no issues with them

Appendix C-22

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Walla Walla Warden Eastmont Sunnyside Meridian Kennewick

School Name

SEA Tech Skills

Warden VO Ag and Cafeteria

Sterling Intermediate

Yakima Valley Tech Skills Phase 3

Irene Reither Elementary

Lincoln Elementary

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2

Credit Name Points Possible

Indo

or E

nviro

n-m

enta

l Q

ualit

y

1) Daylighting IEQ1.1

Daylighting (25%, 50%,75%, 100% critical visual spaces)

1-4

2) Electric Lighting Quality IEQ2.1

Electric Lighting Quality

1

20 minor Lighting Work Orders (Ballast Change-outs)

Lighting system work well no maintenance issues

IEQ6.2

User Control - Temperature & Lights

1

contols are easy to operate

Appendix C-23

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Wellpinit Blaine Kennewick Eastmont Yakima

School Name Wellpinit Elementary

Blaine High Cascade Elementary Grant Elementary

Stanton Academy

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3

Credit Name Points Possible

Site 1) Selection & Use

No Comments

No Comments

No Comments

S1.4 Joint Use of On-Site Facilities

1-2

Providing the joint use of on-site facilities has definitely resulted in increased utility and custodial costs when the facilities are being used by organization for which the rental fees are waived.

S3.1

On-site Infiltration and Flow Control

1

In an effort to increase on-site infiltration and improve the aesthetics of the site, planting beds and trees were incorporated in the school design. However, the addition of these areas has likely resulted in increased maintenance and water usage.

Water 1) Outdoor Systems

W2.2

Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%, 40%)

1-3

Water savings through the use of water efficient systems are unclear. Many of the fixtures will sometime have to be flushed twice. Also, it would seem that sinks with aerators are ran twice during hand washing due to the reduced pressure. Aerators have also presented problems in school kitchens; many of the kitchen staff find the resulting water pressure inadequate.

Appendix C-24

Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) 2010

School District Wellpinit Blaine Kennewick Eastmont Yakima

School Name Wellpinit Elementary Blaine High

Cascade Elementary

Grant Elementary

Stanton Academy

Credit Category and Group

Annual Report Period year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3

Credit Name Points Possible

Indoor Environ-mental Quality

2) Electric Lighting Quality

IEQ2.1 Electric Lighting Quality

1

3 Minor Lighting Work Orders-Ballast Change Out

IEQ3.7 Natural

Cooling 3 1 Work Order-HVAC Noise

IEQ6.2 User Control - Temperature & Lights

1

1 Work Order-Light Switch/ Occupancy Sensor Replacement

Planning, Education, and Operation

PEO1.2

Durability, Efficiency & Maintainability of Features

1

1 Minor Roof Leak

Appendix C-25

Westview Elementary - Submitted for LEED certification

Site 1. Drainage swales were previously reported to not be draining properly, however this has been resolved and has not been an issue over the past year. 2. Coverage of the irrigation system continues to be an issue and creates dry areas during certain times of the year. 3. Once initial adjustment of auto sensing plumbing fixtures was made, the fixtures appear to be performing well.

Materials 4. Linoleum flooring seams have required several warranty visits from contractor and still appear to be separating in certain areas. 5. Linoleum flooring has cracked in some places.

Energy 6. After initial adjustment and balancing, the HVAC system appears to be performing well. 7. The HVAC system appears to be slow to respond when changing from the various heating/cooling seasons.

