Facilities committee recommends new Wenatchee High School and districtwide HVAC upgrades

Consultants presented the Wenatchee School District facilities committee's long-range plan to the district board, recommending completion of districtwide HVAC upgrades and construction of a new Wenatchee High School on the existing high-school site while keeping some program delivery on campus during construction. The committee and consultants also outlined enrollment projections, building condition assessments and a preliminary cost plan that factors in School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) funds the district may be eligible to claim.

The facilities planning consultant Phil Crocker described the study as "a deep dive into our facilities committee plan," saying the committee's recommendation "looks eerily similar to the recommendation that the committee brought you forward with" after months of meetings and data review. David Bodine, the construction and costing consultant working with Crocker, supported the feasibility work on site layout and preliminary cost estimates.

Why it matters: the committee's recommendation pairs large capital work on the high school with systemwide mechanical upgrades, and the consultants said the district is eligible for roughly $80 million in SCAP funding. That state assistance is a key factor in the committee's proposed scope and the preliminary bond-sizing discussion the board began during the meeting.

What the committee found and recommended

The committee recommended two principal actions: complete HVAC upgrades across district buildings and construct a new Wenatchee High School at the current high-school site. Crocker told the board the committee pursued consensus through nine meetings and that its recommendation was "rooted in data and educational program." David Bodine and Crocker said initial site layouts indicate it is feasible to build on the existing property while keeping students on site for parts of the work, though they emphasized that the exhibits shown were planning-level fits, not final designs.

Enrollment projections and capacity

Consultants reported multiple projection models that together show a modest, sustained decline in district enrollment. Crocker said the team ran percent-change, regression and two cohort models, plus a natality-based model that tracks births; four of the five algorithms were tightly aligned, while one housing-data outlier was flagged and excluded from the committee's preferred line for transparency. Crocker said the enrollment tool used for the report (the consultants' proprietary K-12 projection tool) has been roughly 99.6% accurate for next-year predictions statewide and that projections become less certain farther into the future.

Using those projections, the consultants calculated programmatic capacity and utilization. The district's permanent capacity for instructional spaces was reported at about 2,830 students. For the high school level Crocker used an example capacity figure of 1,983 students when explaining programmatic capacity calculations. Current utilization figures the consultants presented include a districtwide utilization of roughly 94%, middle schools at about 77% to 78% utilization, and the high-school campuses combined running around 103% (with Westside High School shown at about 94%). The consultants noted portable classrooms were counted where they serve as regular instructional space.

Building condition and program fit

The report separates physical condition (roofing, HVAC life-cycle, finishes) from functional adequacy (how well a space fits the educational program). Consultants said Washington Elementary scored "excellent" on physical condition, while Wenatchee High School scored low on the physical-condition matrix and received only a fair score on functional adequacy. The consultants also included a district clean-energy audit carried out during the same timeframe and factored that information into prioritization.

Crocker emphasized functional design priorities for future construction: flexible lab/CTE spaces, movable furniture and multiuse adjacencies to avoid "dead space" if programs change. He told the board that after a bond passes the district should develop educational specifications that translate program needs into room sizes and adjacencies before committing to architect-driven design.

Costs, state assistance and timing

The consultants presented a planning-level cost framework that includes escalation assumptions; they warned that construction escalation materially increases total cost the longer a project is delayed. Crocker and Bodine estimated the district is eligible for about $80 million in SCAP funding and discussed a preliminary bond-sizing example that the facilities report referenced (the report noted a community bond consideration figure used in the committee's discussions). They stressed that escalation and HVAC-specific cost increases are notable drivers of total project cost.

Board discussion and next steps

Board members who served on the committee described an often-challenging, iterative process that ultimately produced the consensus recommendation. Director Tucker said the committee's work "was a lot of work to try and get this to be a number" but added that the group moved beyond focusing solely on a dollar amount to defining the building the community wants. Several board members praised the committee's outreach and the online facilities dashboard Phil Crocker demonstrated; Crocker showed a public dashboard on the district website where users can view enrollment forecasts, utilization tables by school and condition assessments.

The board discussed potential election dates to place a bond before voters. Presenters and board members listed options including November 3, 2026, and February 9, 2027, and said an early date (February 10, 2026) would be too soon. Consultants and staff noted trade-offs: earlier votes reduce escalation exposure but give the district less time to prepare an outreach and campaign plan; general-election timing typically yields higher turnout but also requires longer campaign and preparation time. Consultants provided a construction timeline estimate of roughly three to three-and-a-half years from an election to project completion, assuming a post-election team selection, 12 to 14 months of design and about 22 to 24 months of construction.

What was not decided

The meeting recorded no formal board motion or vote on the recommendation; the presentation and the committee's report were provided for board review and discussion. Board members directed further work on next steps, including development of educational specifications, continued community outreach via the facilities webpage and dashboard, and further refinement of timing and campaign strategy before placing any measure before voters.

Speakers and attributions in this article are drawn only from meeting participants identified in the district discussion. Quotations are taken from the board meeting presentation and question-and-answer session and are attributed to the speakers listed below.

Ending

Consultants and board members said they will continue refining the plan, educational specifications and cost estimates and will return to the board with recommended timing and outreach steps before placing any bond measure before voters. The district's facilities committee materials and an interactive facilities dashboard are available on the Wenatchee School District website for public review.