4-1Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
CapitalImprovementPlan
$1,600,000,000 in long-range facility needs (escalated to 2010 /11 dollars). The 1999 condition assessment work focused on the then existing state of the facilities and associated site areas. As part of the 1999-2000 work, facility and
to determine capital projects. In 2002, prior to the Measure I program
This Capital Improvement Plan section presents an overview of the make-up of the information gathered. It also discusses ways in which
educational, operational, or capital decisions. As discussed in Section
• 4.2 - Cost escalation explanation
• 4.4 - Capital project data coding systems
• 4.6 - • 4.7 - Capital program issues• 4.8 - Capital program funding • 4.9 - Capital program strategies
4.2 CAPITAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW (COSTCHANGES 2000 - 2006 - 2010)
market increased the cost of some systems from 40% to 60%, equating
This section summarizes total
by the district, addressing growth, renewal of existing facilities, technology, and educational and programmatic requirements.
4
Note: because the FMP is intended to be a living document, values may change as the district reviews the data and reassesses priorities.
4-2Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
type of construction. This increase escalated the value of the 2002
funding program. To reach this target year value, a 1.321 multiplier
unusual construction history in California in the last four years and
4.3 CAPITAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW (BYSCHOOL/SITE)
the proposed new facilities. The dollar value for each school
site unless they are for new construction or replacement work. All
• New South ES 1 in the Delta Shores area proposed for 2012 if
• New South Small HS in the out years after 2015 to allow choice
again then • New Central City ES 1 to allow Washington, Jedediah Smith, and
William Land ES to remain within their capacities as the Railyards, Docks, and Towers developments grow
• Consent Decree High School for the former Sacramento HS area
• Early Intervention Centers for Autistic Children (two)• Life Skills /Training /Transition Program Center (one center)
This section is an overview of the FMP capital program.
Loc #SchoolProject BudgetLoc #SchoolProject Budget4Alice Birney Elementary School$9,276,003561MET Sacramento Charter High School (Funded pending design)$0
10A. M. Winn Elementary School$13,378,133572Capital City Child Development Center$017Bear Flag Elementary School$12,497,727700ArthurA. Benjamin Health Professions HS$024Bowling Green Charter Elementary School$12,520,215702New South Area Elementary School (Under construction in 2006)$029Bret Harte Elementary School$12,890,903703Waldorf Social Justice High School (Funded pending design)$032Caleb Greenwood K-8 School$13,294,777706Science and Engineering High School (Funded pending design)$035Camellia Basic Elementary School$8,834,786708Special Education Therapy Center (at Marian Anderson)$037Caroline Wenzel Elementary School$7,827,402715Future New Central City ES 2$41,81340Clayton B. Wire Elementary School$11,811,772522Family Education Center$161,16443Collis P. Huntington Elementary School$11,317,868571Capital City Independent Study School$240,07959David Lubin Elementary School$14,174,464391Edward Kelley School$503,13995Earl Warren Elementary School$14,472,587593CharlesA. Jones Skills Center (Adult Ed)$1,562,88097Abraham Lincoln Elementary School$9,787,587184LanguageAcademy Charter Elementary$1,729,07698Cesar E. Chavez Elementary School$2,957,941825Serna Center$1,771,043
100Edward Kemble Elementary School$15,382,350710Future Special Education Life Skills / Training Centers$2,156,377101Susan B. Anthony Elementary School$12,634,24680216th and N Admin Complex$2,284,162104Elder Creek Elementary School$18,037,052515Genesis Charter High School$2,626,649108Ethel I. Baker Elementary School$16,095,87398Cesar E. Chavez Elementary School$2,957,941110Ethel Phillips Elementary School$15,481,423505America's Choice Charter High School$4,297,588111MarianAnderson Elementary School$7,517,233379Washington Elementary School$5,382,802114Freeport Elementary School$12,510,986830Warehouse / Print Shop / Nutrition Services$5,553,480117Father Keith B. Kenny Charter Elementary$6,721,625242Matsuyama Elementary School$5,700,213122Fruit Ridge Elementary School$16,192,241535NewTechnology Charter High School$6,097,310130Golden Empire Elementary School$12,641,023117Father Keith B. Kenny Charter Elementary$6,721,625138Martin Luther King, Jr. K-8 School$17,324,274709Future Special Education Early Intervention for Autistic$6,901,267139H. W. Harkness Elementary School$11,831,731300Crocker/ Riverside Elementary School$7,281,287142Hollywood Park Elementary School$12,265,063111MarianAnderson Elementary School$7,517,233144Hubert H. Bancroft Elementary School$12,474,753305James W. Marshall Elementary School$7,662,430146Isador Cohen Elementary School$8,488,78637Caroline Wenzel Elementary School$7,827,402148Jedediah Smith Elementary School$14,789,194384William Land Elementary School$8,330,253151Leonardo da Vinci K-8 School$16,919,559146Isador Cohen Elementary School$8,488,786153John Bidwell Elementary School$12,569,06435Camellia Basic Elementary School$8,834,786163John Cabrillo Elementary School$15,539,447560Old Marshall School (Adult Ed)$9,121,162168John D. Sloat Basic Elementary School$11,965,8194Alice Birney Elementary School$9,276,003173John Morse Waldorf K-8 School$17,397,75297Abraham Lincoln Elementary School$9,787,587178SuccessAcademy K-8 School (8th and V St. facility needs)$10,718,650223Maple Elementary School$9,802,241183Joseph Bonnheim Elementary School$14,646,192327Sequoia Elementary School$10,600,265184LanguageAcademy Charter Elementary$1,729,076595FlorinTechnology Education Center (Adult Ed)$10,691,467223Maple Elementary School$9,802,241178SuccessAcademy K-8 School (8th and V St. facility needs)$10,718,650229Mark Hopkins Elementary School$11,103,275410Albert Einstein Middle School$10,730,170235MarkTwain Elementary School$12,969,877580A. Warren McClaskey Adult Center$10,892,625242Matsuyama Elementary School$5,700,213375Thomas Jefferson Elementary School$10,994,786255St. HOPE Public School 7$23,411,223363Theodore Judah Elementary School$11,010,740262Nicholas Elementary School$13,191,045229Mark Hopkins Elementary School$11,103,275265Oak Ridge Elementary School$16,337,62043Collis P. Huntington Elementary School$11,317,868267O. W. Erlewine Elementary School$12,886,475415California Middle School$11,342,099269Pacific Elementary School$16,736,094594Fremont School for Adults$11,454,683272Parkway Elementary