Indoor Environmental Quality 8. Interior light shelves require more time to dust 9. Exterior sun shading makes window cleaning more difficult 10. Once adjusted, lighting occupancy sensors appear to be functioning properly

Extra Credits 11. No related observations

Appendix D: Garfield Elementary, Olympia School District

Appendix D-1

PROJECT SPECIFICS Originally built in 1929 and replaced in 1988, Garfield Elementary is one of the oldest school sites in the Olympia School District. This ambitious modernization project celebrates that history, while strengthening its connections to the neighborhood, integrating diverse learning resources, and enhancing the school’s connections to the natural ecology of the site. A Title 1 school, Garfield is regularly ranked among the highest in percentage of students qualifying for the free and reduced meal program within the Olympia School District. While maintaining high scholastic testing results, the physical facility scored near poorest in the District in multiple building assessments—including survey results from staff, students, families, and reports from District maintenance facility staff. After a facilities strategic planning effort led by McGranahan Architects, Garfield was identified as one of three major construction projects to be included in the $87.6M bond measure approved by voters in 2012. To ensure success, the District leveraged the collaborative GC/CM delivery method to select a contractor and cement an integrated project partnership prior to the start of schematic design. The resulting team planned strategic demolition and complex construction in seven phases and two priority summer construction windows. Construction trailers, crew parking areas, staging and laydown spaces were relocated with the major phases—allowing for safe access to all learning spaces, the Gymnasium, playgrounds, and the community-used playfields and track throughout construction. Modernization of the occupied school included replacement of the gym, multi-purpose room and cafeteria; and construction of an addition to support programs formerly housed in portable structures. Three learning pods were completely modernized, and the entire building’s plumbing, fire protection, heating & ventilation, lighting, power, data, and security controls systems infrastructure was replaced.

Gross Square Footage:

Construction Cost:

Project Occupied:

Student Capacity:

Potable Water Use:

Construction Waste:

Recycled Materials:

56,000

$14,510,802

Fall 2014

469

35% reduction rate

96% diversion rate

Reuse of 50% of structure

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION TEAM

Project Manager:

Owner’s Representative:

Architect:

Structural Engineer:

Civil Engineer:

Mechanical Engineer:

Electrical Engineer:

Landscape Architect:

GC/CM:

Paul Clark, Olympia SD

Randy Barber, OAC Services

McGranahan Architects

PCS Structural Solutions

SCJ Alliance

BCE Engineers

BCE Engineers

Jeffrey B Glander & Assoc.

FORMA Construction

GARFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Appendix D-2

SITE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY USE • A new rain garden “waterfalls” down through rock rivers and pools aside native and aquatic plantings.

• Raised vegetable garden beds support curriculum regarding healthy food choices and natural sciences, and produce crops that are harvested for students, neighbors and the Thurston County Food Bank.

• Rainwater cisterns with large hand pumps supply water for the gardens in an interactive and fun way.

• Historic entry archway and salvaged artifacts from the 1929 building were incorporated into the new school & site.

• Parent drop-off, bus loop, staff & parent parking were rebuilt as separate areas with perimeter sidewalks providing greater safety and consistent loading and unloading procedures for staff.

MATERIALS

• Reuse of 50% of the existing structure.

• Replaced & resized windows with low E double pane fiberglass units.

• Existing glulams were salvaged for reuse in a separate OSD school campus.

• Salvaged beams were repurposed into hall benches and a conference table.

• Classroom NanaWalls enable the flexibility to join class workspaces with the common pod area for larger group activities.

• Garfield’s library has a small breakout space with full classroom technology, an outdoor area with fixed benches for reading and outdoor presentations, surrounded by windows and relites for an open, transparent environment. The original school’s chandelier lights up the main library space.

• Tackable wall surface is incorporated into over 50% of the classrooms and hallways.

• Fixed solid roof canopies were replaced with translucent panels to allow diffused natural light into the building and exterior corridors. The overhangs also collect & direct rainwater to garden cisterns.

• The music room, gymnasium, and multi- purpose/cafeteria area were realigned, and with the addition of acoustic partitions now form a stage and seating area for school & community performances.

• Dropped ceilings in the pods were removed and clerestory glazing was added to improve access to natural light and make the common spaces much more comfortable.

• Adherence to District construction & facilities standards will allow for repeatable successes and lower maintenance costs.

• The updated Gym includes an isolated entry point for non-school events and community basketball league play to encourage community and after hour uses.

