Loading...
1992-08757-Ordinance No. 92-011 Recorded 3/24/1992BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF An Ordinance Amending Ordinance * No. 80-216, the Bend Area General* Plan, As Amended, to Amend the Public Facilities Element to Establish a New Sewer Policy for a Public School Located Outside of the Inner Urban Growth Boundary (IUGR) of Bend, and Declaring an Emergency. 92-08'757 ORDINANCE NO. 92-011 REVIEWED DESCHUTES, C UNT_f,,ORCOUNSEL WHEREAS, the Bend-LaPine School District No. 1 proposed a new Sewer Policy for the Bend Area General Plan to allow the extension of Bend City Sewer System for a single -service sewer line to two new school sites outside of the Inner Urban Growth Boundary for Bend. WHEREAS, the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission, after notice given and hearing conducted in accordance with applicable law, has recommended approval of the proposed Text Amendment to the Bend Area General Plan; now, therefore, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment and modified it to reflect public testimony offered by the Department of Land Conservation and Development; THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. That the Bend Area General Plan is amended to add the following policy to the "Sewer Facilities" subsection of the Public Facilities Element of the Plan as Policy #7: 7. The City shall allow a single -service sewer connection to the School District's 27th Street Middle School site which is located outside, but adjacent to the Inner Urban Growth Boundary. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and conclusions in support of the Plan Amendment, the applicant's Burden of Proof Statement and Addendum to Burden of Proof, marked Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-011 3� 0109 0775 WHEREAS, the Bend-LaPine School District No. 1 proposed a new Sewer Policy for the Bend Area General Plan to allow the extension of Bend City Sewer System for a single -service sewer line to two new school sites outside of the Inner Urban Growth Boundary for Bend. WHEREAS, the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission, after notice given and hearing conducted in accordance with applicable law, has recommended approval of the proposed Text Amendment to the Bend Area General Plan; now, therefore, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment and modified it to reflect public testimony offered by the Department of Land Conservation and Development; THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. That the Bend Area General Plan is amended to add the following policy to the "Sewer Facilities" subsection of the Public Facilities Element of the Plan as Policy #7: 7. The City shall allow a single -service sewer connection to the School District's 27th Street Middle School site which is located outside, but adjacent to the Inner Urban Growth Boundary. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and conclusions in support of the Plan Amendment, the applicant's Burden of Proof Statement and Addendum to Burden of Proof, marked Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-011 0109 0776 DATED this day of A4,m , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHOTES COUNTY, OREGON TO THROOP/,\kommiisioner ••� �^i i 9Co . -Recording Secretary 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-011 0109 0777 BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER APPLICANT: BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT BEND LaPINE ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON APPLICANT: Bend LaPine Administrative School District No. 1, Deschutes County, Oregon, 520 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97701. PROPERTY OWNER: Bend LaPine Administrative School District No. 1, Deschutes County, Oregon, 520 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97701. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The School District has identified two potential sites for location of schools. NATURE OF REQUEST: Applicant requests a policy amendment to the Bend Area General Plan to allow extension of a single -service sewer line outside the Inner Urban Growth Boundary (IUGB) to the proposed school sites. Applicant requests the following policy be added to the Bend Area General Plan as item 115 on Page 53: "15. Allow single sewer service sewer connections to proposed school sites within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary, but outside the IUGB identified by the School District as necessary to meet the needs of the School District." STANDARD AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The following criteria may apply: 1. The Bend Area General Plan which establishes goals and policies for land development in the Bend Urban Area. 2. Statewide planning goals which establish general 24 25 goals for land use planning and development. 3. Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 4, Chapter 26 Page -1- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0778 660-04-020(2), which establishes criteria for taking exceptions 1 to state Goals. 2 4. The Deschutes County Uniform Development Procedures 3 Ordinance which establishes criteria for the land use 4. applications in the county. W I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: To amend the Bend Area General Plan, Applicant must meet the following criteria set forth at page 70 of the Bend Area General Plan: "Plan changes shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and statements of intent, or these guidelines shall be first changed or amended to reflect new policy. An individual requesting a change shall demonstrate that the change is warranted due to changed circumstances, a mistake, or other specific facts that demonstrate a public need and benefit for the change." A. The proposed plan changes will be consistent with goals, objectives, policies and statements of intent of the plan. 1. Applicable Plan Goals and Objectives: (Bend Area General Plan, Page 3). Of the several goals and objectives that served as a framework in the preparation of the Bend Area General Plan, Applicant believes the following goals and objectives are applicable to its request: 113. To encourage city and county cooperation in the provision of urban services in order to bring about a more orderly development pattern and thereby avoid the unnecessary tax burdens and excessive utility costs usually associated with scattered, unrelated development." 116. To provide a safe and coordinated transportation and circulation system to bring about the best relationships between places where people live, work, shop, and play." Page -2- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 1 K 0109 0779 119. To continually strive for excellence in all private developments and public services within the constraints of economic reality. Economic reality should not be interpreted as a maximum profit for a minimum investment or as maximum local budgets for maximum services." 3 2. Applicable General Policies: (Bend Area General 4 Plan, Page 4). Applicant believes the following major policies 5 and recommendations are applicable to its request: 1#1. Urban development shall be encouraged in areas where urban services can be provided and in a manner which will minimize tax costs related to necessary urban services, such as schools, parks, highways, police, garbage disposal, fire protection, libraries, and other facilities and services." 119. Schools and parks shall be located to best serve the anticipated population and provide maximum service for the greatest economy in terms of expenditure of tax dollars for both present and future residents. Sites should be acquired in advance of need so that the best are available for these vital public facilities." 3. Additional Policies in the Bend Area General Plan. a. Schools. (Bend Area General Plan, Page 44). 111. Schools in the planning area should be developed according to the policies of Bend School District 11, and the Oregon State standards, which are: ENROLLMENT SITE SIZE Elementary School 400 15 Intermediate 750 25 Senior High School 1200 40 112. The school district shall participate in providing necessary street, pedestrian and bike facilities adjacent to the school sites as new schools are erected." 113. When a majority of the schools expected attendance will reside within the IUGB, the school district shall make every effort to construct such school(s) within the IUGB where students can walk to the school." b. Sewer Services: The Bend Area Plan recognizes Page -3- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0780 26 Page -4- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) that one of the most important problems that will be faced by the 1 community in the future is the provision of water and sewer 2 services. The State Department of Environmental Quality has 3 ordered the city to provide a sewer system, which it has 4. completed within the incorporated area of Bend. The cost of 5 providing sewers is exceptionally high in the Bend area because 6 of the underlying rock. to 7 DISCUSSION 2 8 The School District has identified two school sites. The L 0 9 first site, for a middle school, will be located in the southeast U U 10 quadrant of the Bend Urban Area, immediately adjacent to, but 11 outside of the IUGB. The second site, for an elementary school, g Cq � 12 is located in the northeast quadrant of the Bend Urban Area, t,ItQ 13 immediately adjacent to, but outside of the IUGB. r.<S 14 The School District has identified these two sites as part of o K 15 a long-term planning process, taking into account the growth 16 patterns of the Bend area, as well as the configuration of the U 17 School District and the needs of its residents. There is an X 0 18 urgent need for a middle school in the southeast area. The two g 19 existing middle schools are located in the west and in the east. 20 Currently, middle high students from the south are bussed through 21 town to the existing schools. The School District anticipates 22 that the enrollment boundary for the new middle school will 23 encompass the southern and southeastern portions of the Bend 24 area, as well as the Sunriver, Fall River and Spring River areas 25 of Deschutes County. The School District has identified 803 26 Page -4- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) r 0109 0781 middle school aged students currently residing within this area. 26 Page -5- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 1 It is likely the District Enrollment Boundary Committee will 2 modify the area slightly y_ 3 s 4 % __. 5 There is also an immediate need for an elementary school in 6 the northeast area of town. The current elementary schools are 7 located primarily in the western, central and eastern parts of co 8 town. Currently, the students in the north part of town are 9.9 U bussed to the Juniper School site near Pilot Butte. d 10 The School District has attempted to acquire potential sites 11 early in the planning process in anticipation of needs and to g � 12 avoid the burden of escalating land prices and minimize the tax 13 costs. The District acquired the proposed middle school site 14 from the County in 1982. The proposed elementary school site was o� 15 recently acquired from the County in a land trade. The School 16 District traded property it had acquired in the early 19801's to 17 the South of the proposed site, because it was unsuitable for 7 a 0 18 construction of a school due to the underlying rock. Utilization 19 of these sites will provide maximum service for the greatest 20 economy in terms of tax expenditures. The cost of purchasing z 21 land not currently owned by the School District at today's prices 22 would be prohibitive. 23 The School District analyzed several alternative locations to 24 the proposed middle school site. These sites were primarily 25 located adjacent to, or near, the current Jewell Elementary 26 Page -5- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 26 Page -6- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0'782 School. Analysis indicated that access to the eastern portions 1 of the projected attendance area, particularly in the short term, 2 was significantly less desirable with the alternative sites than 3 with the proposed site. Furthermore, there was no significant 4 difference between the number of students who would walk to 5 school as between the selected site and the alternative site. 6 Although the School District, working in cooperation with the 7 County and City, has attempted to plan for the anticipated needs 8 of the community, the current elementary and middle schools are 9 very overcrowded. The Bend Area schools have among the highest 10 student enrollment in the State for middle and elementary schools a 11 and there is a great need for new facilities to provide an g 12 adequate education for Bend area children. Attached as Exhibit 13 "A" is a facilities report for all Bend La Pine School District tr,g 14 schools illustrating the substantial overenrollment of the o� 15 existing schools. g 16 Currently, the average enrollment for Bend elementary schools U X417 is approximately 583 and for Bend middle schools is approximately � o 0 18 1046. Both exceed the standards set for enrollment in the 19 Comprehension Plan. Immediately upon opening, the anticipated 20 enrollment for the proposed elementary school is 503 and the 3 21 anticipated enrollment for the proposed middle school is 22 approximately 700 to 750. 23 The identified sites are adjacent to, but just outside, the 24 IUGB. However, they are located on lands which are inside the 25 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and are on lands designated as 26 Page -6- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0783 N 11 Appry urbanizable. Both sites meet the criteria for the location of t,g'4 1 schools identified by the School District. 2 Due to the location of the proposed middle school and the 3 fact that many of the anticipated students resident outside the E C E _2 6 < 4 IUGB, the School is appropriately characterized as a "Urban 5 School". Nevertheless, .to' -walk, cu A Z C 6 tothe middle school : because its .-�'proximity:.. :.to. existing L) C - .24ER 17 The areas are currently served by police, garbage and fire 7 residential neighborhoods. C� 2 18 protection services. 8 The School District is strongly committed to the concept of 9 neighborhood schools. The elementary school site is located so 10 as to allow a substantial number of students to walk to school. N 11 Appry ru t,g'4 12 llt.6hoo xany, of. these 25 26 Page - 7 - BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) ru t,g'4 13 students will be able to walk to the school. 14 Because these sites are located in areas with substantial E C E _2 6 < 15 residential development, constructing schools will be consistent cu A Z C 16 with the development pattern for provision of urban services. L) C - .24ER 17 The areas are currently served by police, garbage and fire 0 W 18 protection services. 19 When the School District initially began the planning 20 process for acquiring the properties, it was anticipated that the 21 schools would not be connected to sewer, but would be served by 22 on-site -septic systems. That assumption has changed as is 23 discussed below. 24 B. Change is warranted due to changed circumstances, and 25 26 Page - 7 - BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0'784 26 Page -8- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) other specific facts that demonstrate a public need and benefit 1 for the change. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The change in the Bend Area General Plan is warranted due to 4 the changed circumstances relating to the provision of sewer 5 services in the Bend Area. During the time period when the 6 School District was developing its plans for future school 7 locations, the City of Bend and Deschutes County entered into an 8 Urban Growth Management Agreement to establish the framework V g 9 within which the City would provide sewer services. That V d 10 agreement established a Phase II Sewer Boundary within the UGB. a N 11 Both of the proposed sites are outside of the Phase II Sewer N 2 12 Boundary. In fact, the attendance areas of the proposed schools, 13 that is the northeast area for the elementary school and the :ZE,- 14 southeast area for the middle school, are beyond the Phase II WE E< 15 Sewer Boundary. Therefore, any potential school site in these g 16 areas would be beyond the Phase II Sewer Boundary. U 17 The City is now developing a new Public Facilities Master C� 18 Plan which provides for extension of sewers outside the Phase II moo, g 19 Sewer Boundary. Although the School District anticipated on-site 20 septic service, as a result of that recent planning, it is 21 perceived to be in the public interest to have the areas serviced 22 by sewer. Applicant proposes to extend the sewer line to the 23 border of the IUGB and then provide for a single -service sewer 24 line to each site located immediately outside the IUGB. All line 25 extensions are within the IUGB. The extension of sewer to the 26 Page -8- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0'785 border of the IUGB will benefit those area residents within the 1 IUGB who may ultimately hook up to the system. However, because 2 Applicant is requesting only a single -service sewer line to each 3 site, there will be no extension beyond the IUGB to other users. 4 Accordingly, based upon the changed circumstances, the 5 proposed extension of a single -service sewer line to each site is 6 needed and will be of benefit to the public. 26 Page -9- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) M 7 01 g 8 II. GOAL 2 EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR GOAL 14 AND GOAL 11. L 9 Applicant's proposed policy amendment to allow extension of H 10 the single -service sewer line beyond the IUGB requires an a N 11 exception to Goals 14 and 11. Applicant believes the following 12 provisions of Goal 14 are applicable: 13 "Goal 14: To provide for an orderly and efficient Q g transition from rural to urban use." 14 tee= "B.1 The type, location and phasing of public facilities o< 15 and services are factors which should be utilized to x direct urban expansion." 16 Applicant believes the following provisions of Goal 11 are 17 �$ applicable: 0 18 a "Goal 11: "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and 8 19 efficient arrangement of public facilities and services v to serve as a framework for urban and rural 20 development . " 21 "A 1. Plans providing for public facilities and services should be coordinated with plans for 22 designation of urban boundaries, urbanizable land, rural uses and for the transition of rural land to urban 23 uses." 24 "A 2. Public facilities and services for rural areas should be provided at levels appropriate for rural use 25 only and should not support urban uses." 26 Page -9- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0786 "A 5. A public facility or a service should not be provided in an urbanizable area unless there , is 1 provision for the coordinated development of all other urban facilities and services appropriate to that area." 2 OAR 660-04-020(2) provides the following four factors in Goal 3 2, II(c) are required to be addressed when taking an exception to 4 a Goal. 5 A. "Reasons 6 in the applicable 7 DISCUSSION the state policy embodied not aDDlv." 