School$12,888,494707Consent Decree High School (Under study in 2006)$11,690,850277Peter Burnett Elementary School$11,930,32440Clayton B. Wire Elementary School$11,811,772282Phoebe Hearst Basic Elementary School$13,060,578139H. W. Harkness Elementary School$11,831,731284Lisbon Elementary School$12,263,267277Peter Burnett Elementary School$11,930,324285Pony Express Elementary School$12,711,360168John D. Sloat Basic Elementary School$11,965,819300Crocker/ Riverside Elementary School$7,281,287570American Legion Continuation High School$12,239,187305James W. Marshall Elementary School$7,662,430284Lisbon Elementary School$12,263,267327Sequoia Elementary School$10,600,265142Hollywood Park Elementary School$12,265,063350Genevieve Didion K-8 School$12,408,271350Genevieve Didion K-8 School$12,408,271354Sutterville Elementary School$14,486,332359Tahoe Elementary School$12,427,102359Tahoe Elementary School$12,427,102144Hubert H. Bancroft Elementary School$12,474,753363Theodore Judah Elementary School$11,010,74017Bear Flag Elementary School$12,497,727375Thomas Jefferson Elementary School$10,994,786114Freeport Elementary School$12,510,986379Washington Elementary School$5,382,80224Bowling Green Charter Elementary School$12,520,215384William Land Elementary School$8,330,253153John Bidwell Elementary School$12,569,064390Woodbine Elementary School$13,797,077101Susan B. Anthony Elementary School$12,634,246391Edward Kelley School$503,139130Golden Empire Elementary School$12,641,023410Albert Einstein Middle School$10,730,170285Pony Express Elementary School$12,711,360415California Middle School$11,342,099801Operations / Maintenance Support Services$12,779,565420Charles M. Goethe Middle School$20,504,420267O. W. Erlewine Elementary School$12,886,475431Fern Bacon Basic Middle School$17,756,780272Parkway Elementary School$12,888,494445John H. Still Center K-8 School$15,816,09829Bret Harte Elementary School$12,890,903450Kit Carson Middle School$20,230,041235MarkTwain Elementary School$12,969,877480Sam Brannan Middle School$16,774,311282Phoebe Hearst Basic Elementary School$13,060,578490Sutter Middle School$22,917,851262Nicholas Elementary School$13,191,045495Will C. Wood Middle School$19,197,06232Caleb Greenwood K-8 School$13,294,777505America's Choice Charter High School$4,297,58810A. M. Winn Elementary School$13,378,133510C. K. McClatchy High School$53,271,866390Woodbine Elementary School$13,797,077515Genesis Charter High School$2,626,64959David Lubin Elementary School$14,174,464520Hiram W. Johnson High School$51,818,33895Earl Warren Elementary School$14,472,587521Hiram W. Johnson West Campus High School$31,403,980354Sutterville Elementary School$14,486,332522Family Education Center$161,164183Joseph Bonnheim Elementary School$14,646,192525John F. Kennedy High School$47,947,494844Transportation and Grounds Complex$14,704,559530Luther Burbank High School$69,801,117148Jedediah Smith Elementary School$14,789,194535NewTechnology Charter High School$6,097,310100Edward Kemble Elementary School$15,382,350540Rosemont High School$21,343,113110Ethel Phillips Elementary School$15,481,423550Sacramento Charter High School$27,711,487163John Cabrillo Elementary School$15,539,447560Old Marshall School (Adult Ed)$9,121,162445John H. Still Center K-8 School$15,816,098561MET Sacramento Charter High School (Funded pending design)$0108Ethel I. Baker Elementary School$16,095,873570American Legion Continuation High School$12,239,187122Fruit Ridge Elementary School$16,192,241571Capital City Independent Study School$240,079265Oak Ridge Elementary School$16,337,620572Capital City Child Development Center$0269Pacific Elementary School$16,736,094580A. Warren McClaskey Adult Center$10,892,625480Sam Brannan Middle School$16,774,311593CharlesA. Jones Skills Center (Adult Ed)$1,562,880151Leonardo da Vinci K-8 School$16,919,559594Fremont School for Adults$11,454,683138Martin Luther King, Jr. K-8 School$17,324,274595FlorinTechnology Education Center (Adult Ed)$10,691,467173John Morse Waldorf K-8 School$17,397,752700ArthurA. Benjamin Health Professions HS$0431Fern Bacon Basic Middle School$17,756,780702New South Area Elementary School (Under construction in 2006)$0104Elder Creek Elementary School$18,037,052703Waldorf Social Justice High School (Funded pending design)$0495Will C. Wood Middle School$19,197,062706Science and Engineering High School (Funded pending design)$0450Kit Carson Middle School$20,230,041707Consent Decree High School (Under study in 2006)$11,690,850420Charles M. Goethe Middle School$20,504,420708Special Education Therapy Center (at Marian Anderson)$0540Rosemont High School$21,343,113709Future Special Education Early Intervention for Autistic$6,901,267713Future New Small HS - South$22,588,551710Future Special Education Life Skills / Training Centers$2,156,377490Sutter Middle School$22,917,851711Future New South ES 1$29,901,184255St. HOPE Public School 7$23,411,223712Future New South ES 2$30,962,942550Sacramento Charter High School$27,711,487713Future New Small HS - South$22,588,551714Future New Central City ES 1$29,469,760714Future New Central City ES 1$29,469,760711Future New South ES 1$29,901,184715Future New Central City ES 2$41,813712Future New South ES 2$30,962,942800District (10 years of district-wide funds and one time needs)$133,694,364521Hiram W. Johnson West Campus High School$31,403,980801Operations / Maintenance Support Services$12,779,565525John F. Kennedy High School$47,947,49480216th and N Admin Complex$2,284,162520Hiram W. Johnson High School$51,818,338825Serna Center$1,771,043510C. K. McClatchy High School$53,271,866830Warehouse / Print Shop / Nutrition Services$5,553,480530Luther Burbank High School$69,801,117844Transportation and Grounds Complex$14,704,559800District (10 years of district-wide funds and one time needs)$133,694,364
Total of Project Budgets$1,599,243,088Total of Project Budgets$1,599,243,088
Thi
s ch
art i
llust
rate
s
tota
l cap
ital
impr
ovem
ent v
alue
s fo
r di
stri
ct f
acili
ties,
num
ber
and
then
by
dolla
r va
lue,
leas
t to
grea
test
.
The
val
ues
are
2010
do
llars
with
a b
uilt-
in c
ontin
genc
y. T
he
valu
e of
impr
ovem
ents
do
es n
ot a
lway
s
Mor
e th
an h
alf
of th
e ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
ts
prog
ram
mat
ic s
pace
ch
ange
s or
add
ition
s.It
is n
ot n
eces
sary
to
impl
emen
t thi
s ca
tego
ry o
f w
ork,
un
less
the
lack
of
prog
ram
impr
ovem
ent
inhi
bits
the
mis
sion
of
the
scho
ol o
r ad
min
istr
ativ
e si
te.
The
larg
e “D
istr
ict”
lin
e ite
m r
efer
s to
re
com
men
datio
ns f
or
annu
al r
ecur
ring
fun
ds
for
com
pute
r re
new
al,
mai
nten
ance
mat
eria
ls,
libra
ry b
ooks
, sch
ool
buse
s, e
tc.