• The new Library has an exterior door located near the public parking area to encourage small community group meetings in that space.

• Classroom pods and administration areas can be secured to allow for neighborhood festivals and movie nights in the grand hallway, gym and multi- purpose rooms.

• The detached covered play area has separation lighting controls and sensors to allow for basketball on a lighted court until 8:00 PM to encourage neighborhood use after hours.

ENERGY / WATER / UTILITIES • Low efficiency gas furnaces were replaced with the highest efficiency system available.

• Improved air handling capacities, along with a new heat recovery system improves air quality, and adds to the building’s overall efficiency.

• Operable windows added to classrooms and staff rooms improve the environment for occupants.

• The first OSD project to have all LED lighting.

• Combined lighting and building controls allow for greater flexibility and control from District office.

Appendix E: Southeast Area Technical Skills Center, Cooperative of College Place, Prescott, Waitsburg, Dayton, Touchet, Walla Walla School Districts

Appendix E-1

Southeast Area Technical Skills Center

Cooperative School Districts: College Place School District Dayton School District Prescott School District Touchet School District Waitsburg School District Walla Walla School District

Design Team: Architect Architects West, Inc. Landscape Architect Architects West, Inc. Civil Engineer Anderson Perry Structural Engineer LSB Consulting Engineers Mechanical Engineer Northwest Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineer Conley Engineering Fire Protection Engineer FP Engineers

Contractor: Leone & Keeble, Inc.

Data: 29,858 sf New Construction 160 Student Capacity 186 sf per student

A/E Estimate: $7,538,000 Base Bid Amount: 7,459,000 Contract Amount: $7,609,000 Total Construction Cost: $7,942,554 Cost per Square Foot: $266.01 Year Completed: 2014 % A/E Change Orders: 0.8%

Appendix E-2

About SEA Tech The Southeast Area Washington Technical Skills Center (SEA Tech) opened in the fall of 2014 as a cooperative of six school districts in the Walla Walla, Washington area. As part of a collaboration with higher education, the skills center is located on the Walla Walla Community College Campus. The 29,858 sf facility includes instructional program areas for a variety of educational programs including welding/ manufacturing, electrical systems technology, digital media technology, and health science careers. Instructional support areas include administration offices, computer lab, and multi-purpose/classroom flex space. In addition to a building and systems configuration that accommodates future program expansion, the design allows for re-programming within the existing shell so that educational programs can more easily respond to changing workforce needs. Lab spaces are generous in size and designed with open floor space and perimeter casework to allow adaptation through changes in furnishings. The facility represents a great addition to a community with a proud tradition of quality education and is prime to serve the educational needs of the workforce for years to come.

Sustainability Features The design met the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol and exceeded the Washington Non-Residential Energy Code by more than twenty five percent. A 20 kilowatt rooftop photovoltaic (PV) array was installed in collaboration with Community Solar. The building integrated PV panels were manufactured in Washington and were also used as shading devices over south facing windows. The landscaping was designed using xeriscape guidelines to minimize water consumption for irrigation.

Appendix F: Case Study Cascade Middle School, Sedro Woolley School District

Appendix F-1

Cascade Middle School WSSP Designed

Sedro-Woolley School District For their successful bond election in 2011, the Sedro-Woolley School District’s Board of Directors Capital Program recognized the community’s desire to modernize and add on to the District’s Middle School structure. This approach was also the case in the District’s successful 1995 bond election, which provided for measured improvements at all of the District’s schools, including modernization and expansion of their 1929 historic “Union” high school. In both cases, the community supported revitalizing their existing schools over replacing them with completely new sites and facilities. The school board was responsive to their local stakeholders. During the Bond Issue Planning, the District and Bond Issue planners developed with the parents, students and interested public members, a list of planning and design goals: - Provide an enclosed, secure and safe campus

plan with “activity” and “learning” courtyards within the campus grounds.

- Relocate the primary entrance away from the busy state highway to an adjacent residential street.

