District staff presented a draft long‑term facilities master plan on July 24 that compiles needs, priority pillars and estimated costs and describes community outreach completed to date.
Debbe Cid, the district’s program director, and planner Andrea Pippian reviewed the four pillars that guided analysis—replacement of portables, infrastructure renewal, modernization (light to intensive) and equity—and described a multi‑step process that included site visits, director interviews and hundreds of stakeholder inputs. Cid said the outreach process included “2,600 participants,” adding the effort gathered student and community input; presenters reported survey participation that included students and community members and displayed program cost breakout tables by project category.
Presenters described how diagrams and color‑coded maps link work categories (e.g., light modernization, intensive modernization, new construction) to estimated project costs in 2025 dollars and said the district would refine scope, costs and prioritization in workshops with the board.
Public commenters during the facilities discussion urged caution. One commenter, Jason Hunter, criticized what he called a shift toward funding new schools in the priority list and said he expected litigation over the last bond measure would affect future financing; he warned the district not to “sell” voters a list of projects that may not match long‑term priorities. Another commenter urged the district to prioritize repairs to aging school infrastructure such as parking lots and portable replacement.
Board members praised the depth of the analysis and requested supplemental materials for the board to review in advance of a study session; they tentatively scheduled a study session for Sept. 4 to dive deeper into the data and prioritization framework. Board members asked staff to prepare materials that explain which pillars or interventions research shows produce the greatest educational impact and to provide a readable packet for board review before the workshop.
Why this matters: The facilities master plan will guide capital priorities, bond planning and maintenance investments for years. Community concern about the distribution of funds between new construction and maintenance could shape future bond proposals and project sequencing.
Next steps: Staff will provide an appendix of cost details, prepare research summaries tying investments to educational outcomes, and return to the board at a September study session for prioritization and potential project sequencing; no board action was taken July 24.