See
expl
anat
ion
to f
ollo
w.
Exh
ibit
4-1
Com
pari
son
of C
IP $
Val
ues
by S
ite
4-3
Faci
litie
s M
aste
r Pl
an 2
006
- 20
15A
RC
- 0
9/20
06A
RC
202
08.4
02
Cod
esEl
emen
tary
/ K
-8
Scho
ols
Mid
dle
Scho
ols
Hig
h Sc
hool
sA
ltern
ativ
e/A
dult
Ed./S
pec.
Ed S
choo
lsA
dmin
istr
atio
n /
Supp
ort
Tota
lsC
ate g
ory
Cod
e1.
Gro
wth
90,3
75,6
99$
-$
22,5
88,5
51$
-$
-$
112,
964,
251
$2.
Edu
catio
nal/P
rogr
amm
atic
344,
256,
071
$44
,248
,131
$16
9,80
5,32
7$
23,8
03,0
12$
19,7
11,3
49$
601,
823,
890
$3.
Hea
lth/S
afet
y30
,425
,255
$11
,446
,065
$9,
977,
880
$67
5,55
0$
16,7
80,2
78$
69,3
05,0
28$
4. F
acili
t y R
enew
al33
5,87
0,95
4$
80,1
73,2
53$
150,
069,
069
$21
,046
,446
$10
,708
,721
$59
9,56
3,64
4$
5. E
duca
tiona
l Su p
port
1,06
0,40
0$
-$
-$
-$
67,1
67,0
94$
68,2
27,4
93$
6. C
ode
Com
plia
nce
1,20
9,86
8$
1,87
7,82
0$
811,
712
$12
,104
,789
$9,
354,
059
$25
,358
,248
$7.
Mai
nten
ance
-$
-$
-$
-$
46,7
96,6
21$
46,7
96,6
21$
8.A
DA
Com
plia
nce
2,09
9,69
9$
553,
032
$67
9,67
7$
1,24
7,97
5$
269,
051
$4,
849,
433
$9.
Por
tabl
e R
enew
al65
,990
,800
$1,
154,
434
$3,
209,
247
$-
$-
$70
,354
,481
$To
tal
871,
288,
746
$13
9,45
2,73
5$
357,
141,
463
$58
,877
,771
$17
0,78
7,17
2$
1,59
9,24
3,08
8$
T ype
1 C
ode
1. N
ew S
choo
l76
,946
,102
$-
$36
,309
,645
$9,
057,
645
$-
$12
2,31
3,39
2$
2.A
dditi
on36
8,52
7,74
0$
31,9
08,9
47$
78,1
16,7
37$
18,5
11,7
47$
26,0
00,6
44$
524,
391,
667
$3.
Por
tabl
e10
,121
,806
$1,
154,
434
$-
$63
4,41
8$
-$
11,9
10,6
57$
4. R
enov
atio
n95
,737
,594
$35
,232
,847
$86
,125
,456
$12
,338
,434
$1,
816,
330
$23
1,25
0,66
0$
5. R
efur
bish
ing
115,
872,
475
$33
,741
,640
$63
,759
,835
$4,
362,
222
$21
,619
,364
$23
9,35
5,53
6$
6. S
ite Im
prov
emen
t12
8,65
1,23
5$
19,8
08,3
45$
59,1
81,8
17$
2,86
8,44
2$
5,19
1,22
7$
215,
701,
066
$7.
Sch
ool I
mpr
ovem
ent P
roje
cts
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
8. C
yclic
al R
enew
al58
,937
,024
$15
,346
,296
$29
,490
,157
$11
,053
,753
$52
,483
,868
$16
7,31
1,09
8$
9. R
e pla
cem
ent
-$
-$
-$
-$
46,3
31,3
54$
46,3
31,3
54$
10. C
losu
re-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$11
. Site
Ac q
uisi
tion
13,3
87,7
83$
-$
2,26
7,34
4$
-$
4,45
8,46
5$
20,1
13,5
93$
12. P
lann
ing/
Stu
dy/D
esig
n14
0,11
4$
41,8
52$
72,4
69$
-$
3,29
4,39
7$
3,54
8,83
2$
13. O
ther
373,
381
$1,
775,
820
$1,
155,
875
$-
$-
$3,
305,
076
$14
. En g
inee
ring
Stu
dies
121,
399
$-
$-
$-
$-
$12
1,39
9$
15.T
echn
olo g
y In
fras
truc
ture
2,71
5,01
0$
442,
555
$66
2,12
9$
51,1
12$
9,59
1,52
2$
13,4
62,3
28$
Tota
l87
1,65
8,09
5$
139,
452,
735
$35
7,14
1,46
3$
58,8
77,7
71$
170,
787,
172
$1,
599,
243,
088
$T y
pe 2
Cod
eA
. Sys
tem
s87
,251
,937
$22
,164
,569
$45
,711
,840
$19
,097
,348
$68
,727
,814
$24
2,95
3,50
8$
B. C
ode
Issu
es98
5,32
2$
571,
872
$-
$4,
307,
321
$9,
331,
280
$15
,195
,795
$C
. Int
erio
r15
1,12
5,40
8$
51,3
18,3
13$
88,2
40,6
95$
5,57
8,50
0$
12,3
38,1
13$
308,
601,
028
$D
. Ext
erio
r28
,642
,148
$9,
972,
196
$10
,294
,747
$2,
402,
181
$2,
462,
137
$53
,773
,410
$E
. Site
131,
032,
741
$18
,885
,865
$59
,648
,964
$2,
621,
713
$3,
199,
373
$21
5,38
8,65
6$
F. E
duca
tiona
l/Pro
gram
mat
ic44
7,50
2,45
4$
33,4
51,3
49$
147,
112,
327
$24
,049
,499
$21
,442
,599
$68
8,08
3,51
3$
G. M
isce
llane
ous
25,1
18,0
85$
3,08
8,57
0$
6,13
2,89
0$
821,
211
$40
,086
,423
$75
,247
,179
$To
tal
871,
658,
095
$13
9,45
2,73
5$
357,
141,
463
$58
,877
,771
$15
7,58
7,74
0$
1,59
9,24
3,08
8$
Prio
rity
Cod
e1.
Prio
rity
140
8,93
4,78
9$
74,0
02,1
46$
161,
512,
693
$16
,444
,607
$20
,775
,544
$68
1,66
9,78
0$
2. P
riorit
y 2
369,
351,
498
$60
,640
,910
$15
4,12
6,77
0$
21,9
63,9
67$
10,6
20,0
54$
618,
029,
051
$3.