- Provide separate bus loading/unloading area away from public parking/student pickup and drop-off area.

- Create a new public face for the school that identifies the entrance and identifies the District’s commitment to create a new and dynamic educational program.

Project Specifics Gross square footage: 99,196 GSF 73,875 SF New, 25,321 SF Modernization Construction cost: $19,774,921 Project occupied: May 2014 Student Capacity: 730 Students Designed Site EUI: 52.17 kbtu/sp/yr Innovation: Potable water use reduction rate: 37%; Super insulated structure; Provision for 400 kw photo-voltaic array; Construction waste diversion rate: 77%; Recycled materials: 19%

Design and Construction Team Owners Representative: Brett Greenwood, Sedro-Woolley School District Architect: Harthorne Hagen Architects Project Manager: Bob Harthorne Structural Engineer: PCS Structural Solutions Civil Engineer: 2020 Engineering Mechanical Engineer: Hargis Engineers, Inc. Electrical Engineer: Travis Fitzmaurice & Assoc. Landscape Architect: Berger Partnership Food Service: JLR Design Group Acoustical: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. General Contractor: Colacurcio Brother Const.

Awards 2014 Washington Aggregates & Concrete Association Excellence in Concrete Design 2014 Outstanding Design, American School & University 2015 Washington Aggregates & Concrete Association Excellence in Concrete Design

Appendix F-2

- Provide new support facilities that will support the future technology based educational program and school activities programs:

• Science/computer classrooms and laboratories.

• Gymnasium and locker facilities. • Cafetorium (auditorium/cafeteria) with

pull-out seating, stage, performance lighting and sound system.

• District-wide kitchen facilities with dedicated covered loading/unloading area.

• Utilities and storm water management system throughout the campus.

• Provision for sustainable design features now and into the future.

• Creation of a new face for the District’s only middle school that represents the Sedro-Woolley communities’ commitment to its children while maintaining the communities’ connection to its historic and honorable past.

Quality Learning Environment: HVAC, air quality, lighting, ceilings, flooring, remodeled to current environmental standards.

The Cascade design responds to this bond goal by applying the guidelines of the Washington State Sustainable Schools Protocol. Site design includes 120,000 square feet of pervious concrete paving that eliminates the need of a constructed storm water collection system. Site lighting with LED fixtures improves energy efficiency while improving light quality and control. Classrooms utilize a high volume natural light and ventilation system, without air conditioning.

Site 120,000 square feet of pervious concrete paving allows rainwater to pass through paved surfaces, eliminating runoff from parking and driveway areas. While providing an opportunity to recharge the aquifer, this design combined with rock gardens and absorption beds has completely eliminated any new on-site storm water system, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction costs and future annual utility costs.

Ten Rain Gardens and two future cisterns are located throughout the parking areas and outdoor spaces to reduce storm detention.

Daylighting, Ventilation, Air Quality Clerestories, skylights, high windows and protected courtyards allow outdoor gathering spaces for students and improve the reach of natural lighting into the schools interior spaces, reducing dependency on artificial light. Natural ventilation is facilitated with operable windows and high ceilings, reducing demand on utilities to heat and cool spaces. Air quality is enhanced through careful selection of construction materials and computerized heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment controls.

Appendix F-3

Daylighting strategies include windows and clerestories to bring light in further into classrooms. Sensors measure the amount of natural light in each room, automatically dimming light fixtures and saving energy.

Air quality is enhanced through careful selection of construction materials and computerized heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment controls. Indoor air quality is greatly improved throughout the existing school buildings with a new DDC controlled heating and ventilation system. The new Library and Administration areas received a Variable Refrigerant Flow air conditioning

system with outdoor and indoor units allow individual room control for maximum comfort and reduced operating costs. Heat recovery units throughout provide maximum cost savings with the best air quality. Proper siting of new construction away from perimeter site traffic pollutants has resulted in optimum air quality within the school.