2 8 Goal 14 required local jurisdictions to establish a Urban L 40 9 Growth Boundary which, in the Bend area, is identified as the 10 IUGB. In our community, we have also established a UGB to atn N 11 identify urbanizable lands for future development. Goal 14 may 12 not permit extension of public facilities beyond the IUGB. Goal tJ14 13 11 may restrict extension of urban services, such as sewers, $ ME, 14 outside the IUGB. tee= o< 15 In many respects, the proposed extension of sewer lines is x ° 16 consistent with the policies embodied in Goals 11 and 14. The V w 17 extension of the sewer to the IUGB perimeter will provide for an � x c7 0 18 orderly and efficient arrangement of public services. It will g 19 allow only residents and other users within the IUGB to hook up G 20 to the sewer. These areas have been identified as needing sewer 3 z 21 service. Making that service available will promote and direct 22 urban expansion within the established boundaries of the IUGB. 23 Other public services are available in the proposed areas and 24 adding sewer will be appropriate for the existing urban uses. 25 Only the extension of the sewer line to the proposed school 26 Page -10- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 26 Page -11- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0787 sites would be inconsistent with state goals. In this situation, 1 it is in the public interest to allow the extension of sewer 2 lines to the perimeter of the IUGB and allow a single -service 3 sewer line to hook up to the proposed sites outside the IUGB. 4 The extension will be single service to the school sites only. 5 There will be no additional users located outside the IUGB until 6 such time as the boundaries require change. As is described 7 above, there has been a change in public policy regarding sewer 8 service in the Bend Area, which will allow sewers extending L 9 beyond the Phase II sewer boundary. Accordingly, it would be in H 10 the public interest to allow extension of sewers to these school N 11 sites. Therefore, the state policies in Goal 14 and Goal 11 12 should not apply to a single service sewer extension. t,114 13 The proposed sites are not resource land, they have been xg14 identified as Urban Reserve and characterized as urbanizable y c C 0 15 land. 16 B. "Areas which do not require a new exception " cannot reasonably accommodate the use." r 17 DISCUSSION c7 0 18 1. Location of possible alternative areas. g 19 The School District has been actively involved in identifying 20 3 and evaluating alternative school sites throughout the last z 21 decade. The School District does not currently own any potential 22 sites within the IUGB in the areas identified as needing schools. 23 2. "(W]hy other areas which do not require a new 24 exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be considered along with 25 other relevant factors in determining that the use 26 Page -11- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0'788 26 Page —12 — BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. (Questions to be addressed:]" 1 (a) "Can the proposed use be reasonably 2 accommodated on nonresource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses 3 on nonresource land? If not, why not?" 4 (b) "Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already 5 irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in 6 existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of 2 uses on committed lands? If not, why not?" M 7 (c) Can the proposed use be reasonably 8 accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not?" 0 0 9 The proposed sites were acquired as a result of long-term Z 10 planning by the School District. For this reason, locating the g proposed schools on these sites will serve to reduce the overall 12 cost to the public. If the School District were required to 13 purchase different sites, given the current land values, the Z<s E, 14 h �o rexpense of constructing the schools would be greatly increased. o< 2 15 x b As is discussed above, the sites are not on lands designated as g 16 Resource Lands, rather they are located on lands identified as �, .. 17 urbanizable. The proposed use, an extension of the sewer line to :7 0 18 the border of the IUGB, is entirely within the IUGB, with the 0 19 exception of allowing a single -service hook-up to the proposed 20 schools, which are located outside the IUGB. There are no z 21 feasible alternative sites within the IUGB or beyond the IUGB 22 which would better serve the public need for schools in the 23 proposed areas. 24 C. "The long-term environmental, economic, social 25 and energy consequences resulting from the use at the nronosed site with measures designed to reduce adverse 26 Page —12 — BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 1 otner areas 2 DISCUSSION r 0109 0'789 not significantly more adverse than would sult from the same proposal being located in reau rina a Goal exception." 25 26 Page —13— BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 3 The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy 4 consequences resulting from allowing single -service sewer 5 extension to the proposed sites will be minimal and, in some 6 cases, positive. 7 The environmental impact will be positive insofar as it will 8 provide a sewer service rather than on-site septic treatment. 9 Since any other potential locations would be also subject to 10 sewer service, there is no greater impact with the proposed use. a N 11 The Bend area is not well-suited for on-site septic in many 12 areas due to the nature of the existing soil composition. As the 13 Bend Comprehensive Plan has noted, the Department of x 14 Environmental Quality has required the City of Bend to provide a o� <15 sewer system. The cost of so doing is exceptionally high because x 16 of the underlying rock. The School District is prepared to pay v :2 ER 17 for the installation of the sewer to the edge of the IUGB. This 0 X a 18 will provide substantial benefit to the area residents and users 8 19 within the IUGB, enabling them to connect to sewer service. 20 The long-term economic impact would be substantially more 21 adverse if the proposed use is not allowed. It would cost an 22 additional $125,000 to install on-site septic service. 23 Alternatively, if the School District were to purchase 24 replacement sites, the price would be prohibitively expensive. 25 26 Page —13— BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0'790 Moreover, there would be a substantial delay in the process which �a CQ �d 18 D. "The prop adjacent uses or w 8 19 designed to reduce 20 DISCUSSION ed uses are compatible with other 1 be so rendered through measures verse impacts." 3 1 would also increase the costs. 2 The long-term social impact for allowing these sites is of how the proposed use 3 positive. These sites are located to enable many of the students rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. 4 who currently ride busses to either walk to school or have 5 shorter bus trips. Also, as is discussed above, there is 6 substantial overcrowding at the existing schools. The 23 7 construction of new schools will reduce that overcrowding and 00 00 be compatible 24 g_ 8 have a positive impact for the community. Any other potential L S alternative sites would not be located as close to the existing 10 school population and, consequently, would have a greater adverse N11 use is situated in such impact on social consequences. 9 � 12 Locating the schools at the proposed sites will have t,%!2 13 positive energy consequences due to the fact that it will cause a :C -f-- f 14 substantial reduction in traffic. Many of the students are woc o<15 currently bussed to schools far from their homes. The two A 16 proposed sites will enable many of these students to walk to X17 school. �a CQ �d 18 D. "The prop adjacent uses or w 8 19 designed to reduce 20 DISCUSSION ed uses are compatible with other 1 be so rendered through measures verse impacts." 3 z 21 1. Description of how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. 22 The proposed sites are adjacent to land that is currently 23 residential or vacant, so the proposed use will be compatible 24 with existing uses. 25 2. The proposed use is situated in such a manner 26 Page -14- BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) 0109 0"791 as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. 1 III. CONCLUSION 10 The School District will construct both schools on the 2 community's need for new school facilities. Sewer service in proposed sites in a manner which will leave as much of the 3 13 g existing natural vegetation and trees intact as possible. There 4 ES° o15 the sites which are located on the outer edge of the IUGB. The will be substantial on-site landscaping and buffering so as to 5 16 screen the adjacent residential and vacant lands. Such 6 service line to the schools. For the policy reasons described :D a 18 preservation and landscape management will be compatible with the M 7 above, this use is consistent with the Bend Comprehensive Plan g 19 existing surroundings. 20 8 z21 Accordingly, the School District requests the Comprehensive Plan v 0 9 be amended to allow the proposed use. 0 III. CONCLUSION 10 " M The School District owns two sites ideally suited to meet the N 11 community's need for new school facilities. Sewer service in 12 these areas has been identified to be in the public interest. In 13 g order to provide sewer, the School District must install sewer to 14 ES° o15 the sites which are located on the outer edge of the IUGB. The b only proposed use that would be inconsistent with State Goals 11 16 and 14 is to allow the School District to install a single -user 17 V, service line to the schools. For the policy reasons described :D a 18 above, this use is consistent with the Bend Comprehensive Plan g 19 and should be allowed as an exception to State Goals. 20 z21 Accordingly, the School District requests the Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow the proposed use. 22 23 24 25 26 Page -15- HOLMES, HURLEY, BRYANT, LOVLIEN & LYNCH X±-_ g*4a -f 4e-y�, ROBERT S. LOVLIEN OSB 74197 Of Attorneys for Applicant BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT (SRS:BEND01) In - s 1 iC X :t •.0 X •K •.K. ' • K ?T K � 'K Y K �• ?� 1 .O CV ^� t1 M ?� G U` u �' f� •T l•J .O fh a tT i 05 p` a, r.J M1 co �/ •-J v M1 �. f-7 1 ^r7 O` d O` �.. r "J 0109 0'792 T1 ... .r �.. ... � I i 1 J= 1 A S • / C G d � A O O O of d q i d d r N T >. �+ L S ••+ w O U •C 1 r r �+ r.. L c U o L S N Z. I C C q ++ d [J') 1 W a d G 1 W W_ r r ..-. d ..r ur U a ... C .�.. I d L r L L d N JG •^ .... of q W LLA L U q 1 a L S C W .-•♦ C O OI S C .r.. 1 ' QI a ♦ T7 O O C d m {/� LL 1 U C "Y �1r O rN a q 'C S a N d 1 .... d 031 C C L a W d � y 1 /9 w a MIT m M N d 47 .0 U7 M UM U12. .T 4'7 p �+ p. r- m m O` .O �+ m Y .M1..r .M1.y ! .D .O M1 .D M .8 •"" O• .M.. •� 'r O• i L [) 1 1 1 Te. 1 p X 1 E .r+ C d 1 1 1 A •.C+ 1 N_ 1f7 li7 .D N m B M M1 Ul N M N IT •^ 1 M of •-+ M .a [V c0 1� IA S•i aD aD N .O .O o � .o 1 L ' I C 7 W GJ 1 1 M 72.1 m m 19 m m N M m w M1 MwM m d m a A L 1 I r 7 1 3 w v u 1 1 o c 1 d 1 a1 N U � u 1 t 0 o t o c i � 1 ! M1 d M1 M1 r,. r w M 19 A G 1 N N N Cr .moi N N 1 W 1 M+ m M 1 •me• ImA Ids• d •~� m 6 M d m M CP co M1 -W1 40 dMm47 w47•�M IZlmmM — L,I M N w M `� �• M M /.V M M 1 1 1 0• .,a N B A w Co m m m CO m tV cm _M1 N d IA m d h r• "10!. .O d M N M C "I .a 'fl 1 ••+ M a0 1` u. N to m a N N `- C; LL .r 1 U, .0 1 V7 U7 47 d r- d w .O O• O+ co m y% m c m 1 - L Icr 1 i d N I---• m If7 117 1/7 117 If7 M .n M M i/7 m m N N N LL Y m 1 r 1 m I ett 0 � C d 1 N M1 d 7 1 M1 44. M1 9 0 O t .n d7 . N .0 .a U O ► + M 1 \ � 1 1 M mcr. w N c0 O• m to m O• V- M1 .O /9 IA a. C 1 .O p M1 .D •r v M1 r .r aD M1 .O 47 m M1 N a cr. q 1 C O i a.0 C. vl O v M 1 0 C ++ M IL' N L U L In 1 K q O L C C q ++ 1 >• i d Y L .Li. .... d C t y .... C U 1 .+ r a Z d .a A b A d .r•+ q N b i M S Ir Z L %� T` air t= .a V Z w � 33 y� r q Ia C O � ~' co � BO!p 1 (l7 -.0w M1 M1 W m ti J m C to B^ 1a B C .O 1 .J 6 M .:.J S 6 M 7 tT 47 M M1 N C ,O i 47 ' N `-+ n ZZ 47 1!7 [JJ ••+ N 47 N 47 Y 1 L i 1 1 ♦ T a .n A a .n 1 A A ++ rn L L' G O r 1 C C d L T A o o_ L q C U C o L S O x T 1 d a G q Jr a 'a N ♦ O O U a a W r o ti L fn S> I W a r c r d 2 A r 11 7t 11 r , W WW rn ..+ U d ... UJ 1 .-. a d •L 1. c a to L .•-• r ..a. - a EXHIBIT t� ol u 1 d t 3 G w -� c .> q _ t i rn a i-0 o .-. O 11' a W .T... o d q ,n S d A L a M l o f 1. ., t a 0 In C L 11 a q r+ C_ ++ L 1 PAGE 1 i Y + a in r d U O C G .G.� O D 1 a yr c d 7 7 W u G a LL t7 - 1 A d A O ." L L 1 /9 m Ir '-•a �c Y J E r 1--- [.J d d J E Q a ,w 0109 0'793 27TH STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTION X111 of the 'lest Half. of the Northwest Quarter (W1/2 NWI/4) and the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW1/4 SWI/4) of Section Fourteen (14), Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Twelve (12). East of the Willamette Meridian. Descsiutes County, Oregon. lying Westerly of =he Westerly right of way line of 27th Street, previously known as Arnold Market goad, said right of way line being 40.00 feet from the centerline of said street. =aSn the Westerly 30 feet of the 'Rest Half of the Northwest Quarter (W3./2 NWI/4), and the Westerly 30 feet and Southerly 60 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW1/4 S'R1/4) of Section 14. 0109 0794 ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING SITE ANALYSIS The School District has engaged in long range planning in determining where to locate schools in the Bend -La Pine Administrative School District area. In 1980, recognizing the need for substantial long range planning, the School District commissioned a Site Selection Study (Study) prepared by Pacific Economica, Inc. The report from that Study was prepared in two parts. Part I (attached as Exhibit 1) covered enrollment projections and need for new schools. Part II (attached as Exhibit 2) addressed the identification and analysis of alternative sites for new schools. Although there have been changes since the Study was prepared, the Study has been a substantial guide in the planning for new schools. Part I identified and projected the need for schools. On page 40 of Part I, the need for a junior high in the southeast area of Bend in proximity to Bend High School was identified. Also, the Study projected a need for an elementary located to the northeast of Juniper Elementary by 1991. Although, the School District is somewhat behind in its projected construction dates, the need remains for a middle school in the southeast area and an elementary school in the northeast area. These are the two sites that are the subject of the sewer extension request. Part II of the Study provides more details regarding the site selection process. Specifically on page 2 and 3 of Part II the - 1 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0795 following criteria were identified and used in the Site Selection Study: 1 2 General 3 1. The selection of school sites will be a cooperative effort with local planning officials and governmental 4 agencies. To the maximum extent possible, selected sites will be consistent with population patterns and projections, development trends, comprehensive land use ' plans and zoning ordinances. 2. In evaluating potential school sites, preference will be given to those sites that have the following characteristics: a. good (easy) access to the student population to be served; b. the ground is relatively level but well drained, capable of supporting the necessary structures and not susceptible to any natural hazards; c. there are no serious distractions to study or classroom activity (highways, industry, etc.); d. the site is within an area of planned or existing public services/utilities (unless intended to serve only rural areas); e. the site is within the urban growth boundary if it is to serve the Bend area or within a rural service center if it is to serve a rural area; and, f. the site has potential for joint development and use for both school and recreational activities. Elementary School Sites 1. Sites should be located in the center of existing or future residential neighborhoods within safe and reasonable walking distance of as many students as possible. 2. Schools should be located in such a way that their attendance areas will be bounded, rather than intersected, by barriers presenting obstacles or dangers to children walking to and from school. Such barriers include major streets and highways, railroads, waterways and heavy industrial areas. - 2 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0'796 3. Each site location should, whenever possible, be on residential streets which provide sufficient access for buses and other necessary traffic but have a minimum of non -school related vehicle activity. Secondary School Sites 1. The locations should have adequate, safe and direct access from the community's principal street network. 2. Good site characteristics should be more important than a location which is geographically central to the population served. These basic criteria have not substantially changed since 1980. Using these basic criteria, the Study then identified possible sites for future schools. The consultant identified properties owned by the School District, properties the District had expressed an interest in acquiring and all vacant parcels of land in the Bend area that satisfied the minimum size criteria for schools. The City of Bend's Comprehensive Plan inventory of vacant and uncommitted lands as well as other plan inventory information regarding access, water, and sewer service for each vacant uncommitted parcel was evaluated. Finally, the inventory data was examined to identify any potential conflicts between school use of the properties and the existing or planned land uses and roads on any other properties. At the end of the investigation, there were 47 parcels of land in the Bend -La Pine School District that appeared to have some potential for school use. The next step in the site selection process was to evaluate each parcel of land as to its consistency with the general location of future schools recommended and with the school - 3 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0797 criteria. Each parcel was physically examined and reevaluated as to topography, access, adjacent uses, environment and proximity to sewer and water services. The properties were then reviewed with the School District's transportation supervisor and with Bend's planner to determine whether or not the sites had unforeseen problems regarding school bus services and land use planning. After that review, the consultant selected the best alternative sites for each new school recommended. The proposed middle school, referred to generally as the 27th Street Site was identified as the first alternative. It was noted at the time, that since the area is outside the City's planned service area, the District would likely have to develop its own sewage treatment facilities. That assumption has since changed and is the reason for the plan amendment to allow the sewer extension. With respect to the northeast elementary school, five alternative sites were identified. However, the School District did not own any appropriate sites at that time. Subsequently, in 1982, the School District acquired property from the Deschutes County in the northeast area. In 1991 that land was traded to the County for property immediately to the north. That property is the proposed site for the elementary school and is commonly referred to as the Cooley Road property. 