Prio
rity
363
,779
,336
$4,
809,
680
$21
,180
,793
$14
,433
,770
$13
,072
,784
$11
7,27
6,36
3$
4. P
riorit
y 4
29,5
50,6
59$
-$
-$
6,03
5,42
7$
-$
35,5
86,0
85$
5. P
riorit
y 5
41,8
13$
-$
20,3
21,2
07$
-$
-$
20,3
63,0
21$
6. P
riorit
y 6
- Ann
ualA
lloca
tion
-$
-$
-$
-$
126,
318,
789
$12
6,31
8,78
9$
Tota
l87
1,65
8,09
5$
139,
452,
735
$35
7,14
1,46
3$
58,8
77,7
71$
170,
787,
172
$1,
599,
243,
088
$
Lik
e th
e do
llar
impr
ovem
ents
by
scho
ol in
the
prio
r ta
ble,
the
dolla
r va
lues
capi
tal a
sset
s.
Exh
ibit
4-2
Cap
ital I
mpr
ovem
ent P
roje
ct D
istr
ibut
ion 4-
4Fa
cilit
ies
Mas
ter
Plan
200
6 -
2015
AR
C -
09/
2006
AR
C 2
0208
.402
4-5Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
• In addition to these noted new facilities located on their own site or site area, 15 proposed pre-kindergarten program additions for existing schools
There are also sites recommended for removal and /or replacement.
• Replace the transportation and grounds complex (Muddox facility at the district Redding site)
• Replace the east wing of the maintenance shops area (operations maintenance support site)
• Demolish the 16th and N complex and develop for uses other than as a school
Two facilities, Oak Ridge and St. Hope PS-7, scored lower than
renovation.
Section 6 Master Plan Support Material contains details for all projects. This section discusses capital improvement projects (CIPs)
Codes for CATEGORY of workfor determining whether facility renewal or new program space
discussion.Codes for TYPE 1 work groups identify more detailed work
Codes for TYPE 2 work groups divide data into facility renewal work (systems, inside, outside), site work, and educational /programmatic needs that generate changes or additions to facilities.
•
•
•
•
the general use of coding to understand the FMP.
4-6Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 / 2006ARC 20208.402
Category Codes1 - Growth - Ten growth-related projects are discussed. Five of them
that may or may not occur. Five are responses to program growth for students not yet served. All add capacity to the district in a
considered as placeholders for likely future need.2 - Educational / Programmatic - This work category applies to space
related needs, and replacement of the Muddox Transportation Complex.
4 - Facility Renewal - These projects are the continuation of
5 - Educational Support - This category mostly includes district funds
$112,964,251
$601,823,890
$69,305,028
$599,563,644
$68,227,493
$25,358,248
$46,796,621
$4,849,433
$70,354,481
$- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000
1. Growth
2. Educational/Programmatic
3. Health/Safety
4. Facility Renewal
5. Educational Support
6. Code Compliance
7. Maintenance
8. ADA Compliance
9. Portable Renewal
Exhibit 4-3 Capital Improvement Project by Category
4-7Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
as well as an addition to the warehouse.
7 - Maintenance - These projects fund supplies, irrigation time clocks, vehicles, supplements to the annual painting cycle, and mowing equipment.
8 - ADA Compliance - This work continues the nearly completed ADA
line item will remain with the district in future planning cycles,
life span due to mold, dry rot, and wear. Newer unit installations with footings, drains and surrounding hard surface may help
replacement or renovation.
Type 1 Codes
theoften includes an estimate for the
option or work.1 - New Schools - Five “new” facilities are proposed in Section 4.3,
introduction.2 - Addition - These replace poor construction, and add new media
These projects involve renovation and upgrading of
equipment, minimal HVAC work, and minor changes to space.
grassed areas, and continued work on playground areas. 7 - School Improvement Projects - These projects have no dollar value.
The code is used for a yearly capital allowance given to a school to
ES would receive $15,000, each MS $35,000 and each HS $90,000 every year.
4-8Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 / 2006ARC 20208.402
11- Site Acquisition - Land purchases in the Delta Shores and Central City areas of the district are anticipated if the developments are
12- Planning /Studies /Design - This work includes miscellaneousstructural and investigative studies, the continuation of sitedevelopment master planning, and general district planning studies.
yearly as projects are retired, values for this group of work will change.
15- Technology Infrastructure - This category includes security, intrusion, and radio systems upgrades around the district.
listed under school renovation work.
$122,313,392
$524,391,667
$11,910,657
$231,250,660
$239,355,536
$215,701,066
$-
$167,311,098
$46,331,354
$-
$20,113,593
$3,548,832
$3,305,076
$121,399
$13,462,328
$- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000
1. New School
2. Addition
3. Portable
4. Renovation
5. Refurbishing
6. Site Improvement
7. School Improvement Projects
8. Cyclical Renewal
9. Replacement
10. Closure
11. Site Acquisition
12. Planning/Study/Design
13. Other
14. Engineering Studies
15. Technology Infrastructure
Exhibit 4-4 CIP Recommendations
Work Group (Type 1)
4-9Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 / 2006ARC 20208.402
Type 2 CodesA - Systems - This code is to continue work on electrical, HVAC, and
D - Exterior -
E - Site - These projects address paving, landscaping, irrigation issues, drainage, playgrounds, security, and grassed area improvements.
F - Educational /Programmatic - This work involves new construction or changes to administration areas, classrooms, media centers, gyms, multipurpose rooms, kitchens, etc. to meet educational
with the CATEGORY code, since it can include site and interior
G - Miscellaneous - This work is for projects that have inside and /or
$242,953,508
$15,195,795
$308,601,028
$53,773,410
$215,388,656
$688,083,513
$75,247,179
$- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 $800,000,000
A. Systems
B. Code Issues
C. Interior
D. Exterior
E. Site
F. Educational/Programmatic
G. Miscellaneous
Exhibit 4-5 CIP Recommendations
Work Group (Type 2)
4-10Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 / 2006ARC 20208.402
outside elements in general or that are too unique to classify, suchas planning work, Williams Case projects, and District funds.
Priority Codes
is only an impression of work timing and does not represent animplementation plan. The schools were given the opportunity to
are included in this group.
Priority 3 - Most of these projects are for work that is expected to
preliminary planning to support a project needed later. Priority 4 - This category is needed at end of planning period.Priority 5 - Generally for work that is unneeded in this planning period
studies.
$681,669,780
$618,029,051
$117,276,363
$35,586,085
$20,363,021
$126,318,789
$- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 $800,000,000
1. Priority 1
2. Priority 2
3. Priority 3
4. Priority 4
5. Priority 5
6. Priority 6 - Annual Allocation
Exhibit 4-6 CIP Recommendations for Sequencing of Work
4-11Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 / 2006ARC 20208.402
4.5 CAPITAL PL ROGRAM OVERVIEW (PRIORITIES
the schools felt were important. Schools were asked to comment on and add to projects, and then note their top priorities. Fifty-three sites responded, designating the order of projects that would most impact
phased funding program.
