Consultants from Presidio presented a three-option analysis for expediting the Jefferson High School modernization during the Dec. 9 Facilities Improvement and Oversight Committee meeting, and staff told directors they will pursue deeper study of a "shell" approach that could let students use the 1st and 2nd floors while finishing interior work above.

Brian Johnson, identified in the meeting as president of Presidio, told the committee the report was a contract deliverable intended to present a comprehensive set of options. Presidio’s Option 1, called "Shell," would construct the full building structure and core life-safety systems and open the first two floors to students while tenant finish work continued on the upper floors. "The only work that would be remaining on the 3rd and 4th floor would be tenant finish out," Presidio said, while emphasizing that elevators, HVAC and life-safety systems must be operational for occupancy.

Option 2 envisioned an on-site portable educational village that would keep students on the Jefferson site during construction but would require major coordination of dining, restrooms, safety, and utility hookups. Option 3 — relocating students to off-site swing space — was included for completeness but presenters noted previous community rejection of moving students far from their neighborhood.

In the discussion that followed, staff and several directors signaled that the swing option is off the table due to community concerns and that the portable-village approach appears logistically difficult. Dr. John Franco, senior chief of operations, and other staff recommended further exploration of the shell option as the district’s preferred path for additional analysis. A committee member reported an informal conversation with the Colas Hoffman lead who said, informally, that if permits and drawings are complete before January 2027, Hoffman could accelerate work to open Jefferson earlier; staff noted that comment was not a written commitment.

Staff said permitting is underway with the city’s major projects group, biweekly coordination calls are in place, and land-use applications are under review. Presenters cautioned that some elements (for example, the football field) may not be completed at the same time as occupied floors because demolition and sequencing affect field schedules.

What the committee decided: Directors agreed to move forward with further study of the shell option. No formal board vote occurred; staff will pursue detailed logistical, cost and schedule analyses and return to the committee with findings.

What to watch next: Staff identified permitting milestones and design milestones as prerequisites for a final recommendation, and committee members asked staff to return with written timelines, cost estimates and any contractor feedback in writing before a formal board decision.