22 RECENT SITE ANALYSIS: 23 In 1988 the School District board appointed a committee to 24 study the facility needs and enrollment projections in 25 anticipation of a September 1989 bond issue proposal. As part of 26 Page - 4 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0'798 that analysis, the committee focused on site acquisition. A copy of the report dealing with the site acquisition question is attached as Exhibit 3. It reiterates the criteria for evaluating school sites. Subsequently, a second committee was appointed and a final report was generated in 1990. Attached as Exhibit 4, is a list of the committee members and the section of the report dealing with new school development. Based on all criteria evaluated, the committee anticipated siting the proposed junior high school on the 27th property. Based on the criteria, the choice for the northeast elementary school was on the Cooley Road property. ­­­%­ mvm"T %Tmm-rviLn en'rmT e[ . Elementary School Site Alternatives The School District selected the proposed Cooley Road site over the sites selected by the 1980 Site Selection Committee and any other current sites for three main reasons: cost, projected enrollment, and access. 1. Cost. This is the only property in the northeast area that the School District owns. The School District acquired the property in a land exchange with the County. The property the School District had prior to the land exchange was also acquired from the County in 1982 in exchange for a release of a debt owed to the School District by the County. The trade benefited both the County and the School District and provided the District with a school site at no out-of-pocket expense. This is the only property in the northeast area that the School District owns and Page - 5 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0799 therefore, the economic factor was a major reason for the site selection. However, economics were not the only consideration. 2. Projected Enrollment. The School District anticipates that there will be greater development in the north area of town than in the northeast area. One of the major criteria for siting an elementary school is to provide a neighborhood school whenever possible. The Cooley Road site is ideally situated next to existing developments along Boyd Acres Road and Hunter's Road. The School District anticipates that 65 students from these two developments will be able to walk to school. Because of the Yeoman Road sewer extension, which will be complete within a year, the School District anticipates a substantial increase of residential homes in the RS Zone southeast of Boyd Acres Road. Additionally, the City of Bend has expressed an interest in possibly cooperatively extending sewer and water to the site because the City is interested in providing those services to their proposed industrial park to the north. For these reasons, the Cooley Road site is ideally situated to serve the existing neighborhood and the expected expansion area. 3. Access. The access to the Cooley Road site is very good. The neighborhood areas immediately to the south will be able to access the site via Boyd Acres Road and Hunter's Road. Cooley Road is a main access off of Highway 97 for traffic from the south and the north. In the near future, it is anticipated that Cooley Road will be extended to the east and Empire - 6 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0800 Boulevard will extend to Yeoman Road. This will provide additional access to the east. The School District rejected the five sites identified in the 1980 Site Selection Report for the following reasons: 1. Alternative Site 4A. This site is located off Wells Acre Road, approximately one and one-half miles from Juniper Elementary. The site is too close to Juniper Elementary to provide much relief for the students to the north. Rather than creating a neighborhood school, siting the school at this location would require many northerly students to take the bus. 2. Alternative Site 4B. This site is located on 27th Street (formerly Denser) across from Mountain View High School, and is approximately one and one-half miles from Juniper and Buckingham Elementary Schools. The same problems with access by the northern students are applicable to this site as well. The site is close to the high school and accordingly, is a less desirable site. It is also in private ownership. 3. Alternative Site 4C. This site is located on the corner of 27th Street (formery Denser) and Butler Market Roads. A location at the intersection of two large arterial streets make the site undesirable for an elementary school. Moreover, it is near a substantial commercial area and is not suitable as a neighborhood school. 4. Alternative Site 4D. The site is located on the southwest corner of Butler Market Road and Eagle Road. The site is approximately one and one-half miles from Buckingham - 7 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0801 Elementary and three-quarters of a mile from Mountain view High School. Because of its proximity to existing elementary schools, it will not serve adequately the northerly student population. It is also not a suitable site for a neighborhood school. 4. Alternative Site 4E. The site is located on Neff Road. There is now a church located on the site. There are two possible alternative areas to site the elementary school. First, there is a residentially zoned area southeast of Boyd Acres Road. This area is immediately north of the existing industrial (IL) zone. There has not been much development in this area and accordingly, access would be very difficult until such time as the residential development occurs. Because of this, it is not suitable as a neighborhood school at this time. There are more students living in existing developments to the north. Additionally, since the elementary school will serve approximately 260 students outside the urban area, locating the school further south will require substantially greater travel time for those rural students. The second area that might be a potential site is an area of property zoned residential (RS) between Eagle Road and 27th Street. This area has substantially the same problems as the area just discussed. It is too far from the existing northerly students to be a neighborhood school. Moreover, because of its easterly location, it is too close to the existing elementary schools. The area has developed more as a rural area than an urban area. The existing development is very low density and has - 8 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0802 developed almost as a strip residential area along 27th Street. Accordingly, neither of these areas would be suitable for the proposed elementary school. Middle School Site Alternatives More recently, in the continuing process of the site evaluation, the School District analyzed six potential sites for the new middle school. A copy of the memo outlining the analysis is attached as Exhibit 5. Other alternatives were explored, including the site located east of Jewel Elementary near Brosterhous Road. Although this site was identified as a potential school site on the Bend Comprehensive Plan map, it is a less desirable site than the proposed site due to the location of the railroad which prompted substantial safety concerns. The proposed site remains the first alternative because it had the highest overall rating considering the factors of: future growth, size, traffic impacts, zoning, soils, existing utilities, site development costs, environmental and safety, litigation, transportation and access, and ownership. EXPECTED ATTENDANCE AREAS: Middle School Attendance Area The School District anticipates that middle school students from the south and southeastern areas of Bend will attend the new middle school. Approximately 403 of the anticipated students will reside outside of the IUGB. Approximately 365 of those students live in identifiable neighborhoods as follows: - 9 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0803 Neighborhood Student Numbers Sunriver, Spring River, and Fall River 80 Deschutes River Woods 138 East of 27th south of Highway 20 105 Woodside Ranch 42 The remaining students who live outside the IUGB live in low density areas not specifically identifiable as a neighborhood. In addition to the students who reside outside the IUGB, the following numbers of students will reside in neighborhoods close enough to the school so they will be able to walk to the school: Neighborhood Student Numbers Ladera 19 Country Sunset Mobile Home Park 14 King's Forest 48 Desert Woods 41 Orion/Camelot 20 The remaining students who reside within the IUGB will come from the southern and southeastern portions of the Bend area. This area is roughly bounded by the Deschutes River on the west, Central Oregon Irrigation Canal and Reed Market on the north, Millican on the east and south Century Drive to the south. Elementary School Attendance Area The School District anticipates that the 65 students in the Boyd Acres and Hunter's Run neighborhood will be able to walk to the elementary school. In addition, the attendance area will include approximately 260 students who reside north and east of the proposed site outside the IUGB. The remaining 175 students who will likely attend the elementary school reside within the IUGB south of Cooley Road and north of Butler Market Road. - 10 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0804 Because of the substantial densities near Butler Market Road, it is difficult to anticipate where the actual southern attendance boundary will be until it is closer to the time the school is expected to open. CONCLUSION• The School District has engaged in substantial long-range planning in determining where to locate new schools. This process has been a cooperative effort among the County, the City, the School District and the Bend area citizens. The School District has tried to minimize the expenditure of public monies and locate the schools so as best to serve the students who will attend them. Many factors have been taken into account in determining where to locate the schools, and this analysis has been undertaken by a variety of planning groups throughout the last decade. Based on all of the factors discussed above, the School District believes that the proposed Cooley Road site for the northeast elementary school and the proposed 27th Street site for the southeast middle school are the best alternatives available to the community. - 11 -ADDENDUM TO BURDEN OF PROOF RE SITE ANALYSIS (SRS:BEND26) 0109 0805 SCHOOL SITE SELECTION STUDY - PART I ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND NEED FOR NEW SCHOOLS PREPARED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 Bili Pacific Econornica, Inc. Sclem, Oregon Bill DECEMBER 1480 EXHIBIT 1 TO ADDENDUM r ' } ��t SCHOOL SITE SELECTION STUDY - PART I ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND NEED FOR NEW SCHOOLS PREPARED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 Prepared by: Pacific Economica, Inc. Economic Research and Consulting Services P. 0, Box 93 Salem, Oregon 973000 (503) 362-4946 DECEMBER 1980 0109 080'7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures and Tables Introduction 1 Findings and Conclusions 3 Enrollment Projections 4 Aggregate Population Projections 6 Disaggregated Population Projections 7 Disaggregated Enrollment Projections 13 Results 15 Need for New Schools 31 Methodology 31 Estimates of School Needs 33 Location and Priority for New Schools 40 APPENDIX Pacific Economica, Inc, I I I LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Page Figure 1 Enrollment Forecasts Model 5 Figure 2 Economic Base Model 7 Figure 3 Bend Urban Area Map 8 Figure 4 Deschutes County Map 9 Figure 5 Population Growth Patterns 10 Figure 6 Elementary Building Timetable Alternative A 36 Figure 7 Elementary Building Timetable Alternative B 37 Figure 8 Junior High Building Timetable 38 Figure 9 Senior High Building Timetable 39 Figure 10 Recommended Locations for New Schools, Bend Urban Area 42 Figure 11 Recommended Locations for New Schools, Remainder of District 43 Table 1 Density Ceilings 12 Table 2 Projected Age Cohort and Grade Enrollment Percentage Shares 14 Table 3 Population Projections for 1980, 1990 and 2000 16 Table 4 Enrollment Projections 18 Table 5 Population Projections for 1980 20 Table 6 Population Projections for 1985 22 Table 7 Population Projections for 1990 24 Table 8 Population Projections for 1995 26 Table 9 Population Projections for 2000 28 Table 10 Areas of Highest and Lowest Growth 30 Pacific Economica, Inc. 0109 0809 INTRODUCTION Recent years' enrollment growth in Administrative School District No. 1 has emphasized the need for rigorous long-term planning. The planned coordination of required facilities development and fiscal resources will help assure that the District's future needs are adequately and efficiently met. Prudent planning for the District requires projections of both total District school requirements and the specific geographic location of schools within the District boundaries. Neglect of either will impose considerable costs on the District. Poor aggregate school requirements projections lead to excess or insufficient physical plant and either excess debt service costs or failure to achieve educational goals because of overcrowding. Likewise, poor projections of the location of new schools will cause identical problems in specific areas even though total physical plant may be perfectly adequate. Measures to correct the imbalance by transporting students will impose greater costs on both the District budget and upon students. The District has already undertaken a number of long- range planning studies which address future growth in the Bend area, projected enrollment and future facilities' require- ments. This study extends the District's long-range planning capabilities to incorporate the geographic or spatial dimension of school facility planning. The study is divided into two parts. Part I includes geographically disaggregated enrollment projections and an analysis of requirements and general locations of new schools. Part II includes a more detailed identification and analysis of specific sites for new schools. Pacific Economica, Inc. -2- 0109 0810 This report presents the analysis and findings of Part I of the study. Aside from this introduction it is presented in three sections. The first section includes a summary of the findings and conclusions of Part I. The second section dis- cusses the geographically disaggregated enrollment projections. The third section discusses the need for new schools and recommends general locations for new schools. Pacific Economica, Inc. -3- IFINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 0109 0811 --Population in Administrative School District No. 1 will slightly more than double between 1980 and 2000, increasing from 44,775 to 121,570. --Host rapid copulation growth will occur in areas outside the Bend city limits but within the Bend urban area to the east, south and west of the city and in the La Pine and Sunriver areas. --Bend School District Enrollment will also more than double from 1980 to 2000, increasing from 7,375 to 14,966 from 1980 to 2000. Over that time period elementary enrollment will increase by 3,800 students, junior high by 2,070 students and high school by 1,750 students. --At least four elementary schools should be replaced between 1980 and 2000. These are the La Pine, Young, Kingston and Marshall Schools. Also, the Kenwood and Thompson Elemen- tary Schools will be either replaced or extensively remodeled. --Eight or nine new elementary schools (depending on whether Kenwood Elementary is closed or remodeled), two new junior high schools and one new senior high school will be needed in the District between 1980 and 2000. --The first new elementary school should be located south of Thompson to serve the Thompson and Jewell attendance areas and in La Pine or Sunriver/Spring River areas. The first new junior high school should be located southeast, but in close proximity to Bend Nigh School. The new senior high school should be located west of the river. The remainder of this report elaborates in more detail on these findings and conclusions and how they were arrived at. Pacific Economica, Inc, -4- ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 0109 0812 Even when the ultimate goal is enrollment projections by small geographic area, it is necessary to examine population growth patterns for the whole District. Only at the aggregate level can the dynamic interaction between population growth and economic and employment opportunities be fully accounted for. Individual location decisions can be broken down into two components. First, the individual (or family) chooses a community to live in. The choice of a community is governed primarily by the employment and income earning potential of the community and the amenities of the community. Once a community is chosen, the individual must decide where in the community he will live. This second decision is based primarily upon the availability of housing in different areas of.the community. This last factor is controlled by local policymakers through zoning restrictions and capital improvement programs for streets and water and sewer systems. To accommodate the two major driving forces behind indivi- dual location decisions, the effort to produce geographically disaggregated enrollment projections was divided into three basic tasks. One task establishes aggregate population projec- tions for the whole District. The second develops preliminary population projections for small geographic areas within the District. The final task develops population and enrollment projections for small geographic areas by reconciling the aggregate and small geographic area population projections. Figure 1 shows how the products of the three tasks are linked together in a model to produce geographically disaggre- gated enrollment projections. Pacific Economica, Inc. -5- 4109 0813 FIGURE 1 ENROLLMENT FORECASTS MODEL Enrollment-ag Cohort Shares Enrollment Forecasts Appendix A lists the computer program, written in BASIC computer language, which calculates the population and en- rollment forecasts by area. Owl Pacific Economica, Inc. 0109 0814 AGGREGATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS To develop population forecasts for the whole District, an economic base model was used. An economic base model divides local economic activity into two sectors. One sector produces goods and services which serve primarily markets external to the local economy; regional and national markets. This sector is called the basic sector. The second sector serves the local market for goods and services and is called the non -basic sector. Local growth occurs as the basic sector grows. Basic employment grows as external demand for basic industry products grows. As basic employment grows drawing more people into the community, demand increases for locally produced goods and services thus inducing growth in the non -basic sector. The economic base