IDNO School Project
School
Priority
Total Project
Budgets
004 Alice Birney Elementary School Playground Improvements 1 $193,536
004 Alice Birney Elementary School Plumbing Upgrades 2 $238,618
004 Alice Birney Elementary School Drainage and Landscaping Improvements 3 $1,137,925
004 Alice Birney Elementary School Structural Study 4 $6,975
Sub total $1,577,055
017 Bear Flag Elementary School Playground Improvements 1 $803,740
017 Bear Flag Elementary School Parking Improvements 2 $401,287
017 Bear Flag Elementary School Security Systems Installation 3 $51,112
017 Bear Flag Elementary School Portable Replacement 4 $1,676,140
Sub total $2,932,279
024 Bowling Green Charter Elementary School Science / Performing Arts Addition 1 $2,503,234
024 Bowling Green Charter Elementary School Student Drop-off and Pick-up Process 2 $709,830
024 Bowling Green Charter Elementary School Kitchen Renovation 3 $473,187
024 Bowling Green Charter Elementary School Drainage and Grassed Area Improvements 4 $624,535
Sub total $4,310,786
029 Bret Harte Elementary School Multipurpose / Kitchen Building Remodel 1 $867,564
029 Bret Harte Elementary School Site / Fencing Improvements 2 $336,323
029 Bret Harte Elementary School Play Area Improvements 3 $24,586
029 Bret Harte Elementary School Roofing Improvements 4 $234,858
Sub total $1,463,331
032 Caleb Greenwood K-8 School Termite Problem 1 $436,546
032 Caleb Greenwood K-8 School Construct a Media Center Addition / Renovation 2 $2,092,696
032 Caleb Greenwood K-8 School Window Replacement 3 $924,716
032 Caleb Greenwood K-8 School PE Teaching Space 4 $3,944,382
Sub total $7,398,340
035 Camellia Basic Elementary School Student Drop-off / Pick-up Process 1 $345,210
035 Camellia Basic Elementary School Administration Addition / Renovation 2 $1,494,068
035 Camellia Basic Elementary School Kitchen Renovation 3 $378,067
035 Camellia Basic Elementary School Security Camera Installation 4 $51,112
Sub total $2,268,457
040 Clayton B. Wire Elementary School Administration Addition / Renovation 1 $1,175,892
040 Clayton B. Wire Elementary School Kitchen Renovation 2 $508,345
040 Clayton B. Wire Elementary School Multipurpose Building Upgrades 3 $795,355
040 Clayton B. Wire Elementary School Replace Portable Classrooms 4 $670,456
Sub total $3,150,048
043 Collis P. Huntington Elementary School Continue HVAC / Plumbing Improvements 1 $160,091
043 Collis P. Huntington Elementary School Clock System Upgrade 2 $92,470
043 Collis P. Huntington Elementary School Construct a Media Center Addition / Renovation 3 $1,313,697
043 Collis P. Huntington Elementary School Continue Electrical Improvements 4 $802,182
Sub total $2,368,440
095 Earl Warren Elementary School Replace Old Modulars 1 $2,365,898
095 Earl Warren Elementary School Construct a Media Center 2 $2,019,076
095 Earl Warren Elementary School Expand and Refurbish the Administration Area 3 $764,673
095 Earl Warren Elementary School Develop an Outdoor Teaching Area 4 $102,039
Sub total $5,251,686
Exhibit 4-7 Sample of 9 SchoolsPriorities 1 through 4only
project groupings that should be considered on a districtwide basis rather than by school.
4-12Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
4.6 CAPITAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW (PRIORITIESBY PROJECT GROUPINGS)
desired for improving schools, then we recommend that a specialist in
a phased implementation. This second opinion would validate and adjust the data.
to develop a uniform system of upgrading turf, irrigation piping, controllers, and water metering
• Upgrades to TECHNOLOGY at the systems level to provide
• have three facility needs. The
the Marian Anderson school site. However, two groups of students
especially pre-kindergarten, and post high-school-aged students
•Most are health / safety projects and are therefore high priority. Conditions vary from poor to unsafe.
• with consideration of the implications of
• Providing PROJECT LABS at all school levels—this space type was suggested in the 2000 Concordia prototype standards
classroom clusters.•
delivery model, as well as many outdated spaces and equipment.• space proposed at 15 locations• for middle and high
schools includes a comprehensive analysis of the use of all sports-
creation of a second stadium complex.• GYMS and associated spaces are addressed for K-8, and some
middle and high schools • The MAINTENANCE program is a critical element of any
4-13Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
district, meet district goals for facility comfort and safety, and extend the life cycles of
help to meet the mission.
improvements at nearly all sites over the ten-year period.
Exhibit 4-8 Listing of Major Project Groups
Sample Sub-Categories of Information Cost of Group# Sites
AffectedHealth and Safety General -Traffic Safety, Special Systems, Condition Related Projects 46,898,000$ 84Transportation Complex Replacement (Offices,shops old grounds shop) 14,704,000$ 1Williams Case 3,305,000$ VarySecurity Systems 4,398,000$ 53Educational / Programmatic AreaMedia Centers 130,103,000$ 70Kindergarten / Early Childhood 44,484,000$ 39Science 43,147,000$ 13Kitchens / Cafeterias / Associated Areas 58,006,000$ 74Replace or Upgrade Modulars / Portables 72,404,000$ 47Project Labs 83,861,000$ 59Gymnasiums / PE Spaces 72,074,000$ 18Multipurpose Rooms 24,842,000$ 30Administration Areas at Schools 74,567,000$ 60
Building SystemsElectrical and Related Systems Priority 1 45,553,000$ 66Electrical and Related Systems Priority 2 12,680,000$ 20Clock System Upgrades 3,203,000$ 20Special Systems 6,332,556$ 26
Renovation AreasRestrooms 22,004,000$ 39Kitchen renovation / refurbishing projects 25,315,000$ 64Site ImprovementsUpgrade Playgrounds 14,228,000$ 36Play Fields, Drainage, and Irrigation Upgrades 50,828,000$ 66Site Paving Projects Priority 1 45,197,000$ 87Site Paving Projects Priority 2 11,167,000$ 62
Cyclical RenewalRoofing - Priority 1 12,311,000$ 35Roofing - Priority 2 18,568,000$ 39HVAC - Improvements continued Priority 1 52,893,000$ 47HVAC - Improvements continued Priority 2 18,121,000$ 16
Proposed District Funds and Related Projects - annual allocations over 10 yearsPaint Shop Lead Management Program 3,428,000$ AllPaint Shop Annual School Painting Program 10,647,000$ AllTechnology Department: Computer Refresh Program 24,835,000$ AllTransportation Department: Bus Replacement Fund 25,699,000$ AllMedia Services: Book Purchase Fund 7,279,000$ AllAsbestos / HAZMAT Abatement Fund 5,903,000$ AllMaintenance Supplies Fund 26,420,000$ All
4-14Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
GRASSED FIELDSCultivated grass areas are an important part of the school program,
in wet seasons. There are 320 acres of cultivated grass in fair to poor condition. The cost of recommendations for resolving poorly draining
to separate water systems,
mowed to an optimal level, resulting in shorter watering time due to
TECHNOLOGYThe impact of sustaining rapidly changing technology for education and employee computer systems was studied. Currently, 95% of all
expand training opportunities for staff at their work locations, and
$793,000
ventilated or cooled. New HVAC is needed. In addition, with the
SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTSAutistic StudentsTo handle the growing case load of autistic students in the district, two centers are proposed. They would function as half-day programs for pre-K and kindergarten students with family support services and
4-15Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
staff training opportunities for home school staff. The centers would provide a focused, very early-age education for students showing signs
Students Age 18 to 22 with Disabilities Currently, under the law, these students who require transition program education are housed in programs at Cal State, CSU at Sacramento, Sacramento City College and in a mall location. Setting up one center as a prototype for study could cost $2,156,000. One to two more
Emotionally Disturbed Students
Occupational and Physical Therapy ProgramsThe special education program would like to expand the offering of
sites in the future with a cost of $720,000.
