District Summary

Utilization is the first question the plan asks, because it decides whether a campus needs more space, different space, or better use of the space it already has. Every site is measured the same way: land area and building area against current enrollment and against the capacity the site was designed to carry. A campus running well under capacity and a campus running well over it both need attention, for opposite reasons.

Each building and site system was reviewed for observable deficiencies, expected remaining life, and the renewal it will require. Those findings become a cost, and each cost is placed in the window in which the work should be done. Grouping the work this way separates what has already failed from what is predictable and can be budgeted for in advance.

Deferred maintenance is work that was identified, was not funded, and is still owed. The schedule turns that backlog into a fifteen-year implementation plan: which systems come due in which year, at which sites, and what annual funding level holds the backlog steady rather than letting it grow. It is the difference between a list of problems and a plan.

Facilities decisions last far longer than a single enrollment cycle, so the plan compares today’s enrollment with the enrollment each campus is projected to serve. Projections draw on birth and cohort-survival trends, residential development, and inter-district and intra-district movement. Where a projection and a capacity figure point in different directions, the options section is where that tension gets resolved.

Equal spending is not the same as equal outcome. The equity view places three measures next to each other for every campus — the level of student need the site serves, the condition of the facility, and how well the facility supports the instruction actually delivered in it. Reading them together shows where the highest need is being served by the weakest facility, which is where investment does the most good.

Some needs appear at nearly every campus: single points of entry, fire alarm and intrusion systems, lighting controls, HVAC controls, paving, and technology infrastructure. Solving those site by site produces thirty different answers and thirty maintenance regimes. Treating them as Districtwide options produces one specification, one procurement, and a per-site cost that can be compared honestly.

The last view puts cost and money in the same frame. Every option carries a cost estimate by campus and by category, and every funding path — deferred maintenance allocations, developer fees, Certificates of Participation, general obligation bonds, and State School Facility Program matching funds including Proposition 2 — carries a realistic yield and timing. Scenarios show what a given funding level actually buys and in what order.