model is a set of mathematical relation- ships representing the interaction between various sectors of the local economy as well as the interaction of the local economy with the regional and national economies. These rela- tionships are established by statistical analysis of historical employment data. Figure 2 shows a simplified flow chart of the model. The model was used to project employment. Population projections are obtained by application of known employment: population ratios to the employment projections. more detail about this model and the aggregate projections is contained in Pacific Economica's prior study for the District, An Analysis of the Bend Economy. Pacific Economica, Inc. National and ; Regional f Economies �— r i i Demand for Basic Products t 1 6c FIGURE 2 ECONOMIC BASE MODEL Local. Economy Local Basic Industry Production and Employment DISAGGREGATED POPULATION PROJECTIONS Local Non -Basic Industry Production and Employment 0109 0815 Local. Aggregate Population Independent of total area population projections, we developed preliminary small area population projections. The School District area was subdivided into 81 separate areas. Preliminary population projections were developed for each. Figures 3 and 4 are maps which show these 81 areas. Within the Bend city limits, the boundaries generally follow U. S. Census Enumeration District boundaries. Boundaries for areas outside Bend city limits, but within the Bend urban area follow Oregon Department of Transportation traffic planning area boundaries. Outside the Bend urban area,_ boundaries again follow U. S. Census Enumeration District boundaries. Population growth within these small areas will be governed by zoning restrictions, the transportation network, and water and sewer system expansion. To accommodate these factors which strongly influence small area growth, we used a density ceiling model to derive preliminary population projections for each area. The density ceiling model is based upon the fact that each area has a density ceiling or maximum population it will support. This maximum population is .11 01171 iv Pacific Economica, Inc. FIGURE 3 BEND URBAN AREA 4109 0816 Pacific Economica, Inc. 501 WE 0109 0- Pacific Economica, Inc. -10- 0109 0818 determined by zoning restrictions and public facilities system expansion plans. The model also is based upon the observed phenomenon that growth rates slow down as areas fill in, or approach density ceilings. Mathematically, the general density ceiling model can be represented as follows: it + git) = Aidit-k where git = population growth rate in area i during period t. A. = one plus the growth rate for area i when 1 the density is one person per unit area, assumed constant. dit = population density for area i at the beginning of period t. k = ratio of the rate of change of growth to the rate of change of density, assumed constant. In this model, the density ceiling for each area is Ail/k. The parameter k, which is assumed constant for all areas is the rate at which population approaches density ceilings. This model predicts that population in each small geographic area will approach the density ceiling as shown in Figure 5. FIGURE S POPULATION GROWTH PATTERNS Population, _ _ _ ---------------- Ceiling Population Time Pacific Economica, Inc. -11- 4109 0819 The curve above the ceiling population represents areas which are experiencing declining population and the curve below the ceiling population represents areas which are experiencing population increases. The model is calibrated to historical data in each area by use of statistical methods and by examination of growth patterns in areas similar to Administrative School District No. 1. Density ceilings for each area are determined by examination of zoning ordinances, capital improvement plans for water, sewer and street systems, and by recent subdivision growth. Conceptually, the density ceiling for each area is determined as follows: Ail/k = (Li x PR x OW x PDi) + Li Where All k = density ceiling for area i in people per acre. L. = total land area in area i in acres. i PR = percent of total land area in area i zoned residential. OWi = dwelling units per residentially zoned acre in area i. PDi = persons per dwelling unit in area i. For example, consider an area with 100 acres and 50 percent of it zoned single family residential with four dwelling units per acre of residential land. Assume 2.8 people per dwelling unit. The density ceiling is: 5.6 = (100 x .5 x 4 x 2.8)+ 100 Table 1 lists density ceilings and maximum population for each of the 81 areas. In addition to city and county planners, primary input for density ceilings were the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Phase II Sewer System Draft Report No. 1, North Area prepared by Bend Engineering Consultants. With the density ceiling model and density ceilings, prelim- inary population projections for each of the 81 areas were prepared out to the year 2000. on Pacific Econornica, Inc. -12 - *Less than .05 people per acre. Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. Pacific Economica, Inc. TABLE 1 0109 0820 DENSITY CEILINGS Ceiling Ceiling Density ceiling Density Ceiling Area (People/Acre) Population Area (People/Acre) Population 740 15.0 15,000 37 8.0 10,272 741 14.0 1,498 38 2.5 3,823 742 14.0 1,134 39 0.0 0 743 5.0 615 40 .5 351 744 0.0 0 41 5.0 1,045 745 10.0 4,020 42 8.0 2,640 746 10.0 1,580 45 0.0 0 747 3.0 762 46 12.0 14,724 748 10.0. 820 47 5.5 765 749 0.0 0 48 .5 421 750 1.0 83 49 1.0 2,175 751 1.0 52 50 1.0 2,183 752 0.0 0 51 6.0 7,224 753 10.0 710 52 .3 360 754 7.0 1,155 53 3.0 9,861 755 8.0 4,976 54 3.5 4,473 756 8.0 544 55 1.0 1,118 757 9.0 954 56 10.0 13,890 758 8.0 1,120 57 6.0 12,372 759 10.0 330 58 .3 962 760 9.0 690 59 .3 602 761 6.5 332 60 .1 114 762 10.0 1,290 692 .1 1,900 763 2.0 166 693 .1 1,000 764 0.0 0 702 .1 1,755 765 9.0 486 707 .4 1,838 766 11.0 572 708 .4 1,053 767 8.0 1,360 709 2.0 5,282 768 8.0 1,648 710 2.0 4,076 22 6.5 857 711 2.0 2,406 24 7.0 3,717 712 2.0 2,274 26 6.0 5,658 714 * 139 28 9.0 882 715 * 223 30 2.3 1,076 71.6 * '31 31 5.0 3,670 717 .5 17,998 32 10.0 10,280 718 .2 9,599 33 8.5 8,432 719 * 143 34 15.0 1,410 720 .1 2,108 35 30.0 17,580 721 * 11105 36 10.0 5,870 723 65 2 724 * 202 *Less than .05 people per acre. Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. Pacific Economica, Inc. -13 - DISAGGREGATED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 0109 0821 The final stage of the analysis involves reconciling the disaggregated population projections with the aggregate population projections. This is accomplished by constrain- ing the sum of the disaggregated population projections to equal the aggregate population projections. Reconciliation in this manner preserves the geographic population distribution as estimated by the small area fore- casts, but constrains total population to equal the aggregate forecasts. By doing this the final forecasts incorporate both forces occurring for the District as a whole and forces occurring in each subarea. Enrollment projections are derived from population pro- jections by application of population age cohort shares, adjusted for the relationship between School District enroll- ment in specific grades and age cohort shares. Table 2 lists projections of the percentage of total population in specific school age cohorts in Administrative School District No.1. The Table also lists District enroll- ment by grade levels as a percentage of population in specific age cohorts. Pacific Economica, Inc. -14 - 0109 0822 TABLE 2 PROJECTED AGE COHORT AND GRADE ENROLUMENT PERCENTAGE SHARES Year 1980 1990 2000 5-9 Cohort Share 7.39 8.38 7.85 Grade 1-5 Enrollment 98.24 98.24 98.24 as a percent of 5-9 cohort 10 -14 -Cohort Share 8.01 8.12 8.24 Grade 6-8 Enrollment 52.31 52.31 52.31 as a percent of 10-14 cohort 15-16 Cohort Share 8.55 6.31 7.35 Grade 9-12 Enrollment 58.83 58.83 58.83 ment as a percent of 15-19 cohort Source: Center for Population Research, Portland State University and Pacific Economica, Inc. Enrollment Projections are obtained by first multiplying total population projections by school age cohort shares and then multiplying school age cohorts by enrollment -age cohort ratios. Pacific Economica, Inc. -15- 0109 0823 RESULTS Table 3 displays population projections in 1980, 1990 and 2000 for each of the 81 areas and also shows growth rates over the 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 periods. Table 4 lists enrollment projections for 1-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade levels for. 1980, 1990 and 2000 in each area. Tables 5 through 9 display detailed population and enrollment projections for each area in five year incre- ments -over the 1980-2000 period. Tablel0 shows the 20 areas experiencing the lowest growth rates over the 1980-2000 period and the 20 areas experiencing the most rapid growth over that same period. Over the 1980-2000 period population in the District will slightly more than double, increasing from 44,771 to 91,575. Annual growth rates will average 4.2 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 3.0 percent from 1990 to 2000. Over that same period total District enrollment will also slightly more than double. However, growth will be much more even. Total enrollment will experience average annual growth of 3.5 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 3.7 percent from 1990 to 2000. Enrollment in grades 1-.5 and 6-8 will grow much more rapidly than enrollment in grades 9-12 over the 1980-1990 period. During the 1990-2000 period, just the opposite will occur. Enrollment in grades 9-12 will experience the most rapid growth as the rapid growth in lower grade levels over the 1980-1990 period move into high school. Areas within the Bend Urban Area, but outside the city limits will grow most rapidly, especially to the east, west and south of the city limits. The La Pine and Sunriver areas will also experience more rapid growth. Areas near the City Center and along Highways 97 and 20 will generally have the lowest growth rates because of zoning restrictions or the fact they are already close to ceiling development. Pacific Economica, Inc. -16- TABLE 3 ..:7 0109 0824 : 0 Iti 'O'WT IZ OR is i 1 t':-- �! 1 � � ` _ � i .� n f 1 ....• V'�' ------------------------- L ? ,� lJ __ ' '7 '': •J' s- -J •J •J - --- n—ter n: '•'� 0 -.331.>1 r w 7r.c.1' `64 •:a J I ,J 1 'J 4 C ^ `I 'J 1 •J to 1 1 '� 22 a. + !J V r -7:3 '•J i 'J 't .` J J .«y t 3 4 ; j "�: r> +Z '7 'J a L t~...: •4 ,rte �1� 7`n a'iii Ji'J :tJll Va11'i�.y J ♦ 1J ...J U'J i i : 1AOU 131 li -,.•`. y `aSJ t0% J.I;tJ!iVU J+'J`•J'J`J''1 'cl JSP J� J� «c 4 • rbc :. ncn :� 1.�c:; 1J a _ 'J • lJ!J'��'J -rbc ^^r^J:,G`� " l .!J :•.'.' 1 • 5 -;CL ^c;� 't, Y'k 0V a 0V'?.z 1J 1 - — •!J '-l'J �J t� 604 , � n 'J a V L ;D J •� '7 �C11 J '6 Zri ^Vl L+j•', tJ+ �.:r .J v.J •J .'J ti Lt •... 'J , .1 11 �"1 �+C 309 'v a:l it ^r3� —i'.i'•J 1"'r � 6 S'S . ^� _ •./a'r - i�11�:�;-: iJl —;'•J 'v'irJ .1. OG 74-6 47,3 .64 7 3 3 «J' �� :'t 0.01 1� VaiViLi -1 iIJ'T I-30 13/� 'J.is•.:�51'Ji' 17 ^� 48 y � ,_ J'J 841 1.JV 7 14-'^ i`?IZs 0.015i?3 _ } 0 a s06.J 361.7 'J.'•J.:1_-:a .t.i iv ,., V . 1Qi�:: ate•',IkA 1 Z� wn� 1,_Q i:�J Imo' .: '-+'Jl032 -a•!."J_1.- _ 4 n .+ 1 3`2 •-' ! 74 •- q .-} -• it ;- - Z •� T 7 4S" lJ . '� G •j •� :i 'J s V 'Y i •? '7' +I ..} : J ,� 4 12 , 'i J• 36 '15�.� ma J v' :%4• � 15 0 ' r 5' + J. 'T •�L•1 ��1� 2 ` J•� =�� Pacific Economica, Inc. Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. Pacific Economica, Inc. -17- 0109 0825 Table 3 Population Projections (Continued) Number 1980 1990 2000 1980-1990 1990-2000 _ .. 41 10 ^_^_ 1045 2y- - .'J •)a.1 3 42 X I51 1189 14':3 0.04,563 f'"i 303 �' �•_ 3 Jb J ' 1 -..i G 0 2 _ -i iO404 4-17��l�'� 3'2^ 44 0.0433 0.024,86 48 _ 439 _ 433 42.p�- - f 01 137? - f u'�"� �J z': 855 14 0 35, ij:� �y1 493 i.�_J9 2140 0f095.J..i ,'JJCL! J2 1iJ 117..13 0. 02043 65 '35 233 7%� Ja2'�'3%3— 54 504 1074 -_J 7 55 354 :J, 73 57.J3330 — 58 319 59 90 1; .� _ 96 60 14i 1J� V(J J 'T •� -,'J'•�•JJi 46 94 515 1x05 0, 135554 - :J. -i13 06 592 91 1c 1095 +'' i��; -1 f'✓JJ J-' _ 0,01.41 0 . .�j .�•J.! 942 Cr ' %. V,0! 83- . --.00i3'J "�:2 1122 129 1123 0 . �� , 4'•J2�� 707 '651 A __ 01-' 0 349 814 133. 0 .088as 1 29 0 563 i t .JO.3 'J, l.]'J•3 a '✓ ,'-JOa.O'� T14 t 1�� i2, J 124 0, �i1�J r .00031 . 7 i 3 124 1'') _ 1 3 ' 11 0 , 038-42 0 .04•� 24 ?1:' 1421 3404 -.,592 ?1'2 0,0' '7" 0 0 `2^ �' �'' 11 'x`34 4215 J.3Jr- 0.04695 '�, V ,30� J. 14 J LJJ•314 9P 6 _ 0.028 7 n 1 i ' 0a .��' ,`-.moi 6 3 ' `.l , 14 1 .'' , �".70�2 9% o 1'13, j l'! '� $.j 0 . 00015, G "24' 1 V 13 (i , 19 '1`2=:3 -----------------------------------------------------------•------- 1 DISTRIC7_ CN ' 4-:i 1 _ bi'�JJ 91 1 ^c 0.04-243_ .0 043 Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. Pacific Economica, Inc. -zs- TABLE 4 0109 0826 E,;l r. C^L L M N PIR C 1 ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- G�;iii ES -------------------'-- Cnr+L-Ea uitiiC7i= 1-5 •6-3 -l.^--' 1- J --'6-3 7'-1 ----- 6-8 .----- -._-.-- --- ?4n ----- ^�(1 ----- c 11.E ----- ----- 1.�7 411 ----- t �1� ----- 1v•�J 534 �.� 4^ �^ JV 34 8u �+ 4J 6 5:25 51 �� - " 34 '74- 1 41 4 49 v . "� �.! 1 'J r. 1 1 �. 1 0 !J U -?45 c1 3 + 1i1! �� 4:1 i41 9 - T ! 4� '� •Jr 1- :.: J'J 30 .:.6 70 J j JJ Ln . �3 J _ . 'J 46 3 47 J . ^g it 67 rr !? '' 10 1^ 3 11 J 7 J + f 4 4 ' - 4 = '` .._ . 1 C;, J 15 7 11 41 24 754 TO 6 131 60 { _ _ 70 L.fl//.�, J'J ..JCS JL'? v�'r ,c �� J - _ J. 61 .,- ,: o ,,� 16 + ,4 a 8 .n �1 40 -o 18 36 �� JL 33 40 01 4� o/ ^` o' $ 46 ?15S J� 40 �! 10 J•� 49 106 J'7 �!� �? 19 11 13 3 1-' 14 31 1 1 214 yJ -. .1 f 4J 1... b ? _ .J .J 14`' _ o� 34 .',6 15,E 170i0S C:: 1 1 J'J 34 �• J l j - J n 3 3 1, 1/ �'1 O J V Z a L L _ _ � 14 10 - e .� .. j n 1 1. 1 •� i 1 317 J 1 ' a �5 C j l/l^ r l 1 r. r V •J •� V �:� .J t^ !l V C J '�. ' y r1 C, t r..J .4 1 •J s 1 �' i Pacific Economica, Inc. -19- Tab1e 4 Enrollment Projections (Continued) 1980 1990 Grades Grades 0109 082'7 r Grades Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. ..I Pacific Economica, Inc, 1-5 6-8 9-12 1-5 6-+8 9-12 1-5 6-8 9-12 4 0 1 •s �, •J . .� J 7 4 44 39 2 �,n ' 31 44 11J �4 6 3 •J J O is 36 13 lb 13 13 J J rn'. '' .�. J _ i ' 'f 1 �. 9 = , n 6 14 1u 1? i'i lV 3Z _ 3" 4 , 4�J 128 �,• 15 is i'J'�� J3 �J5 1i 11 0 0 v 3 33' 20 45 + 4 r •J r r _ 1 40 ' 4-7 48 ire lir 4' 3•J % 7 .0 3,7 .j Oi3 'Y •T 49 •'l '1 46 13 60 31 �. +itAJV 1 11 C _ J Q/ 3 •J 30 . L I•J v J 'J = •J �r 4 43 4 2 07y 10 6 13 6 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 '.J , '1-7 103 60 '1 so 143 i'2S 4�`? 45 4� ^' 134 34 i 17? 1 r6 412 .2 30 ?s l 0 0 - 'n-7 ct+ 5,_ Z.A � , + �G i o•J ' Y1 �6 u0 4� tiJ ----------------------------- T`" L -----------------------^--------------------•------- Li+liL vll. -^.e- -•,, `�ci c •`nnn ^c25181n /0h.� T Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. ..I Pacific Economica, Inc, -20- 0109 0828 TABLE POPULATION Pacific E c o n o mica, Inc. RRCUECT:3ws EGK l- TO TAL GRA6E3 f POPULATION i-3 3-G .-�_ 740 2 733 200 J.J 137 741 637 49 2G 34 314 37 22 23 222 743 364 41 24 23 /44 418 30 33 21 742 7-S 31 30 33 746 445 3 4 19 � .m. 342 39 23 GZ 24S 432 31 IG _- ... 148 11 3 134 12 . 75! 32 4 7S2 . i3 . 11 \§3 \\1 41 24 28 7E4 e9e 30 _Z 33 43 .T61 434 33 19 _ \k 304 . 44 23 30 4S _ 31° \\\ 2?2 21 1\ 13 30 36 \\} 26 15 18 \\\ 843 61 33 43 763 2oG !S 9 10 264 293 22 12 15 763 430 766 41.2 30 is 21 33 40 48 57 2s6 !9 !1 13 \\ . S91 63 32 43 _ 2146 136 70 108 _- 263 I7 11 13 1434 22 Z4 3z i2 21 \\ 17-0 100 3G . �, 1348 112 63 2 942 63 3. © \\ I8E 13 3 7 \0 30 7 Pacific E c o n o mica, Inc. . TAble 5 -21- Population Projections for I980 0109 08,30 Source: Pacific Ecpoomioa, Inc. Pacific Econom°ca Inc. Grades Total � Pooulation I-5 6-8 9-12 41 1O22 74 4Z 51 _ 45 3� 3 2 2 47 �04 15 9 1� 48 4�9 32 18 22 49 3�8 26 15 18 62 36 43 51 ' 493 �6 21 25 53 35 3 1 2 ' �4 504 37 21 �5 13 1� 56 364 15 1� O O O 58 3�9 23 59 90 7 4 5 60 147 11 6 7 46 94 692 7�� 57 33 40 867 6:3 36 44 702 1�22 81 47 56 707 6�1 47 27 �� 708 38� 28 16 1� 709 �58 19 11 13 710 349 711 97 7 4 5 712 72 5 3 4 714 11� 8 5 6 715 124 9 5 6 716 3 0 0 0 717 1421 103 6O 71 7�8 2664 193 112 134 719 14 1 1 1 7�0 1008 73 42 5� 721 O 0 _ 58 34 40 723 802 72-4 '1 0 0 O TOTAL ____________________________________________________________________ POPULATZON 44771 �245 1879 2251 Source: Pacific Ecpoomioa, Inc. Pacific Econom°ca Inc. # 740 741 '742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 75� 754 756 757 758 759 76O �61 762 763 764 766 767 768 2� 24 26 2� 30 31 32 �-� 3z� 36 37 38 39 40 0109 0830 TABLE 6 POPULATION PROJECT--GNS FOR 19B5 -------------------- TOTAL GRADE� POPULA7*I0N ---------- 3809 ------------------------- `295 161 166 799 62 �4 3.5 612 47 ' 26 27 car 98 46 25 26 76 6 3 � 986 76 4Z 43 574 44 24 25 600 46 25 Z6 39 147 11 6 a �2 4 2 2 61 13 47 26 27 79O 61 -73 3� 1235 54 489 �8 31 21 681 5� 29 30 715 55 30' �1 311 24 13 14 702 54 3O 31 356 28 15 - 16 947 73 40 41 �O0 15 8 9 46 4 2 2 476 37 2O 21 461 36 19 20 910 �0 38 ` 40 1261 98 53 55 324 25 14 14 1�79 91 50 52 2633 04 111 115 338 15 1408 109 59 62 12 12 276 21 914 71 129 40 49� 38 21 22 21O 16 9 9 800 62 34 3� 1832 142 77 8O 2211 171 93 97 96 52 54 1241 43 3 2 2 328 25 14 �4 ��w����°���� 0~���*���u��0wM�°m��W�� N���� @��� �-w���w�DN8v�, ����vw������uN*8nw���� 0QW��" ^ ' -33- �a�`Ie 6 Population Projections for 1985 (Continued) 0109 0831 Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. Aml ���*�w��°��u�� O���o�K����N�����=*��8 Inc.v�0n�r&���� Q�v�n�w�Q W��� � W�n�,n��5 N� mnw� Grades Total � Po oIatioo 1-5 6-8 9-I2 41 1045 B1 44 - ' 4 o 42 977 76 41 43 45 1� 47 2�5 21 11 12 . 48 436 34 18 19 49 504 397 21 22 5O 1044 81 44 46 5� 803 62 34 35 52 145 11 6 6 5z 93 4 54 756 59 32 33 55 378 31 17 17 56 694 54 29 �O 57 9 1 O 0 58 400 17 17 59 129 1O 5 6 60 141 11 6 6 46 226 1 J. 10 692 956 74 4O 42 693 928 72 �9 41 7O2 123O 96 52 54 7�7 ' 808 33 7O8 477 3� 20 21 7O9 444 19 547 ' 42 2� 24 711 172 13 7 8 712 141 11 6 6 714 119 7�5 14-3 1I 6 6 716 5 O 0 O 717 2258 175 71B 3441 267 719 21 2 1 . 1 720 119O 92 50 32 721 6 0 0 O 723 909 70 3S 4O 724 3 0 0 0 ____________________________________________________________________ TOTAL DISTRICT PO�ULATZON 5�120 4266 2�21 24O9 Source: Pacific Economica, Inc. Aml ���*�w��°��u�� O���o�K����N�����=*��8 Inc.v�0n�r&���� Q�v�n�w�Q W��� � W�n�,n��5 N� mnw� -24- 0109 0832 TABLE 7 POPULATION CTIGwS r F. 17 FROUE70 w Pacific Eco n o m i c a! Inc. TOTAL GRADES $ POPULATION ' 1-3 6-8 9-12 740 ----\\\\ 411 _._ i53 741 703 . 73 38 34 742 , 692 37 99 . 26 743 601 49 _ 744 14 1 . 1 74§ 1301 107 33 48 746 701 S8 3026 747 629 748 533 46 2\ 21 '1749 3 0 v 0 7S0 131 1± 3 3 ZE1 32 4 2 2 752 • 1 0 0 753 62S 32 _. 23 754 . _ 70 33 32 753 1\j\ 134 39 30 726 499 41 21 1? 7S7 723 30 781 64 33 29 \59 J. 1;. 13 12 730 685 36 29 23 761 331 _. 13 13 762 1007 G3 43 . 193 13 8 7 \6 4 1 0 0. 763 47k 39 20 18 766 . . 481 40 20 . 1G 767 95s G± 42 37 77 6 - 1330 . 10? S6 49 G89 32 17 14 }\ 14 7? 122 63 33 130 114 26 3063 2S2 2G 408 34 17 \} 30 1338 110 37 3, 31 460 3S 20 17 32 1474 12{ 63 33 \3 S62 . 713 732 34 ' 30& 2S 13 11 . 14 73 121 55 35 36 2306 170 _63 98 8& 2296 242 ., .S Ic30 . 12S 66 38 \? 10 1 » 40 333 _. 14 12 w Pacific Eco n o m i c a! Inc. Table 7 -23- Population Projections for 1990 (Continued) Grades 0109 0833 Source: Pacific Zconomica, Inc, Arm Pacific Eco n o m i c a, Inc. Total ! Population 1-5 §-8 9-12 41 1043 2 44 37 42 . 