DEMOLITION
Bus Transportation Complex
the FMParea rather than in controlled shops. Demolition and replacement
$14,705,000 project costs are other recommendations to replace the
East Wing Maintenance Shops
function is $4,432,000.
16th and N Street BuildingsThis old central administration is a candidate for condemnation and
4-16Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
has more value as vacant land. HMR Architects has studied the
lack of parking, and costs point to other uses for the site. The rough
8th and V StreetThe Leland Stanford Annex houses Success Academy and the MET Charter HS (temporary location). The proposed level of improvements
Academy is a good match, especially since the park is used as an
room for student use. However, the low student density on site is an issue.
Sutter MS
a concrete Sacramento, such construction / engineering methods are not used anymore. The site already has some structural damage to the lower
structural study would set measuring points for monitoring and
MEDIA CENTERS
These
Standards and Guidelines for Strong School Librariestwo converted classrooms and have made-do for decades. The cost of
at 70 sites. Many schools selected this change on their priority list. An
per-student allotment varies year to year.
PROJECT LABS
Because some of the project labs were joined with computer labs, the district policy to have ES computer labs needs
4-17Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
not tested extensively. This space type was developed in the 2000 Concordia prototype standards as a multi-use space for multiple class
$88,400,000 at 59 sites.
KITCHENSThe condition of kitchens around the district varies widely. Enlisting
work into “must do, need to do and could wait to do” categories.The overall cost estimate for upgrades to kitchens, including some
PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM EXPANSIONFifteen sites were discussed for the creation or expansion of a pre-kindergarten program. Further study of these sites as candidates and
• A. M. Winn Elementary School•
• Crocker / Riverside Elementary School
• Hollywood Park Elementary School
• Nicholas Elementary School• O. W. Erlewine Elementary School• Sequoia Elementary School• Tahoe Elementary School• Theodore Judah Elementary School• Thomas Jefferson Elementary School
ATHLETIC FIELDS MASTER PLANNING AT MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS
HS. The creation of a district coordinator for athletic standards and event scheduling is proposed. All middle and high school sites should
For the FMP, it was assumed that all-day kindergarten and universal pre-school are not a near-term expectation and therefore, NO projects exist in the database to support this change.
4-18Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
the estimated costs to
stadium complex.
planning results in long-term cost savings that will help defray some of
GYMSAdditional program areas for PE and athletics in the CIPs provide PE teaching gyms at K-8 schools, and expand or renovate gym areas
comprehensive high schools.
MAINTENANCE
maintenance program is supported
maintenance work. General
recommend spending 2% (for a district with mostly new facilities) to 4% (where all facilities are old) of the total replacement cost of district facilities, including site elements that are maintained. A
Exhibit 4-9 Percentage Make-Up of Maintenance Budget Elements
4-19Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
rough estimate of current replacement cost for SCUSD facilities is $2,424,000,000. Therefore, the range of maintenance investment
include salaries, utilities / fuels, materials / equipment, out-sourced
work.sources supplement areas of maintenance that increasingly drain the
•- $26,420,000 over ten years
since some painting projects require additional funding for lead
maintenance funding and meet the district goal of painting a school every eight years - $10,646,5000 over ten years
$5,909,5000 over ten years
projects) - estimated at $1,482,000• Intrusion Alarm Fund - $2,658,500 over ten years• Maintenance Equipment and Vehicle replacement Fund -
$1,970,000 over ten years for trucks and heavy equipment
4.7 CAPITAL PROGRAM ISSUES
• Adopt universal pre-school and all-day kindergarten• Expand the role of social services at ES and MS levels, requiring
• Provide health clinic options at comprehensive high schools that include examinations and mental health counseling
• Change the emphasis on physical education at the elementary
the issues and questions that still need discussion.
4-20Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
school level, which requires more dedicated facility space other than the multipurpose rooms
4.7.2In 1991, t
middle and comprehensive high schools. The facility gross-square-feet (GSF) -per-student ratios were exceptionally low for elementary schools and within national norms for middle and comprehensive
standards and the prototype standards proposed in 1999. District
majority of the schools have no corridors, have smaller support spaces
small classrooms (especially kindergartens that did not exist when
“time warp” legacy of school architecture that appeared in rapidly growing districts during the 50s and 60s. For middle and high schools, the values are closer. The long list of projects for administration areas, media centers, multipurpose rooms, kitchens, kindergartens, and classroom replacements attest to the disparity in the ES and K-8
Square footage norms can help compare crowding at sites. When
site-GSF / student ratio values, 28 sites were low (e.g., crowded) in
construction to mitigate some of the density issues. Site values for
crowded, compact sites. Elder Creek ES, as one of the three site development master planning schools, had many site density and
Exhibit 4-10 School GSF Comparisons
School LevelExpectedGrades
OptimalSite
Acres
OptimalSite
Acres if Share
City Park
"Optimal"StudentRange
TargetEnrollment
SiteSF/Student
SiteSF/Studentwith Park
Facility GSF
Levels
FacilityGSF/Student
Levels
% Difference Between
GSF 1991 to 1999 study
Average2006 Size
GSF1991 - 2001 Report ValuesElementary K-6 10 6 500-600 550 792 475 36,850 67Middle School 7-8 20 15 700-750 725 1202 901 93,525 129High School 9-12 40 N/A 1500-1800 1650 1056 N/A 223,700 1361999 Prototype ValuesElementary K-6 10 6 450-600 600 726 436 69,300 116 47% 37,567K-8 not in prototype K-8 10 6 550-700 700 622 373 83,000 119 33% 44,153Middle School 7-8 20 15 850-950 950 917 688 118,800 125 21% 96,342High School 9-12 40 N/A 1200-1600 1600 1089 N/A 236,150 148 5% 242,5802002 ProposalSmall HS / Alt.Program 7-12 10 6 250-500 500 871 523 42,000 84 41,000
New size standards help guide decisions for consolidation, operational budget studies, closure, re-use and investment.