Natural ventilation is facilitated with operable windows and high ceilings, reducing demand on utilities to heat and cool spaces. When desired, classroom supply air can be reduced and windows opened to allow rooms to be naturally ventilated. Ventilation systems continue to pull air out of spaces to ensure fresh air supplied through the open window.

Energy Upgrades to all mechanical and electrical systems including photo voltaic roof panels, LED fixtures indoors and out, for better light quality and energy efficiency, combined with the use of high volume natural light and ventilation systems.

Appendix F-4

Phased Construction and Planning for the Future The project construction of 73,875 SF of new single and multi-story facilities and the renovation of 25,321 SF of existing building area was accomplished in a detailed and orchestrated series of six major phases of construction while the middle school was

occupied by its students and staff over a two-year period. The process involved two summer break periods of construction that minimized disruption to the school community. The overall result of the project is a facility that meets the current needs of the Sedro-Wooley School District while providing for the next 50 years with planned upgrades and expansion of the Cascade Middle School Campus.

Appendix G: Case Study Wapato High School, Wapato School District

Appendix G-1

Wapato High School

School District: Wapato School District

Design Team: Architect Architects West, Inc. Landscape Architect Architects West, Inc. Civil Engineer J-U-B Engineers Structural Engineer LSB Consulting Engineers Mechanical Engineer MSI Engineers Electrical Engineer DEI Electrical Consultants Fire Protection Engineer FP Engineers

Contractor: Lydig, Inc.

Data: 118,626 sf New Construction 43,575 sf Modernizations 830 Student Capacity 195 sf per student Estimate: $33,400,000 Bid Amount: $32,507,000 Contract Amount: $32,580,300 Total Construction Cost: $32,016,174 Cost per Square Foot: $191.22 Year Completed: 2014 % A/E Change Orders: 0.5 %

Appendix G-2

About Wapato High School

In February 2011 voters proved their support of schools by approving a $20-million dollar school construction bond. The measure passed with a 67% yes vote. These local funds, combined with OSPI SCAP funding was used to renovate, rebuild, and equip a new Wapato High School. Architects West provided planning and design services to Wapato School District for the Wapato High School Additions & Modernizations project. Wapato, a rural agricultural community, is located 12 miles south of Yakima, Washington, with a student population of 3,373. The work was sequenced in multiple phases with the release of multiple bid packages. Phase 1 was the major demolition work of buildings and tunnels and was released as Bid Package 1. Bid Package 2 was the construction of additions and modernization work and consisted of four phases. Phase 2 was modernization of the existing gymnasium and some site work; Phase 3 was new construction and site work; Phase 4 included additional building demolition and a rebuild of the shops and some site work; Phase 5 was demolition of an existing building and the balance of the site work. The initial bid package was for hazardous building material abatement and demolition of buildings. The second bid package was for the additions and modernizations work.

Sustainability Features This project was designed to exceed the 2010 WSSP standards. The key to successful implementation was identifying WSSP goals early in the design process through a collaborative workshop facilitated during the schematic design phase, setting a high goal, assigning responsible parties to each point, and continued evaluation of the project against set goals. In the case of Wapato High School over 20% of the WSSP goals were achieved through energy efficiency measures. One key feature was a ground coupled water source heat pump system.

The Courtyard space serves several purposes, such as a green space for the classrooms and media center to look out upon, a place for students to read, an outdoor classroom, and a protected quiet space for students to gather between classes. Maintenance personnel will be able to access the courtyard through two sets of doors that cross the hallway to the outdoors.

OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions and complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at 360-725-6162 or P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200.

Download this material in PDF at http://k12.wa.us/LegisGov/Reports.aspx. This material is available in alternative format upon request. Contact the Resource Center at 888-595-3276, TTY 360-664-3631. Please refer to this document number for quicker service: 16-0030.

Randy I. Dorn • State Superintendent Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building • P.O. Box 47200 Olympia WA 98504-7200