1139 7\ . 31 44 4E 0 0 0 47 . 48 43j 36 1\ 13 49 673 33 27 25 SO 1208 ?9 Si 43 3! . 1239 102 52 174 14 7 . 3 E3 233 19 l0 7 - 34 1074 SG 43 40 33 483 40 21 1G 36 1253 103 33 47 37 37 3 2 ± SS 426 39 20 13. _ 39. 175 « 14 7 6 60 133 11 6 3 46 313 . 42 22 19 672 1095 70 42 41 693 742 ZS 40 33 702 1295 107 33 .4G 707 ?S0 78 40 33 708 338 43 24 21 709 224 60 31 27 710 814 67 35 .. 30 711 290 24 12 ii 712 263 123 10 3 3 7±3 133 ±3 7 3 713 7 1 0 0 717 3404 1,30 . 1.4 718 . 4213 347 179 136 719 . 31 3 1 1 720 1333 110 37 49 721 17 1 1 ! 7}3 7 73 80 41 36 724 6 . 0 0 . 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DISTRICT POPULATION 67533 3335 2882 2818 Source: Pacific Zconomica, Inc, Arm Pacific Eco n o m i c a, Inc. -26- 0109 0834 4C 333 _. 14, Pacific Econo mica, Inc. TABLE S._. POPULATION RROgECTIO§S ZGR 12 95 ,= TOTAL GRAPES f POPULATION 1-3 6-3 ?-12 740 5933 473 234 23G 741 974 78 42 37 744 37 32 30 742 243 37S 48 _ 7/44 4 0 0 74s lS33 124 66 32 743 274 63 34 32 147 . 643 S1 28 26 748 385 47 2S 24 74? 2 0 0 0 ZS0 122 10 3 3 732 32 4 2 2 7S2 3 0 0 0 7§3 635 Si 27 26 7S4 ass 7± 38 36 753 !?38 133 g3 78 736 302 40 2± 20 ZS7 754 60 32 30 7S8 S2± 33 33 33 757 3I3 23 I3 13 730 6 74 34 29 2 7 761 34' 762 1040 \\ 43 42 763 !@S 13 S 3 76 4 3 0 0 ) 733 4 75 38 20 17 766 471 39 21 - 20 767 1030 82 44 41 768 1333 109 38 33 22 436 33 17 IS 24 1706 136 73 G7 23 3J3§ 26G 144 133 gg 4S9 37 20 - 30 12GG 103 SS 32 3I 642 31 . 2 7 23 2012 _ te0 86 SI \\ 1244 99 53 30 34 390 31 IS _ .. 175 . SS .z 36 �� 290 136 1A3 38 .,�2 _ .6 .e . 4 0 4C 333 _. 14, Pacific Econo mica, Inc. � -27- Table W Population Projections for 1995 (Continued) 0109 0835 ____________________________________________________________________ TOT"IL DZSTRICT POPULATZON �B83O 6283 3371 ' Source: Pacific 2±onomioa, Inc. Pacific Economica Inc. Grades Total # Po uIatioo I-5 6-8 9-12 41 1O43 83 � 45 42 42 �344 1O7 58 54 45 Z O 0 0 47 373T �O 16 15 48 431 34 18 17 49 809 64 35 3� 5O 131� 51 �642 131 7O 66 52 194 15 8 8 53 429 34 18 17 ' 54 1346 107 58 54 44 24 22 56 1849 147 79 74 C!7 96 8 4 4 58 �29 42 23 21 59 21� 17 9 9 6 40 6 5 46 889 30' 692 5 51 48 693 942 0 0 7O2 1323 11)5 707 1050 84 45 42 708 614 49 26 25 709 996 79 43 40 710 �O52 84 45 42 714 125 �O 5 5 715 164 1J 7 7 O 716 9 1 0 7�7 4439 354 190 178 718 4783 �81 2O5 192 719 40 3 7�0 1424 114 61 57 721 33 3 1 1 ' 7�3 1�15 81 43 41 724 10 ' 1 0 D ____________________________________________________________________ TOT"IL DZSTRICT POPULATZON �B83O 6283 3371 ' Source: Pacific 2±onomioa, Inc. Pacific Economica Inc. + 740 741 742 743 744 74 5 74 6 747 74 8 74? 750 721 782 \}/ 787 758 75 7 76 0 \\\ 76 3 764 76 3 76 3 76 7 768 22 24 2G 30 -�! 33 34 33 36 3G 40 -28- 0109 0836 Pacific Eco no mica, Inc. TABLE 9 POPULATION RRO2ECTIONS EOZ 2000 TOTAL GRAPES POPULATION 1-S ------------------------- 6-S 7-12 ---------- 6929 334 27? 300 1031 80 44 43 786 61 34 34 //\ 45 23 -3 1 0 0 G 141 79 79 1822 884 63 3G 33 646 30 2£ 2S 608 47 _ 26 1 . 0 0 0 113 9 5 . 3 S2 . 4 2 0 0 1 631 49 909 70 37 7 2270 175- 7G }S 4?6 38 - S9 33 33 8 33 -- •37 309 24 1\ I3 663 31 344 2 7 13 IS 1og3 G1 43 4G 14 G 3 134 464 36 20 20 492 3G 21 21 1038 G2 46 �40' 1377 !06 39 60 480 1935 149 G3 G4 2 79 136 136 331? 303 99 22 22 1343 }6 -- —44 -- --. \S1G 38 38 270! 208 116 117 1736 133 66 - 489 21 21 3223249 139 137 3029 234 131 131 4342 333 187 !SG 133 , GZ _013 _ 0 - 32 7 23 14 14 Pacific Eco no mica, Inc. T\ble 9 -29- Population Projections for 2000 �� �� ���� . (Continued) Grades Total + . Poculation 2-5 6-8 .9-12 . 41 1023 72 . 44 42 14?3 113 CID 33 . 4E 4 0 0 a ' 47 4IS 32 13 IS 48 429 33 13 ±7 . ' 42 752 74 .4 41 ` 90 1417 109 -. . 2±40 \2 213 IS 7 7 J3 333 60 33 34 24 1339 125 2- .- cc 000 48 27 22 2672 206 113 t13 33 243 17 10 li 37 3@ 579 43 23 . 23 . . 234 20 I1 ii . \\ . - 10 3 46 1506 116 63 63 622 1232 98 33 33 i . 9,7- 71 40 40 /0} 1328 402 37 37 70 7 1140 SS . 49 49 208 364 31 ; 7\9 1346 104' 38 3 710 1337 103 -` 33 '±\ 363 43 24 24 \!2 383 4S 714 124 10 3 3337 412 230 - - 717 S/ 4 \ ( 720 1476 113 34 aa 64 _ 3 3 . _ }\\ 1032 80 43 33 724 1S 1 1 i ---------------------------------------------- rio L DISTRICT POPULATION 91373 7062 3944 Source: Pacific 3cono=ica, Inc,. Pacific Eco n o m is a, Inc. -30- TABLE 10 AREAS OF HIGHEST AND LOWEST GROWTH Area Annual Growth Rate 1980-2000 (Percent) 744 -26.05 764 -24.79 752 -23.48 749 -22.11 39 -20.26 45 -16.40 750 - 1.85 30 - .88 60 - .69 763 - .61 760 - .40 761 - .24 48 - .12 52 0 41 .005 765 .15 743 .18 759 .28 40 .32 693 .34 Source: Pacific Economical Inc. 0109 0838 Highest 20 Annual Growth Rate Area 1980-2000 (Percent) 57 721 53 724 46 712 35 56 33 711 31 709 32 51 717 710 716 719 34 54 w Pacific Economica, Inc. a 27.12 18.92 16.75 15.55 14.88 11.02 10.83 10.49 4.93 9.19 9.01 8.61 8.41 7.62 7.18 6.95 6.71 6.57 6.57 6.14 -3I- NEED FOR NEW SCHOOLS 0109 0839 This section of the School Site Selection Study includes estimates of the number and type of new schools needed in Administrative School District No. I by the year 2000. It also contains construction timetables and recommendations for the general locations and priority of new schools. The estimates of school needs are based on several factors including: projected enrollments (provided in the previous section); the capacity and life expectancy of existing school buildings; the desired design capacity; and the grade organi- zation for new schools. Changes in any of these factors would affect the number and type of new schools needed in the District. In addition to this brief introduction, this section contains three parts. The first includes a summary of the methodology and factors used to arrive at the estimates. The second part presents the estimates of the number and type of new schools and construction timetables. In the third part we provide recommendations for the general location and sequence of new schools. _ METHODOLOGY in estimating the number and type of schools needed during the next twenty years, we used information contained in the Capital improvement Plan for School Facilities by Amundson Associates and the critique of that plant prepared by District staff. The population and enrollment projections presented in the previous section were.used in place of enrollment information provided in the above two reports. Pacific Economica, Inc. -32- 1 I ' 1: • i� From the staff's critique of the Amundson Plan, we discovered that the maximum enrollment capacity of existing schools, upon completion of current construction programs, would be as follows: Bend Senior High 11100 Jewell Elementary 648 Mt. View Senior High 11100 Juniper Elementary 648 La Pine Senior High 400 Kenwood Elementary 460 Cascade Junior High 800 Kingston Elementary 144 Pilot Butte Junior High 850 Marshall Elementary 120 La Pine Junior High 450 Thompson Elementary 96 Bear Creek Elementary 648 Young Elementary 94 Buckingham Elementary 648 La Pine Elementary 135 These figures were confirmed with District staff. From the Building Survey section of the Capital Improvement Plan for School Facilities we identified those schools determined to have a probable life span of less than twenty years and a low adequacy rating. The schools found to be in this group and their probable life spans are as follows: La Pine Elementary 4.0 years Young Elementary 6.25 years Kingston Elementary 6.25 years Kenwood Elementary 7.5 years Marshall Elementary 8.75 years Thompson Elementary 17.5 years Bend High School 17.5 years Through discussions with District staff, it was decided that the number of new schools built during the next twenty years should be adequate to replace La Pine, Young, Kingston and Marshall Elementaries. Also, we were directed to develop alternative estimates of new building needs based on closing Kenwood and Thompson Elementaries and on retaining those schools through extensive remodeling. With respect to grade organization, it was decided that the current grade structure of elementary - grades 1 through 5, junior high - 6 through 8 and senior high - 9 through 12 should be considered the standard for future schools. The maximum design capacity of new schools was given careful consideration. It was decided that the design capacities Pacific Economica, Inc. -33- 0109 0841 used in the staff's critique of the Amundson Plan should be changed. Generally, the District expressed a desire to build smaller elementaries and junior highs and larger senior highs. It was suggested that future elementaries should accommodate 400 students, junior highs 750 students and senior highs 1,200 students. Uoon further consideration, Pacific Economica proposed that future elementaries have a design capacity of 500 students. That size would allow for a balanced loading of 100 students per grade.' The average class size of a 20 - classroom school would be consistent with Board policy. Also, 500 -student elementaries would mean that the District could acquire fewer sites and build fewer schools than would be necessary if 400 students was the maximum capacity. The enrollment projections which are presented in the previous section are significantly different from those used to prepare earlier estimates of future school needs. At the elementary level our projections are lower by 280 students in 1985 but higher by 260 students in 1995 and 435 students in the year 2000. Our junior high enrollment projections run somewhat lower than those in the Amundson Plan and staff critique. The differ— ence is 370 students in 1990 and approximately 270 students in 1995 and 2000. Our projections for senior high enrollment are considerably lower with the difference ranging from 740 students in 1985 to 1,110 students in the year 2000. Considering all of these factors: projected enrollment growth, existing capacity, the need to replace some schools and the desired maximum design capacity of future buildings, we estimated the number of new schools likely to be needed during the next 20 years. ESTI_MATES OF SCHOOL NEEDS Given a projected increase of 3,800 elementary students, 2,070 junior high students and 1,750'senior high students, and Pacific Economica, Inc, -34- 0109 0842 given the need to close four to six elementary schools, the number of new schools that will be needed in the District is large. Eight or nine elementary schools will be needed depending on whether Kenwood Elementary is closed or remodeled. Two junior highs and one senior high also will be required. The timetables for providing these schools are presented in figures 6-9. The timing of construction is subject to change depending on when the District decides to close those schools with short life spans and low adequacy ratings. Also, the timing of construction may fluctuate depending on the amount of overcrowding the District feels is acceptable or necessary to justify adding new schools. In the elementary timetables, construction of the first new school does not begin until elementary enrollment in the District is 200 students over capacity of existing schools. When that building is complete, the District is expected still to be 200 students over capacity. That situation gradually improves with the construction of additional schools. However, in general, throughout the twenty-year period school construction is not started until the District elementary schools are overcrowded and once new schools are completed, they are filled to capacity. This type of building timetable is conservative but probably has greater chance of gaining financial support. At the secondary level, the timetables are also conservative. Construction of the new junior highs is scheduled to begin when the existing schools in the Bend area are each 200 students over capacity. Upon completion of the schools, they are expected to be full. At the senior high level, construction is scheduled to begin when enrollment exceeds capacity of Bend area schools by 500 students. Two alternative timetables are provided for elementary building needs. Alternative A includes the retention and remodeling of Kenwood and Thompson Elementaries and conse- quently calls for one less new school and a year delay in w Pacific Economica, Inc, -35- 0109 0843 building the last school of the twenty-year period. Alternative B includes the closure of Kenwood in 1991 and the closure of Thompson in 1997 and calls for nine new schools by the year 2000. Pacific Econornica, Inc. O p O O p O O O O Pacific Economica, Inc. 0109 0844 C'+ C C 0 N w O 0 C N 0 U b C B D'+ C x U 0 W 0 C O -4 0 a 0 U 41 .4 U Ca a U a un M M Ln Un w M ' z o -36- U w x 1 a ^ 0 U N W 0 O 0 44 15 O N 44 PO ti 4 O C U C v1 0 w c0 w N ro 0 O U 0 0-4 U 0� 4j 0 0 O U N +J O ro U O N U •4 C w E Ina [ w �0 ro N 0 O Ofa U u 10 0 .-. � O O 0 U O C 0 N . t -4 N `.f. N O 0 rl- ma CN cUC � w w a U U a v 0 0 u rn °o m U N � � I 0 0 cO U U 0 I N •1-1 PC to O I -W E 0^ N a in I .,.I ra 0 C U N b w C O w r0 ro 0 a 1 — O —+ `~ U > 1 t0 1 c0 LI m C r4 I-1 1 O 1 U >r •4 C O (a w C F 1 -W rQ -4 -4 O N (� I o7 —4 ro a4 - N 2 ToCtps i Co U 4 —4 W C O W xqcn r.�suoo 1 1 faro a v E o C •.4 -, o W 1 �O 0 ?4 j a+ 0 1 U � I •.a 't7 � •.i 'C �4 +� 1 M i CO c0 4.+ c0 -4 TOOT40S Co -4W =n sato N I (t U 'C a I to U 0 ?� � Co to i a •.• �o EI I C U U ?e , N a •�+ x � Ln m U U t0 ootps I t` w U gc=ssuoo Ln I F 1 Co I I d• 0 Ln I 1 a 1 F-1 Ln I 1 O M -romps I I I a =SUOO I t 1 I I � I x Tomps 1 F �SU00 I I 1 W Toops I 1 �.c W "•OrLr4saw 1 I N I w Tootps I 4suoo Toorrs O p O O p O O O O Pacific Economica, Inc. 0109 0844 C'+ C C 0 N w O 0 C N 0 U b C B D'+ C x U 0 W 0 C O -4 0 a 0 U 41 .4 U Ca a U a un M M Ln Un w M 0109 0845 aT C O 0 i4 w 0 N C m O r-1 U G m C x U 0 C 0 -4 1J N H C, E 0 U J -r I U Q� I U qw I r; O Co 1 \ r I IN, Ul t N 1 M 0 W 0 Cu 0 -37- 0 0 00 0 0 0 to O 0 W a ^, a 0 w 0 �4 0 0 v 0 ro -«a 0 01-4 0 r -i U 0 N U— a N 0 T3 O U W 'O 0 m 0 0 w 'a N m 0 0 m 0 �4 m 0 m U C E U U U 0-4 0 m b U fa w 4J 0 F m U 'O U w w 0-4 -4 b m 0 0 0 0 0 U iy (a N 0 _ U 0 0 0 U 0 C 0 >, —4 3 x m C cC 0 N W -W 41 U a O U Lf W 0 U 0 m 0 n a � 47 o U .0 c C >•+ N U 0 I U O C o m 0 I •'•t m W N I N 41 0 0^ a m I m -4 r4 CW U m 'a U C O O -► m W I «7 ra 0 - -•t 0 I N 1p C2. •4 m C�4 N U W I m -W Ol 0 ct I > I O I U -4 C —I .0 w O H 'a •4 -W m 0 N I OD (C II m 0 U W Z 1 H U `-' 'a E 0 C 0 �° 41 a r Tootps i �o na >, C E-4 � 'uoo b i I v >. ro Q 1 I U W '� a �•► M ( 00 ca •.i � ••-t I cc I Co C7, U `•' t1 W TOCT405 - I � U G ?� � Ln 4J t� 21[1.Z�-SiS00 t O U H ^7 E -r I I H N m 1W Q, -4 I L n Co U HFn TOos i 1 U a w �..^LLZ"JrSLZ00 I I N t; I ULn 1 1 H U Z I 1 I I C H 1 -1 I I p � I I d• a• �-; sToo JS t11 I I O H CM'} I 1 I p -T=SUOO 1 t I I I t >., T��S01C 4`L E TsZIotps i `: w P,-- I". 0109 0845 aT C O 0 i4 w 0 N C m O r-1 U G m C x U 0 C 0 -4 1J N H C, E 0 U J -r I U Q� I U qw I r; O Co 1 \ r I IN, Ul t N 1 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 O 0 Pacific Econornica, Inc. Ln Co a� O Co ON r-1 W a Ey W E H Co a W Vii C Q � a H � �+ W T rW V H Q H z h -38- I � tno U U4 to 0 4J C G 0 N -4 O 4 —4 iJ 't3 N c� v JJ .4 U «i a U O O Q P'1 q' � I t I I 1 i i i I 0109 0846 0 0 r U N 4-% QI +j I O Ul r` W 0 C 0 —4 b c*f •*�1 U cC U _ p U1 CJ N N O O O O O O Co I >I 1W N 1 U I � I CL I � I U 1 O O ri r-4 N M N L(bTL{ SOTQLZC N 1 Co MALI :=.Z";st= I \ 1 \ I a' I I � 1 l� Co 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O Pacific Economica, Inc, Ul O aN . ki -39- w 0109 084'7 O p .r1 O O +� O O 2J U 1J .r{ U 04 U v N tp U1 Pacific Economica, Inc. 0 O 0 N 0 Q� Ul Co rn 0 Q Q� 4a - J 0109 0848 LOCATION zNND PRIORITY FOR NEW SCHOOLS in the previous section we presented population and enrollment growth projections for small geographic areas within the School District. By geographically disaggregating enrollment projections it is possible to identify the distribution of enrollment growth and thereby identify the most suitable general locations for new schools. The sequence or priority in placing schools in each location is determined through an analysis of the rate of growtl in each small geographic area and the capacity and conditions of schools presently serving the particular area. Recommendations as to general location and priority are described below and are shown on the following maps. Within the next five to six years two elementary schools and one junior high should be constructed. One elementary should be located south of Thompson to serve students in the Thompson and Jewell attendance areas and to allow closure of old Cascade Junior High as an elementary school. The second elementary should be built in La Pine or in the Sun River/Spring River area and the La Pine attendance area adjusted as necessary. Construction of this school will allow the District to close the old La Pine Elementary building. The -junior high should be built southeast of but in proximity to Bend High School. By 1991, another three to four elementaries should:be added. One elementary, the third one recommended in this study, should be located east to northeast of Juniper Elementary. This new school would help to replace Marshall Elementary and relieve enrollment pressure in the Juniper and Buckingham attendance areas. The next elementary should be built in the Kingston attendance area to accommodate projected enrollment growth there and to allow Kingston Elementary to be closed. -Kenwood Elementary should be remodeled or replaced by a new school. The other elementary building constructed during this period should be located either Pacific Economica, Inc. 11 -41- 0109 0849 at La Pine or the Sun River/Spring River area depending on where the earlier new school was placed. Beyond 1991, three new elementaries, one new junior high and one new senior high will be needed. -The first elementary (sixth within this 20 -year plan) should be built in the southeast area of Bend to relieve projected enrollment pressure in the Bear Creek and Buckingham attendance areas. The next elementary should be built west of the Deschutes River and the final elementary building should be constructed in the south area of Bend. The junior high school also should be located in the south Bend area. The senior high should be built west of the River. Over 800 high school students will be living in the west Bend area. Another 330 students from the Thompson and Marshall attendance areas also could attend the new school. The recommended locations for new schools, described above and shown on Figures 10 and 11, are general in nature. The reason for indicating general locations is to provide direction for the review and selection of alternative future school sites. The identification and analysis of alternative sites is contained within the second part of this study, provided under separate cover. Pacific Economica, Inc, -42 - FIGURE 10 RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS FOR NEW SCHOOLS, 0109 0850 BEND URBAN AREA KEY: 0 - New Elementary Q - New Senior High Pacific Economica, Inc. I '0UI `DOIU.�OU003 OIJIODd -�---� 0109 0851 ar m z 0 fo 0 0 u a n 0 x N i I K •• -, • b n �• Z 0 n M r• � (D K fD rt n K 0 0 0 r M�M lJ n 0 3 3 M z xo m IM �v H r zo �> � H C 0zO H 1'rJ F� In o 'a �z n� H E rn n w 0 0 r En 0109 0852 APPENDIX Pacific Economica, Inc. 4 0109 0853 Pacific Economicag Inc. Ui Z 7, r7 N: :Y <: -- - - - - - 77' C. C • C t C, p-, p!i Pacific Economicag Inc. .0109 0854 Pacific Economica, Inc. a4 rn os r-4 N- LU z Cz LLI Li- 1W Z" LL Z � 0 0 0 0 Pacific Economica, Inc. W Mlw— w Pacific Economica, Inc. 0169 0855 CZ ic� 10 Cl- x Z Z tjo z -77 f Aw� 4 Or- r 0 0 0 -4 v- -4 -4 W Mlw— w Pacific Economica, Inc. 14 0109 0856 0 U 04 - Z 0% 71 LA L6 C3 LL N! A LL C T >( rl U Cr U- U. "75 . r-4 04 2z 4— Lj X or.. L .moi ts. yz C', C, 0 C, LLi 43 !r*l C. Zz. E3 5 5 1; 2-- W C X �m ON W X A - .L LLI L Z X XZ-. rz x x a. v Z— ft. on. w Pacific Economica, Inc. 0109 '0857 Arml Pacific Economica, Inc. C-5 Ull 0CC: X x i rn W x ME 1 h, i LA X < W La rn X �w cc XU Cri r7 2 A4,a ME W. X U CL X 0 ?