4-21Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
recommendation for a two-story solution for part of the site to resolve some of the density / safety concerns. See Section 5 for the Elder Creek report.
With the construction of new schools, the standard of the learning
the construction of Matsuyama ES, Rosemont HS, New South Area ES, New Tech Charter HS, and the standalone small high schools has set a new expectation for facility design. Though the assessment standards used this “new expectation” factor, the district should view its facilities in the light of how or, more importantly, if improvement to the facility and site can raise the level of the learning environment and
at all comprehensive high schools, the district would need to
Four assumptions were made in developing recommendations for
technology and maintenance groups to implement guaranteed yearly
soon need renewal.
value when installing new modular units. This RELIANCE ON
percentage meets the intent of state planning guidelines to
4-22Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
count on an INFUSION OF STATE FUNDS for the next expected cycle or whether it will likely need to structure its long-range
• Consider using DISTRICT FUNDS to take advantage of grants, match state funds, maintain safety, upgrade technology levels, and
––
upgrades– Maintenance-related funds
• ADULT EDUCATION facilities are a mixture of facilities in poor condition to newly renovated facilities. The disparity in the
schools. Two of the sites, Old Marshall and A. Warren McClaskey,
a higher priority for investment.
• Study the downtown area for development options for housing
the Center City planning area. The existing elementary schools
Sacramento, there is not enough information for our modeling of student generation from housing that is high density, small, and expensive.
• Purchase locations for two ES sites in the Delta Shores area and an optional third site for investment or an alternatives high school in the area (see the SEI Consulting Group study). Determine the strategy to house future growth students in the Center City area.
4-23Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
• Study the consolidation of ES and to some extent, MS campuses, if
driver. • Study the structure of Sutter MS main three-story, Fremont, 8th
• Continue planning funding for studies, option evaluations, site development master planning, update of the capital improvement
The following are suggestions for assisting the efforts of operations and maintenance.
improvements.•
– Review standards with maintenance and professional design
operations planning staff.
• Support an expanded preventive maintenance effort, especially
• Consider expansion of the warehouse to allow remote storage
• Consider expansion of the maintenance site area to the west to provide a crowded maintenance facility with needed space and allow for replacement of the 1930s east wing of the complex.
currently in the FMP).
4-24Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
4.8
facilities.• Measure U for $225 million failed in 1997.• Measure E for $195 million succeeded in late 1999.
– Measure E funds were exhausted in 2005.• Measure I for $225 million succeeded in early 2002.
While the costs of construction, maintenance, and utilities increase, with an active economy, the amount of revenue generation increases
During the 1999-2007 funding program for
providing a total of $598 million in improved or new schools.
is likely 2008. We recommend planning for two funding cycles when
4.9 CAPITAL PROGRAM STRATEGIES
This section presents a strategy for meeting future needs. The steps
leading up to preparing for an election, when the rationale for selecting
completed Step 1. Steps 2 through 5 are conducted at the discretion
workshops, once the options and facts are explained to the participants,
This section outlines the funding received by the district for capital improvements over the
the process used to prioritize the capital plan.
4-25Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
For the purpose of guiding the district through the capital improvements planning process, we are providing recommendations for two Funding Strategy Options for consideration and discussion.The recommendations are intended to show a means to take $1,600,000,000 worth of need and segment the work into two funding
was selected as a target level for a capital program, considering the
the large amount of data to identify a strategy for facility asset
Exhibit 4-11 Decision-makingProcess
4-26Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09 /2006ARC 20208.402
process, add their insight and modify the work plan to meet evolving needs.
A lesson learned from the 1991 MP is that all planning documents are well-intentioned. Due to the complexity of the elements in an
to the unexpected. Economic forces in the communities surrounding
schools. The effort made with this funding program should continue
• Improve the environment for education (learning and teaching)• Remove health safety issues and make schools safe
• Implement changes in the education model (new small HS) to meet the evolving needs of students in the district
population sites with “no growth” projection• Examine the equity of facilities for all levels of programs,
including expanding programs to underserved populations• Meet technology needs• Preserve the physical integrity of facility roofs, walls, site drainage
and HVAC to prevent degradation of schools to pre-1998 condition• Continue to address renovation of older facilities to include
changes / additions for educational / programmatic spaces
guidelines. The guidelines used for the two Funding Strategy Options
as desired.• Complete promised projects• Provide District funds to guarantee technology, transportation,
• Address health and safety projects (all schools)• Meet growth area facility needs, including land purchase
Exh
ibit
4-12
C
apita
l Fun
ding
Str
ateg
y O
ptio
n A
Sce
nari
o
dist
rict
wid
e (a
ll sc
hool
s)•
Add
ress
fac
ility
nee
ds f
or f
acili
ties
scor
ing
less
than
70
•Se
lect
key
pro
gram
mat
ic s
pace
s to
sta
rt im
prov
emen
ts to
war
ds e
xpec
ted
stan
dard
s O
R p
rior
itize
sch
ool s
elec
ted
wor
k up
to $
275
mill
ion.
(m
ost
scho
ols)
the
incr
ease
in b
ondi
ng c
apac
ity a
nd a
sses
sed
valu
e fo
r pr
oper
ty in
the
dist
rict
, w
e re
com
men
d an
eig
ht-
to te
n-ye
ar b
ond
type
str
ateg
y sp
lit in
to tw
o ph
ases
.
cons
truc
tion
prog
ress
, and
dem
onst
rate
s th
at th
e di
stri
ct is
kee
ping
its
capi
tal
prom
ises
.
Two
stra
tegi
es a
re p
rese
nted
. T
he to
tal $
750
mill
ion
prog
ram
has
man
y is
sues
to
res
olve
and
the
perm
utat
ions
of
logi
c po
ints
is u
nlim
ited.
Cap
ital F
undi
ng S
trat
egy
Opt
ion
AT
his
scen
ario
fol
low
s th
e de
cisi
on-m
akin
g cr
iteri
a no
ted
abov
e an
d as
sign
s
appl
icab
le c
ode
in th
e gu
idel
ine.
The
not
es c
olum
n al
low
s fo
r do
cum
enta
tion
of th
e ad
just
men
t of
som
e lin
e ite
ms
in o
rder
to b
alan
ce th
e ov
eral
l cap
ital
prog
ram
. So
me
of th
e ex
plan
atio
n po
ints
are
as
follo
ws:
•C
onse
nt D
ecre
e an
d 16
th a
nd N
St.
rem
ain
in th
is p
lan
due
to th
e “i
n st
udy”
st
atus
of
the
faci
litie
s as
of
this
doc
umen
tatio
n.•
Hea
lth /
Safe
ty p
roje
cts
are
not m
anda
ted
wor
k, b
ut w
ork
that
was
cod
ed
due
to it
s im
pact
on
som
e as
pect
of
safe
ty a
t a s
ite.