� 0 `4 r7 iz m X 2: N X Cc i- z A 2Ck, r7 Lj V Lt A C C3 ME ME Z: ME !wl; C e-- ME 0 ME -•1 w = C ?-� - -4 A- � < �1 � s ME ME m w ul ME C = = MECDZME il X U-1 q X <: 1—,- Z L- N �-i CL. LL! il. ME LL ME Z LL L- Z rZ 1L Z Z m ME !:L ME i:L L- 7i r r N N 0-01 ATT — — 0 — — -- 4 NC.1 NN NN 0-� N C% F4 Fj wl ry A I A wj mi vi wj ry vi c4 vi v, vi 11 N r" 51 N.- Arml Pacific Economica, Inc. l I 0109 0858 SCHOOL SITE SELECTION STUDY • PART II IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNA'ji IVE SITES FOR NEW SCHOOLS PREPARED FOR ADVIINISTRAI IVE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 pacific Econoirnica, Inc W Salem, Oregon still JANUARY 1981 EXHIBIT 2 TO ADDENDUM J Y 0109 0859 r SCHOOL SITE SELECTION STUDY - PART II IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR NEW SCHOOLS PREPARED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, 1 Prepared by: Pacific Economica, Inc. Economic Research and Consulting Services P,O. Box 93 Salem, Oregon 97308 (503) 362-4946 JANUARY 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Maps Introduction Identification and Analysis of Alternative Sites Methodology Alternative Sites 0109 0860 Page 1 2 3 4 Recommendations for Site Acquisition 33 Bibliography 34 Pacific Economica, Inc. r 0109 0861 LIST OF PAPS ` Page Map 1 Alternative Sites for Elementary School i South of Thompson Elementary 8 Map 2 Alternative Sites for Junior High School i Southeast of Bend High School 11 Map 3 Alternative Sites for Elementary School Northeast of Juniper Elementary 16 1 _ Map 4 Alternative Sites for Elementary School i in Kingston Attendance Area 18 Map 5 Alternative Sites for Elementary School West of Deschutes River 20 Map 6 Alternative Sites for Elementary School in Southeast Area of Bend 23 -' I Map 7 Alternative Sites for Senior High School West of Deschutes River 25 Map 8 Alternative Sites for Junior High School in South Area of Bend 28 Map 9 Alternative Sites for Elementary School I I in South Area of Bend 32 i i i Pacific Econornica, Inc. 0109 0862 INTRODUCTION This is the second part of a two-part School Site Selection Study conducted for Administrative School District No. 1 by Pacific Economica, Inc. It contains an identification and analysis of alternative sites for future schools in the District. In Part I of the Study, we presented population and enroll- ment growth projections for small geographic areas within the School District. Based on an analysis of the rate of growth in each area and the capacity and condition of schools presently serving the various areas, we identified the number and type of additional schools needed by the year 2000. We also recommended the general location and priority for each new school. In this second part of the Study, we identify and analyze parcels of land which can serve as future school sites, consis- tent with the number, type and general location of new schools recommended in Part I. In addition to this introduction, the report is presented in two sections. The first section includes a discussion of the methodology used to identify and analyze alternative sites and a description of the best alternatives. Location of the alternative sites are shown on enclosed maps. The second section contains recommendations for acquisition of future school sites. M. AMR Pacific Economica, Inc. -2 - 0109 0863 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES Prior to beginning the task of identifying parcels of land suitable for sites for future schools, we met with District staff to determine the criteria that should guide site selection. With respect to the size of school sites, it was decided that the minimum size should be as follows: Elementary - 15 acres Junior High - 25 acres Senior High - 40 acres Regarding the location of future sites, it was agreed that the following criteria should be used to the maximum extent possible. General 1. The selection of school sites will be a cooperative effort with local planning officials and governmental agencies. To the maximum extent possible, selected sites will be consistent with population patterns and projections, development trends, comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances. 2. In evaluating potential school sites, preference will be given to those sites that have the following characteristics: a. good (easy) access to the student population to be served; b. the ground is relatively level but well drained, capable of supporting the necessary structures and not susceptible to any natural hazards; C. there are no serious distractions to study or class- room activity (highways, industry, etc.); d. the site is within an area of planned or existing public services/utilities (unless intended to serve only rural areas); e. the site is within the urban growth boundary if it is to'serve the Bend area or within a rural service center if it is to serve a rural area; and, f. the site has potential for joint development and use for both school and recreational activities. M. Pacific Economica, Inc. -3 - Elementary School Sites 0109 0864 1. Sites should be located in the center of existing or future residential neighborhoods within safe and reasonable walking distance of as many students as possible. 2. Schools should be located in such a way that their attegand areas will be bounded, rather than intersected, by barr presenting obstacles or dangers to children walking to from school. Such barriers include major streets and hways, railroads, waterways and heavy industrial areas. 3. Each site location should, whenever possible, be on restial streets which provide sufficient access for buses other necessary traffic but have a minimum of non-schoo related vehicle activity. Secondary School Sites 1. The locations should have adequate, safe and direct access from the community's principal street network. 2. Good site characteristics should be more important than a location which is geographically central to the population served. METHODOLOGY The first step in the process of identifying possible sites for future schools was to learn what property the School District owned that was not in use for schools or other District facilities. This task was greatly simplified by the property inventory pre- pared by Austin and Associates. Through discussions with District staff, we also identified the property the District had expressed an interest in or is in the process of acquiring. In order to identify all vacant parcels of land in the Bend area that satisfied the minimum size criterion for schools, we used the City of Bend's Comprehensive Plan inventory of vacant and uncommitted lands. We also used other Plan inventory infor- mation to determine the access and water and sewer service conditions for each vacant uncommitted parcel meeting size minimums. Finally, the inventory data was examined to identify any potential conflicts between school use of the properties and the existing or planned land uses and roads on or near the Pacific Economica, Inc, -4- 0109 0865 properties. As a result of this investigation, we identified some 47 parcels of land in the Bend area that appeared to have potential for school use. The next step in the site selection process was to evaluate each parcel of land as to its consistency with the general loca- tions of future schools recommended in Part I of this Study and with the criteria listed above. Vacant property which the School District already owned or was in the process of acquiring also was evaluated as to consistency with recommended locations of futu're schools and the criteria. For each parcel determined to be in a good location to serve projected needs, we obtained from the County Tax Assessor's records a legal description, name of owner(s) and exact size. Each parcel of land was physically examined and re-evaluated as to its topography, access, adjacent uses, environment and proximity to sewer and water services. The properties were identified on a map and reviewed with the School District's transportation supervisor and with Bend's planner to determine whether or not the sites had unforeseen problems regarding school bus services and land use planning. After that review, we selected the best alternative sites for each new school recom- mended in Part I of the Study. The alternative sites are described and shown on maps in the following section. ALTERNATIVE SITES For each new school recommended in Part I of this Study, we attempted to identify at least three alternative sites. However, that was not always possible due to a lack of suitable vacant property. Also, in some cases, we listed parcels of land as alternative sites for more than one of the needed future schools. This was done primarily in those areas where more than one type of school (elementary and secondary) were recommended and property of adequate size for secondary school use was found. wr Pacific Economica, Inc. -5- 0109 0866 It should be noted that no alternative sites are identified for the future elementary schools recommended for the Sunriver and La Pine areas. The School District currently is negotiating with Sunriver Development Corporation for an elementary site within that community. In La Pine, it is our conclusion that the new elementary should replace the existing elementary structures and be located on the existing site or on property owned or leased by the School District adjacent to the existing site. This section is organized by the school needs and priorities set forth in Part I of the Study. Each needed school is iden- tified by type and general location in the priority order recommended in Part I. That is followed by a description of each alternative site which includes the legal description, size and ownership, location, plan and zone designation and analysis. An area map showing the location of the alternative sites for each school follows the narrative. Pacific Economica, Inc, -6- 0109 086'7 1) Elementary school south of Thompson Elementary to replace school use of the District Administration Building (Old Cascade Junior High) and to accommodate projected enrollment increases in the Thompson and Jewell attendance areas. Alternative Site - Az L,� --d/8/d 0S- C J - O3100 Legal Description: SE < of SW 4 of Section 5, T18S, R12W; Tax Lot 3000. Size and Ownership: 16.85 acres; Albert K. Walker etux. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside but adjacent to City Limits; approxi- mately 2 to 2;J miles from Thompson, Bear Creek and Jewell Elementaries; on Blakley Rd. Planned Use/Zone: Multiple -family residential. Analysis: The location of the site and access to it are very good. Pilot Butte Canal Most 0�407L forms one line of the property. of the site lies behind four houses fronting on Blakley Road. City sewer and water services are available. The site may be more expensive to acquire than the other two alternatives due to the higher density residential zone but water and sewer services would be less expensive. Also location and access are better than the other alternative sites. Alternative Site - B DaOC Legal Description: SE 34 of NE 4 of Sec.7, T18S, _R12�?, Tax Lot 800. Size and Ownership: 30 acres (portion of property north of canal); x.0.1 Central Oregon Irrigation., Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary;- outside City G/s�9SakaLc� Limits; approximately 2 miles from Thompson as Elementary and 1-� miles from Jewell Elemen- tary; at the end of Willis Ave. west of Blakley Road. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: Eastern portion of property lying north of the Central Oregon Canal has best terrain. -ad'L' :u - Access is by McClellan Road, West of Blakley Road through new subdivision. Alternative access may be needed but options would be �t P -9,02 limited due to Canal. It is within the water and sewer service boundaries but District would have to pay for extension of lines. Pacific Economica, Inc. Alternative Site - C Legal Description: -7 - is��o�- oo-oioo� 9. jfo- 00/60 NW , of SW ;� of Sec. 8, T18S, R12W; Tax Lot 100 and NE 4 of SE P. of Section 7, T18S, R12W; Tax Lot 1000. Size and Ownership: 46.65 acres; James Sachtjen. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately 2 miles from Thompson Elementary and 1-iF miles from Jewell Elemen- tary; at the end of Powers Road west of Blakley Road. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: Portions of the property have difficult terrain but there exists adequate, suit- able area for an elementary school. Access is limited, now, but Powers Road and the private gravel road adjacent to the pro- perty are planned for improvement to col- lector and arterial status respectively. The site lies within the water and sewer service boundaries but the School District would have to pay for extension of lines. The property is for sale and is listed by Steve Scott and Co. Realtors. 7 tt Pacific Economica, Inc. -a- 0109 0869 MAP I - ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH OF THOMPSON ELEMENTARY 300 0 1000 2000 Fear pesch��s River I=A HAYES AVE. P� � GP OREGON Q �O / 0 CHASE ROAD Z W J Y a �- 3Q m o �P y� Q � r Pacific Economica, Inc, W. 0109 08'70 2) Junior High School Southeast of but in Proximity to Bend High School to accommodate projected enrollment increases at the Junior High level. Alternative Site - A Legal Description: NW o of SW a of Section 2, T13S, R12W; Terrain and access are good. However, the site is outside the primary enrollment area to be served and is too far from Bend High School to realize school bus transporta- tion efficiencies. It is outside the City's present and planned service areas. The District would realize additional costs in providing its own services. Part I of the Site Selection Study included a recommendation for location of a new junior high in the southeast area to accommodate wi Pacific Economica, Inc. Tax Lot 800. Size and Ownership: 29.65 a.cres; Ricardo Artera. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately V4- miles from Bend High School and 3 miles from Pilot Butte Junior High; on Arnold Market Road. Planned Use/Zone: Low density residential. Analysis: The property is "L" shaped and flat with two lateral canals crossing it.. Access is good. However, it is further from Bend High School than is desired for serving the enrollment area and for school bus efficiency. It is some distance out- side the City's water and sewer service areas so the District would incur additional costs in providing its own services. Alternative Site - B Legal Description: NW 4 of Section 110, T18S, R12W. Size and Ownership: 160 acres; U.S. Government (BLM). Location: Outside Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits; approximately 2-� miles from Bend High School and 3-44- miles from Pilot Butte Junior High; on the corner of Arnold Market Road and Stevens Road. Planned Use/Zone: Agriculture, EFU-40. Analysis: The School District has been working with BLM to acquire this property for an agri- cultural lab. Terrain and access are good. However, the site is outside the primary enrollment area to be served and is too far from Bend High School to realize school bus transporta- tion efficiencies. It is outside the City's present and planned service areas. The District would realize additional costs in providing its own services. Part I of the Site Selection Study included a recommendation for location of a new junior high in the southeast area to accommodate wi Pacific Economica, Inc. _10- 0109 0871 projected growth in enrollment in that area. Another reason for that recommendation was to locate junior highs near senior .high schools so as to realize greater efficiency in use of school buses and to have consistent attendance areas. Because only two possible sites were found for a junior high in the south- east area and both of those are on the periphery of the atten- dance area to be served and are some distance from Bend High School, the District should consider the following option. Instead of locating the new junior high in the Southeast area; place a junior high near Mountain View High School on one of the alternative sites identified for the new elementary in that area (see 4 below). The new junior high would serve enrol- lment in the north-northeast area. The attendance area for Pilot Butte Junior High would be shifted to the south and south- east. This option would accomplish the objectives of accommodat- ing projected increases in enrollment and locating junior highs near senior highs to simplify bus transportation and share atten- dance areas. The option would also provide the District with a better choice of sites. aw Pacific Econornica, Inc. 0100 0872 MAP 2- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SOUTHEAST OF BEND HIGH SCHOOL M. wr Pacific Economica, Inc. 0 1000 2000Feet O , O i//ii V �P W O F�- W a � 3 � G� STEVENS ROAD M. wr Pacific Economica, Inc. ` -12- 0109 08'73 3) Elementary School in La Pine or the Sunriver/Spring River Area to replace the old La Pine Elementary building and to accommo- date enrollment growth in those areas. Alternative Site - A The School District currently is negotiating with the Sun - river Development Corporation to acquire an identified 15 acre site for an elementary school. Alternative Site - B The School District owns and leases some 73.8 acres for use for the La Pine Elementary, Junior High and Senior High. This property is considered adequate for all three schools. The j new elementary could be located on the property with removal of the existing school building and other site adjustments. The other adjustments may include vacation of the street be- tween the elementary and junior high sites; construction of a second entry to the junior high from the high school road and relocating bus parking to the junior high site. MIM Pacific Economica, Inc. Pacific Economica, Inc. -13- 0109 0874 _ 4) Elementary School East to Northeast of Juniper Elementary to allow replacement of Marshall Elementary and to relieve projected enrollment pressure on Juniper and Buckingham Elementaries. Alternative Site - A Legal Description: SE 4 of NW 4 of Section 27, T17S, R12W; Tax Lot 700. Size and Ownership: 15 acres; Lawrence Gassiner. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits; approximately lz miles from Juniper Elementary; off of 'dells Acres Road. Planned Use/Zone: Single -family residential. Analysis: The School District presently leases this property for an agricultural lab. The property is in an excellent location, central to the area of projected enroll- ment growth. Access to the site from Wells Acres Road will need to be improved. An older home and farm builings are sit- uated on the property. The City's sewage treatment plant is nearby but is not con- sidered to represent a conflict. Vacant city and private property lie adjacent to the site. City sewer and water service are available. Alternative Site - B Legal Description: SW J of NW 4 of Section 26, T17S, R12W; Tax Lot 507. Size and Ownership: 17.16 acres; Patrick J. Metke. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside but adjacent to City limits; approximately 12 miles from Juniper and Buckingham Elemen- taries; on Denser Road across from Moun- tain View High School. Planned Use/Zone: Single -family residential. Analysis: Although the site is well located with respect to the Juniper and Buckingham attendance areas, the fact that it is on Denser Road, a major arterial, and close to the high school is a disad- vantage. Sewer and water lines are nearby. Pacific Economica, Inc. Pacific Economica, Inc. -14- 0109 0875 ' Alternative Site - C Legal Description: SE 4 of SE 4 of Sec. 22, T17S,'Rl2W; Tax Lot 2200. Size and Ownership: 28.45 acres; Floyd Holt Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside but adjacent to City Limits; approximately 2 miles from Juniper Elementary and near Mountain View High School; on the corner of Denser and Butler Market Roads. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: The property has hilly topography but appears suitable for a school site. Access to the site is very good. How- ever, the location at the intersection of two arterial streets may make the site less desirable for an elementary school. Use of the site for a junior high as suggested in the option dis- cussed above is possible. City sewer and water service lines are at some distance from the site. Costs to ex- tend those lines to the property would be significant. Alternative Site - D Legal Description: NE 4 of SW 4 of Sec. 23, T17S, R12W; Tax Lot 1400. Size and Ownership: 38.43 acres; Nolan W. Turner Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately 14 miles from Buckingham Elementary, 24 miles from Juniper Elementary and 3/4 mile from Mountain View High School; on southwest corner of Butler Market Road and Eagles Road. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: The property is presently in farm use and has a home and farm building on it. There is adequate area for both an elementary and junior high. Access is good. City water and sewer services could be ex- tended to the site at substantial cost to the District. Alternative Site - E Legal Description: SE 4 of SW 4 of Sec. 26, T17S, R12W; Tax Lot 800 Pacific Economica, Inc. -15- Pacific Economica, Inc. 0109 0876 Size and Ownership: 38.77 acres; Robert Foley Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside but adjacent to the City Limits; approximately 1 mile from Buckingham Elementary, 1-1-4 miles from Juniper Elementary and 1 mile from Mountain View High School; on Neff Road. Planned Use/Zone: Single -family residential. Analysis: There is adequate area for both an ele- mentary and junior high. However, the site is located relatively close to both Juniper and Buckingham Elementaries and therefore would likely cause some dif- ficulties in arranging attendance areas. Also, the location is close to Pilot Butte Junior High and would have the same dis- advantage for junior high use. City water is available at the site and a sewer line is a short distance away. Pacific Economica, Inc. -16- MAP 3- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTHEAST OF JUNIPER ELEMENTARY 0109 0877 Pacific Economica, Inc. -16- 0109 0878 MAP 3— ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTHEAST OF JUNIPER ELEMENTARY W. Aml Pacific Economica, Inc. UNIT MNN CANALROAD O 1000 2000 Feet R oo� Z 4 a ...//// 0 W >' MARKET o a ac 0 y W J Q W /,r i^ B a NEFF ROAD W. Aml Pacific Economica, Inc. -17- 0109 0879 5) Elementary School in the Kingston Elementary Attendance Area to accommodate projected enrollment growth and to allow King- ston Elementary to be closed. Alternative Site - A Legal Description: NE ii of NE J of Sec. 1, T18S, R11W; Tax Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: The eastern half of the property has suitable topography for an elementary. The western portion is steep hillside of Overturf Butte. Access streets need improvement. Sewer and water services are at the site. Pacific Economica, Inc. Lot 100R1 Size and Ownership: 40 acres (portion of Section 1 in one ownership); Leonard Lundgren Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside but adjacent to City Limits; approximately 2 miles from Kenwood Elementary and 1iF miles from Cascade Junior High; � mile west of Century Drive at the end of Knoll Avenue. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: The property is the northeast corner of a 640 acre parcel of flat, open ground. It lies just southwest of Overturf Butte which is planned to be a park. A plan- ned arterial street will provide addi- tional access to the west of the site. Present access is on a residential street through a new subdivision abutting the property to the east. City sewer and water service is at the property line. Alternative Site - B Legal Description: SE 4 of SW 4 of Sec. 31, T17S, R12W; Tax Lots 500 and 501 Size and Ownership: 40 acres; Miller Ranch Co. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits; approximately 1 mile from Kenwood Elementary and Cascade Junior High; off 15th Street. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: The eastern half of the property has suitable topography for an elementary. The western portion is steep hillside of Overturf Butte. Access streets need improvement. Sewer and water services are at the site. Pacific Economica, Inc. -18- 1 MAP 4- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN KINGSTON ATTENDANCE AREA NEWPORT AVE. u u u u a000O❑ �� 00Li0�0 aao0��00 si its F-7 Eol f nx���� ❑❑ao 0000a��� ........... :............ ............ pestes 0 ... 2000FOW A C'el wr Pacific Economica, Inc. -19- 0109 0881 6) Elementary School West of the Deschutes River to replace Kenwood Elementary (optional). Alternative Site - A Legal Description: SW 4 of NW , of Sec. 31, T17S, R12W; swi Pacific Economica, Inc. Tax Lot 200. Size and Ownership: 33.55 acres; A. E. Schuman Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits; approximately 3/4 mile from Kenwood Elementary; at the end of Knoxville Boulevard off Newport Avenue. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: Much of the site is in steep terrain, but a part adequate for an elementary school is situated on a relatively flat plateau. Access would need to be im- proved. Sewer and water services are at the property line. Alternative Site - B Legal Description: SW 4 of SE A, of Sec. 24, T17S, R11W; Tax Lot 800R1. Size and Ownership: 39.15 acres; Brooks Resources. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits; approximately 24 miles from Ken- wood Elementary; on College Way. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: This one of several possible sites for a school in the land area around Awbrey Butte, owned and planned for development by Brooks Resources. This particular site is relatively flat. Current access is along College Way. However, the City plans to build a col- lector and arterial streets near the site. Sewer and water services are as close as the College, -� mile distance. However, with development of the area by Brooks Resources, sewer and water services should be more readily available. swi Pacific Economica, Inc. -20- 0109 0882 MAP 5- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WEST OF DESCHUTES RIVER VI -21- 0109 0883 7) Elementary School at La Pine or Sunriver/Spring River Area to replace the old La Pine Elementary building and to ac- commodate projected growth in enrollment in those areas. Alternative Sites The location of this elementary will depend on where the elementary school recommended as number 3, above, is placed. See the discussion under number 3 for description of alterna- tive sites. ORMIN Pacific Economica, Inc. -22- 0109 0884 8) Elementary School in the Southeast Area of Bend to relieve projected enrollment pressure in the Bear Creek and Bucking- ham attendance areas. Alternative Site - A Legal Description: W '- of NE 4 of Sec. 3, T18S, R12W; Tax Lots 300 and 1900. Size and Ownership: 16.17 acres; Ronald A. Towell Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately li mile from Bear Creek Elementary; on Pettigrew Road. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: This is an "L" shaped property with flat terrain. It has good access. The close- ness to Bear Creek Elementary should not be a problem with respect to attendance areas by the time the new school is built. It is within the City's sewer and water service areas and lines should be to the property when needed for the school. Alternative Site - B (See Alternative Site - A under number 2 above. If it is not needed for a new junior high, it should be considered as an alternative site for this new elementary.) M. Pacific Economica, Inc. -23- 0100 0885 MAP 6- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SOUTHEAST AREA OF BEND nUS. N0. 20 ROAD __8EARCREEK 8-A % F- uj Y W cc G` O H H W p � J cc Q �G 0 REED MARKET ROAD STEVENS ROAD 0 1000 2000 Feet Itlmll Pacific Econornica, Inc. -24- 0109 0886 9) Senior High School West of the Deschutes River to serve projected high school enrollment in the Bend area west of the river. Alternative - A Legal Description: SE 4 of Sec. 1, T18S, R11W; Tax Lot 100R1. Size and Ownership: 40 acres (portion of 640 acres in single ownership); Leonard Lundgren. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately l4 miles from Cascade Junior High by road; west of Century Drive on a private road. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: This site is a portion of a large pro- perty that is flat and open. The exact location of a 40 acre site could be nego- tiated with the property owner. The owner has indicated to the City Planner that he would dedicate land for a school as part of his development plans. No plans have been submitted. Access to'the site is off Century Drive along a private road. However, the area transportation plan includes construction of an arterial near the site. Sewer and water service lines are as close as Century Drive, 3/4 mile from the property. Alternative Site - B Legal Description: SE ;J of Section 1, T18S, R11W; Tax Lot 100R1. Size and Ownership: 40 acres (portion of 640 acres -in single ownership); Leonard Lundgren. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately 1;� miles from Cascade Junior High by road, 44- mile by direct cross country route; west of Centry Drive on a private road. Planned Use/Zone: Single-family residential. Analysis: The property is similar to that described as Alternative Site - A. As indicated above other sites could be identified within this ownership. The location of this site and "A" are closest to Cascade Junior High. Direct access from this site to the junior high is possible. The site also lies adjacent to public park land. Pacific Economica, Inc. -25— 0109 0887 MAP 7- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL WEST OF DESCHUTES RIVER t 0 1000 2000SW Dom' cENrRpI. Pacific Economica, Inc. -26- 10) Junior High School in the South Bend Area to accommodate projected enrollment increases. Alternative Site - A Legal Description: W ' of Section 14, T18S, R12W; Tax Lot 101. Size and Ownership: 37.3 acres; Administrative School Dis- trict No. 1. Location: Outside the "inner" Urban Growth Boundary but inside the "outer" Boundary; outside the City Limits; approximately 4 miles from Bend High School and 3J miles from Jewell Elementary; on Arnold Market Road. Planned Use/Zone: Public Analysis: Since this site is owned by the District and in a good location for the second new junior high, it is the best choice. It is outside the City's planned service area and therefore the District would likely have to develop its own water supply and sewage treatment facilities. Alternative Site - B Legal Description: NW 4 of SW 4 of Section 15, T18S, R12W; Tax Lot 1400. Size and Ownership: 25 acres (portion of 80 acres in single ownership); Paul H. Buchanan. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately 3 miles from Bend High School and 12 miles from Jewell Ele- mentary; on Tekampe Road. Planned Use/Zone: Low density residential. Analysis: This property; as well as property to the north and west of it, owned by the Ward family , is suitable for a junior high. Specific location of a site could be negotiated with property owner. Access is good in that Tekampe Road will be improved to arterial status and other planned road construction in the area will help circulation. The property is outside the City's sewer service area but the Ward family plans to develop its own treatment system to serve the general area. Pacific Economica, Inc. -27 0109 0889 Alternative Site - C Legal Description: SW 4 of SW if of Sec. 15, T18S, R12W; wr Pacific Economica, Inc. Tax Lot 1500. Size and Ownership: 40 acres; Ward. Location: Outside "inner" Urban Growth Boundary but inside "outer" Boundary; outside City limits; approximately 3;j miles from Bend High School and 12 miles from Jewell Elementary; on Tekampe Road. Planned Use/Zone: Low density residential. Analysis: The School District has expressed an interest in this property as a possible trade for a 15 acre site now owned by the District on Murphy Road. The property is similar to Alternative Site - B. It is located at the intersec- tion of two planned arterial streets which may make it less desirable for a junior high. It is outside the City's service area but possibly could receive some services from the Ward family development. wr Pacific Economica, Inc. -28 - MAP S- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN SOUTH AREA OF BEND 0 1000 2000 Fest Owl t Pacific Economica, Inc. FERGURSON ROAD 0 a 0 W / ..1/ //; ////: MURPHY ROAO 0 1000 2000 Fest Owl t Pacific Economica, Inc. -29- 0109 0891 11) Elementary School West of the Deschutes River to accommodate projected enrollment growth in that area. Alternative Sites Property described under number 6 above should be considered as possible sites for this new elementary. If Brooks Resources goes ahead with the Awbrey Butte development, the site for the elementary should be located on land within that development area. Pacific Economica, Inc.. -30- P E - Elementary School in the South Area of Bend to provide space for projected enrollment increases in that area. Alternative Site - A 0109 0892 Legal Description: Soni ;f of NE 4 of Sec. la, T18S, R12W; Tax Lot 600. Size and Ownership: 40 acres; Sylvia Giustina Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside . 2 c a City Limits; approximately 2 miles /a�fi�, ` from Jewell Elementary; on Mahogany (� Street. ` Planned Use/Zone: Low density residential. - Analysis: At present access is only fair. However, �7' planned transportation improvements in- t�`r.%�u� elude a collector street through the 7-;, �: �%_ =/CDje property connecting to an arterial street �� to the north. The property is outside the City's sewer service area so on site disposal may be necessary. Alternative Site - B /8i 10 -7 - 0 6 -laoo Legal Description: SE 4 of SE 4 of Sec.7, T18S, R12W; Tax Lot 1200. Size and Ownership: 23.2 acres; Elroy Prosch. Location: Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside o _ City Limits; approximately 1� miles from Jewell Elementary; on a private road (Porkipine Road) west of Highway 97. Planned Use/Zone: Low density residential. Analysis: This property.is only a mile from the E_ / northernmost alternative site for the �e�z2G✓ lGzecL- first new elementary school (number 1 _ above). However, by the year 2000 when this school is estimated to be needed,. U there may be sufficient population to justify two elementaries that close together. Present access to the site is limited, but the area transportation plan calls for conversion of the pri- vate road to an arterial with better connections to other streets. The site is outside the City's sewer service area so the District may be required to pro- vide on-site disposal. 001 Pacific Economica, Inc. Alternative Site - C Legal Description: Size and Ownership: Location: Planned Use/Zone: Analysis: IF /d o _ 1, Cco a.�!%q jam` 07N,•:i ' Cs - 1 10 D -31- ,\IJ ,— / ILI/ ' 0109 0893 W -J of SW J of Sec.8, T18S, R12W; Tax Lots 500 and 501. 16.51 acres; Charles K. Deeks Within Urban Growth Boundary; outside City Limits; approximately 14 miles from Jewell Elementary; west of Highway 97 on Badger Road. High density residential. The site is close to the alternative sites listed for the first new ele- mentary school (number 1 above). The fact that it is planned for high density residential use would probably make it more expensive to acquire. Access is good. The property is within the City's sewer service area and adjacent to pro- posed water storage. Both services should be available at time of develop- ment for school use. The order in which the alternative sites are listed for each school is generally the order of recommended preference. However, each site is considered to be suitable for school use. k The owner's willingness to sell and the asking price may well ! affect the order of site preference. Vacant properties currently owned by the District that are not listed as an alternative site for one of the recommended new schools are considered to be. in poor locations with respect to projected enrollment growth. The School District should consider using those properties as trading stock for new sites. Pacific EconomicatInc. -32- 0109 0894 MAP 9- ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SOUTH AREA OF BEND MAHOGANY 0 1000 2000 Feet ST Aml wr Pacific Economica, Inc. � � f -33- 0109 0895 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE ACQUISITION Both the Bend Area General Plan and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan contain planning policies supporting the timely acquisition of sites for new schools. Bend's plan- ning -policy states that the City may "require major new develop- ments to reserve land for school purposes." The County's plan- ning policies state that "the County shall require dedication of adequate land for new schools required to meet the need generated by major new developments." "In addition, the County shall consider designating appropriate County land for school sites." Since the City and County are willing to provide this strong support and assistance, it is important that the School District make them aware of its site needs as soon as possible. Therefore, it is recommended that the District provide copies of the Site Selection Study to the City and County Planning Officials and request that they implement their planning policies accordingly. In addition, it is strongly recommended that the School District proceed quickly to evaluate this report and take action to acquire desired sites. This should be done, now, while alter- native sites are available and the development pressure and land costs are less. Pacific Economica, Inc. y -34- I : 0109 0896 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bend Area General Plan, City of Bend, (Draft), 1980 2. Bend Metro Park•& Recreation District Comprehensive Plan, 1980 3. Capital Improvement Plan for School Facilities, prepared for Administrative School District Number One, Bend, Oregon, by the Amundson Associates, September, 1979. 4. "Critique of Capital Improvement Plan for School Facilities by Amundson Associates", memorandum to Long -Range Planning Committee from Dennis Douglass, Administrative School District No.l, undated. 5. Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, October, 1979. 6. Property Record, Administrative School District No.l, prepared by Austin and Associates, 1980 wr Pacific Economica, Inc. SITE ACQUISITION 0109 0897 If the school district pursues an aggressive facilities construction program as is should, it will need to pursue site acquisition aggressively also. Exhibit 8 p. 51 (Unimproved acres owned by the school district- as istrictas of January 1989) identifies the sites the dis.crict now owns and available for development. The committee recommends the site size for elementary schools should be a minimum of 15 acres, Junior High sites be 30 acres and High School sires be 40 acres. The selection of school sites should be a cooperative effort with local planning officials and governmental agencies. To the maximum extent possible, selected sites will be consistent with population patterns and projections, development trends, comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances. In evaluating potential school sites, preference should be given to chose sites chat have the following characteristics: 1. the ground is relatively level buc well drained, capable of supporting the necessary structures and not susceptible to any natural hazards; 2. the site is within an area of planned or existing public services/ utilities (unless intended to serve only rural areas); 3. the site is within the urban growth boundary if is is to serve the Bend area or within a rural service center if it is co serve a rural area; 4. the site has potential for joint development and use for both school and recreational activities; 5. elementary sites should be located in the center of existing or future. residential neighborhoods within safe and reasonable walking distance of as many students as possible; 6. elementary schools should be located in such a way that their attendance areas will be bounded, rather than intersected, by barriers presenting obstacles or dangers to children walking to and from school. Such barriers include major streets and highways, railroads; waterways and heavy industrial areas; EXHIBIT 3 TO ADDENDUM 48 ,1A 0109 0898 7. elementary site location should, whenever possible, be on residential streets which provide sufficient access for buses and ocher necessary traffic but have a minimum of non—school related vehicle activity; 8. secondary school sites should have adequate, safe and direct access from the community's principal street network; and, 9. good secondary school site characteristics should be more imporcanc than a location which is geographically central to the population served. Boch the Bend Area General Plan and the Deschutes County Year. 2000 _ Comprehensive Plan contain planning policies supporting the timely acquisition of sites for new schools. Bend's planning policy states that the City may "require major new developments to reserve land for school purposes." The County's planning policies state that "the County shall require dedication of adequate land for new schools required to meet the need generated by major new developments." "In addition, the County shall consider designating appropriate County land for school sites." Since the City and County are willing to provide this strong support and assistance, it is important that the School District make them aware of its site needs as soon as possible. Following is the direct quote from the "Final Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan" Page 96: Schools 23. In light of existing problems with providing school facilities all new developments shall be reviewed for its impact on the schools. Subscantia1 expansion of school bus routes shall be discouraged, and the County shall require the dedication of adequate land for new schools required to meet the needs generated by major new developments. In addition, the County shall consider designating appropriate County lands for school sites. 24. Plans for schools shall consider the policies within the Oregon State Standards: Elementary Schools Intermediate Schools Senior High Schools Enrollment 550 800 1300 49 Minimum Site (acres) 10 20 30 0109 0899 25. School districts shall cooperate with ocher affected agencies for efficient construction of recreation facilities (i.e., bike paths) and other public facilities. 26. School district boundaries should be regularly reviewed to best serve County residents. The committee recommends that an individual employed by the district be appointed to work aggressively with the City and County officials to assure continuity and enthusiasm for the City and County's support and assistance. The committee recommends that the operating budget should have a land acquisition fund established. The committee also recommends reestablishment of a computerized geographically disaggregated school population zone map (see exhibit C p. 52) for the purpose of monitoring student population density, estab— lishing boundary changes and determining site selection. 50 01®9 0900 Exhibit B ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY, BEND,. ORECO N 97701 UNIMPROVED ACRES OWNED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS OF JANUARY 1989 - Acreage North of Mt. View High 10.00 Acres Hunters Circle 40.00 Acres Neff Road 40.00 Acresf Shevlin Road 36.00 Acres Sunriver 15.00 Acres Troy Field 00.90 Acres 15.00 Acres Ward Property 27th Avenue 37.33 Acres TOTAL 194.23 Acres LEASED Stevens Road 51 27.4 Acres 0109 0901 SITES AND FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE Terry Angle, Engineer Ron Barber, Architect Tom Carroll, Economics Professor Craig Coyner III, Attorney Don Gamble, Retired Superintendent of Facilities Norman Hale, Patron Helen Halligan, Realtor Jan LaChapelle, School Board Member Brian Lauchlan, Principal Bill Olsen, Trust Officer Rick Plants, Secondary Teacher John Rexford, Auxiliary Services Manager Glyndon Scott, County Code Enforcement Officer Judy Stiegler, School Board Member Ruth Wahl, County Planner Barbara Wulf, Census Worlaer EXHIBIT 4 TO ADDENDUM h 0109 0902 NEW SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT Based on current enrollment patterns, existing facilities and sites, and projected enrollment, the committee is recommending the following construction package for placement on a bond issue for election in the fall of .1990. This proposal is sized to relieve current overcrowding conditions and to accommodate projected enrollment growths for the period of construction required to build these projects. It is anticipated that each of the new facilities will be filled to near design capacity in the first year of operation, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The following new development is proposed: 1. Elementary School Ay design capacity of 600, grades K-5, located in south Bend, west of Highway 97. 2. Elementary School B, design capacity of 600, grades K-5, located in northeast Bend on existing district property near Cooley Road. 3. Primary School C, design capacity of 350, grades K-3and Junior Primary, located in La Pine on existing school site. This site should be designed to expand to house grades K-5. 4. Junior High School D, design capacity of 1000, grades 6-8, located in southeast Bend at existing district property on 27th Avenue. An estimate of costs related to these projects can be found in Appendix P. The package outlined above does not include any proposed projects at existing sites. These have been analyzed by the committee for inclusion in the bond issue (Appendix D). The projects targeted for existing schools will be designed to correct deferred maintenance and maximize use of each site. Included in the list of projects for existing sites is the renovation of Marshall Elementary into an alternative education site following the construction of the new Bend area elementary schools. The committee felt this school to be an attractive site due to its sound construction and central location. 7 0109 0903 The list of projects does include an addition to the Three Rivers School site. The committee carefully reviewed the number of students located in the Three Rivers attendance area. The committee does not believe that a permanent core facility is justified at this time due to the limited number of students located in this area. The committee does feel the current K-3 temporary campus should be maintained for now because it alleviates the current overcrowding at Buckingham Elementary. The committee recommends that attendance numbers be reviewed annually to determine the need for a permanent facility in this area. The fixed costs related to a small school site are very near that of a large school site. The committee recommends that a minimum of 300 students be housed at any new permanent facility. This is approximately twice the current enrollment generated in the attendance area. When the new schools are built elsewhere in the district, a boundary committee should be given the charge of reviewing specific attendance area enrollments and adjusting boundaries as necessary to fully utilize district facilities. If current enrollment patterns continue in the future, the Board will need to consider serving Three Rivers area secondary students in La Pine where student capacity will be more available. This will occur in 1994, when the primary school in La Pine is completed. The newly -created secondary capacity will need to be compared to capacities and classloads in the Bend area high schools. If there is a significant difference in capacity utilization, then a change in the boundary to balance enrollment will be necessary. The Board has reviewed this recommendation,and they have directed the administration to include in next year's budget funding for two more modulars to house grades 4 and 5 at the Three Rivers site. In addition, the Board has added a permanent multi-purpose structure for Three Rivers School to the list of projects for existing sites. PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE - LA PINE m� 0 150 300 600 La Pine Elem. 1-0 MWa C 9 9905 REED ROAD 0100 0906 FUTURE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT In reviewing previous planning documents, the committee found that most prior projections of facilities needs were tied to rigid time and enrollment schedules. This practice produced some extraordinary variances between actual enrollment or facilities needs and projected needs. This was particularly evident during the recession of the 1980's when enrollment did not grow at all between 1980 and 1985. This was in sharp contrast to the near 20 percent increase projected for the same time period in a study done for the district in 1980. As a result of this history, the committee has developed a long-range sites and facilities time line solely based on future enrollment levels. That is, the committee has developed a set of bench mark enrollment levels which the district may use in determining when the next capital construction projects will be required. These bench marks will allow for the lead time necessary to plan, fund and construct new schools. This is illustrated in appendix K. In addition to the projects recommended for immediate construction, the committee contemplates the need for two additional elementary schools and one, possibly two, additional junior high schools within the next ten years. The committee believes that each existing high school site should be maximized in usage to defer the need for an additional high school site as long as possible. However, these projections are all dependent on continuing population growth. If growth slows, these sites. may not be necessary in a ten-year time frame. On the other hand, accelerated growth would shorten the time before additional facilities would be required. The committee believes that the next elementary school will need to be sited on the west side of central Bend to serve growth from the Awbrey Butte and Overturf Butte areas. Additionally, a second elementary school may be needed on the west side of the Deschutes River to serve additional growth located in that general area. The district does not currently own any suitable sites for these two schools. The committee recommends acquisition of potential sites with proceeds from the disposal of surplus 11 0109 0907 land as recommended earlier in this report. The committee has recently reviewed a proposal from Brooks Resources to site a school in the Awbrey Butte development. The committee recommends that this option not be pursued due to cost, site unsuitability, and requirements to build on a fixed timeline. In addition, the district will need to monitor elementary enrollment growth in the Three Rivers area to determine future school needs. The next junior high school will probably need to be located in the north or northwest Bend area. The district currently owns property on Shevlin Park Road that may be suitable for this use. Last, a future high school site will need to be acquired on the west side of Bend. The Shevlin Park property may also be suitable for this use. 12 0109 0908 Auxiliary Services Bend -La Pine Public Schools 520 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 NI 10 December 18, 1991 TO: Bob Lovlien, District Counsel FROM: John M. Rexford, Auxiliary Services Manager RE: Middle School Site Analysis The following is a summary of information gathered by district staff in an effort to analyze several alternative sites for the new middle school. Six potential sites were identified by staff for analysis. A scoring summary sheet is attached. Site I - An 82 acre +/- site located on Z7th Street south of Ferguson Rd. The middle 377 acres of this site was acquired from Deschutes County in the early 1989s. The balance was acquired from the County in 1991. Current zoning is UAR-10. Site 2 - A 29 acre +/- site located just north of R.E. Jewell Elementary. This site adjoins Rae and Brosterhaus Roads. The site is currently owned by the Ward family. Current zoning is RS. Site 3 - A 27 acre +/- site located inunediately west of R.E. Jewell Elementary School. This site adjoins Murphy Road to the south and Rae Road to the north. The site is currently owned by the Ward family. Current zoning is RS. Site 4 - A 36 acre +/- site located east of R.E. Jewell Elementary. This site is bounded by Brosterhaus Road near Murphy Road to the west and Burlington Northern railroad tracks to the east. the site is currently owned by Burlington Northern. Currently zoned RS. Site 5 - A IS acre +/- site located on Country Club Drive, east of the Timber Ridge sub- division. The site is currently owned by the school district Current zoning is RS. Site 6 - A 36 acre +/- site located southwest of the intersection of Ponderosa Road and Hwy 97. This site is currently owned by a member of the Brandis family. Current zoning is RR -10. Future Growth - All six sites are considered adjacent to future growth expectations of student population within the anticipated attendance area both within the inner urban growth boundary (IUGB) and outside the IUGB in rural Deschutes county. Size - A 20 acre minimum is desired for the development of a middle school campus. Site 5 is an unacceptable size of 15 acres. ' EXHIBIT 5 TO ADDENDUM 0109 0909 Traffic Impacts - As a middle school willgenerate a significant amount of traffic, direct access to a collector road is preferred Site I is adjacent to an arterial. However, development of existing and proposed public ways will eliminate the need for direct access onto the arteriaL Sites 2-5 meet this criteria. Site 6 would require the development of a frontage road and other additional access to reach the collector road, Ponderosa. ninQ - Schools are a conditional use on all six sites. Site 1 lies outside and adjacent to the IUGB. Site 1 is within the outer urban growth boundary (UGB). Site 6 lies outside and adjacent to the UGB. Soils/Site Condition - Site I has excellent deposits of silty/sandy soils available for play field or drain field development. In addition, site 1 has significant existing natural vegetation including a large number of large Ponderosa Pine trees. Sites 2-6 have suitable soil conditions for construction of a school. Sites 2-5 do not have any significant natural vegetation features. Site 6 is covered with small pine trees. Existing Utilities - Site I has all utilities to the site with the exception of sewer. Waste may be accommodated through the development of on-site septic or sewer service extension from the existing city sewer system. Sites 2-5 have all utilities at or near the sites. However, current sewer capacities are anticipated to need expansion to accommodate increased load due to school development. Site 6 would require on-site disposal of sewage or extension of existing City sewer systems. Site 6 lies outside of both the IUGB and UGB which may preclude sewer extension. Site Development Costs - Costs have only been preliminarily estimated for each site. With the exception of site 6, all development costs are estimated to be within the construction budget. Site 6 will require significant access improvements which may exceed budgeted amounts. Environmental/Safety - All sites are considered to be suitable with regard to environmental conditions, e.g., wetlands or hazardous waste impacts. Sites 4 and 6 have significant safety hazards for children adjacent or on-site. Site 4 is adjacent to the railroad tracks. Site 6 has an irrigation canal roughly bisecting the parcel. Litigation - The only anticipated litigation involves site 6. Condemnation may be required to develop appropriate access to this site. Tran=ortation/Access to Attendance Area - This middle school is anticipated to serve primarily a rural student population base living in an area ranging from the Fall River vicinity to the eastern attendance area south of Hwy 20. This large area will require a significant amount of bus transportation of students, now and in the future. Therefore, this site must be in a location easily accessible to the eastern reaches of the district as well as the southern central areas. Site 1 was determined to best meet this need, although all other sites were rated as adequate with respect to this criterion. wn hi - The school district currently owns sites 1 and 5. Sites 2, 3, and 4 are anticipated to be available for purchase near market value. Estimates range from $250,000 - 400,000 for these sites. The district currently has no funds available for the acquisition of the middle school site. The owner of site 6 is currently asking $750,000 for sale of the parcel - On the basis of the criteria listed above, site 1 was determined to be the most suitable. Sites 2-4 are possible sites for a future middle school to serve a growing urban population. i J C O O Z = a C/3 t m D CL W � _Z = Q Q Z C W 3 m Q i L N 0109 0910 d (G O- y C d 0 m Ur! o Z-1 � °o � > o X _ � a. tL Q (7 W ~ 11 11 II 11 II II a cr- C T N M d' U) a r x. coCL (N ftY Q 0 toV .y c0 O r .. `w 'd c C m L y m U m C �Y•`o �'r3 U U C X tL N 3 O � w i N n U w ai C a. 0 0 S f Tr 'tir; V M •- M 'W Cl) M M M T' N LU r v� to M M ir V to M M M i IT l to co M IV C M to co N i :W d' rte M to M M V V t0 to O N .ter. WIC• 'Yr :in M to M M t W to to M N T •: lw to C N to d' v 0 0 w M n :. vAti.: N U Q N m CO Ni WI = L D C m E r11 H! Qa CL o ; J Q O U — O_ o C m U c C7 O U a as ? Uaj Q I _c O > CILLJ cis 3t! > ' Q !imCL ti I La t- w 1- N I Cn W fn W- 01 � 0109 0910 d (G O- y C d 0 m Ur! o Z-1 � °o � > o X _ � a. tL Q (7 W ~ 11 11 II 11 II II a cr- C T N M d' U) a