In a
ll ca
ses,
ope
ratio
nal
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
actio
ns a
re b
eing
take
n to
pro
tect
peo
ple.
All
emer
genc
y is
sues
wer
e gi
ven
to th
e di
stri
ct a
t the
tim
e of
dis
cove
ry.
The
refo
re, t
he
dist
rict
has
the
optio
n to
def
er s
ome
or a
ll ite
ms.
•E
xpan
d E
duca
tiona
l Mis
sion
pro
ject
s re
quir
e C
abin
et a
nd B
oard
app
rova
l.T
hey
are
incl
uded
due
to th
e an
ticip
ated
nee
d fo
r th
em.
It is
pos
sibl
e th
at
som
e co
uld
be h
ouse
d in
und
erut
ilize
d sc
hool
s.
•C
ritic
al S
yste
ms
are
a lis
t of
maj
or b
uild
ing
syst
ems
that
are
nev
er f
unde
d ad
equa
tely
, hav
e re
curr
ing
prob
lem
s an
d ha
ve th
e gr
eate
st im
pact
on
futu
re
reno
vatio
n cy
cles
. A
ny o
r al
l of
thes
e ite
ms
can
be p
ro-r
ated
or
reev
alua
ted
with
the
grea
test
nee
d.•
Add
ress
Sch
ool F
acili
ty N
eeds
foc
uses
on
the
low
sco
ring
sch
ools
. N
ote 4-
27Fa
cilit
ies
Mas
ter
Plan
200
6 -
2015
AR
C -
09/
2006
AR
C 2
0208
.402
Cap
ital F
undi
ng S
trat
egy
Opt
ion
A Sc
enar
io
Dec
isio
nM
akin
gG
uide
line
T ype
Scho
ol /
Proj
ect a
t Sch
ool
Est
imat
ed T
otal
Proj
ect C
ost
(TPC
)N
otes
Pote
ntia
l Sta
te
Shar
e*Po
tent
ial
Dis
tric
t Sha
re*
Fun
d Pr
ogra
m
2008
Fun
d Pr
ogra
m
2012
Tot
al P
rogr
am
Impa
ct P
erce
nt o
f Pr
ogra
mC
ompl
ete
Proj
ects
in P
lann
ing
13,9
75,0
12$
-$
13,9
75,0
12$
13,9
75,0
12$
-$
13,9
75,0
12$
2%1.
1C
onse
nt D
ecre
e S
mal
l HS
11,6
90,8
50$
-$
11,6
90,8
50$
11,6
90,8
50$
-$
11,6
90,8
50$
1.2
16th
and
N P
rope
rty
2,28
4,16
2$
Low
est s
corin
g fa
cilit
y-
$2,
284,
162
$2,
284,
162
$-
$2,
284,
162
$Pr
ovid
e D
istr
ict F
unds
121,
906,
649
$12
,849
,716
$10
9,05
6,93
4$
44,6
23,6
09$
44,6
23,6
09$
89,2
47,2
18$
12%
2.1
Com
pute
r R
efre
sh F
und
/ Ban
d W
idth
, Ser
ver
Spa
ce
26,0
36,9
10$
-$
26,0
36,9
10$
13,0
18,4
55$
13,0
18,4
55$
26,0
36,9
10$
2.2
Bus
Rep
lace
men
t Fun
d25
,699
,431
$A
ssum
e 50
% s
tate
hel
p12
,849
,716
$12
,849
,716
$6,
424,
858
$6,
424,
858
$12
,849
,716
$2.
3B
ook
Pur
chas
e F
und
7,27
8,71
0$
-$
7,27
8,71
0$
3,63
9,35
5$
3,63
9,35
5$
7,27
8,71
0$
2.4
Pai
ntin
g / L
ead
Man
agem
ent F
und
14,0
74,4
84$
-$
14,0
74,4
84$
7,03
7,24
2$
7,03
7,24
2$
14,0
74,4
84$
2.5
Asb
esto
s / M
old
/ Haz
mat
Fun
d5,
903,
285
$-
$5,
903,
285
$2,
951,
643
$2,
951,
643
$5,
903,
285
$2.
6P
lann
ing
Fun
ds3,
294,
397
$-
$3,
294,
397
$1,
647,
199
$1,
647,
199
$3,
294,
397
$2.
7P
rogr
am E
quip
men
t Upg
rade
s11
,228
,500
$50
% O
ptio
n-
$11
,228
,500
$2,
807,
125
$2,
807,
125
$5,
614,
250
$2.
8M
aint
enan
ce S
uppl
ies
/ Equ
ip. /
Veh
icle
Fun
ds28
,390
,932
$50
% O
ptio
n-
$28
,390
,932
$7,
097,
733
$7,
097,
733
$14
,195
,466
$H
ealth
/ Sa
fety
pro
ject
s65
,999
,952
$-
$65
,999
,952
$57
,156
,442
$8,
843,
510
$65
,999
,952
$9%
3.1
Tran
spor
tatio
n C
ompl
ex R
epla
cem
ent
14,7
04,5
59$
-$
14,7
04,5
59$
14,7
04,5
59$
-$
14,7
04,5
59$
3.2
Sec
urity
Sys
tem
s P
roje
cts
4,39
8,37
7$
-$
4,39
8,37
7$
4,39
8,37
7$
-$
4,39
8,37
7$
3.3
Intr
usio
nA
larm
Fun
d2,
658,
513
$-
$2,
658,
513
$2,
658,
513
$-
$2,
658,
513
$3.
4D
rop-
Off
/ Pic
k-up
Zon
e Im
prov
emen
ts17
,687
,020
$-
$17
,687
,020
$8,
843,
510
$8,
843,
510
$17
,687
,020
$3.
5R
emai
ning
Hea
lth /
Saf
ety
Pro
ject
s26
,551
,483
$M
ostly
ren
ovat
ion
-$
26,5
51,4
83$
26,5
51,4
83$
-$
26,5
51,4
83$
Add
ress
Gro
wth
(Hou
sing
Stu
dent
s)11
2,96
4,15
0$
-$
112,
964,
150
$35
,984
,368
$55
,533
,269
$91
,517
,637
$12
%4.
1N
ew S
outh
Are
a E
S 1
29,9
01,0
84$
-$
29,9
01,0
84$
29,9
01,0
84$
-$
29,9
01,0
84$
4.2
New
Sou
th A
rea
ES
230
,962
,942
$-
$30
,962
,942
$3,
815,
940
$27
,147
,002
$30
,962
,942
$4.
3N
ew S
outh
Sm
all H
S22
,588
,551
$-
$22
,588
,551
$2,
267,
344
$22
,588
,551
$24
,855
,895
$4.
4N
ew C
entr
al C
ity E
S 1
29,4
69,7
60$
Land
Pur
chas
e-
$29
,469
,760
$-
$5,
755,
903
$5,
755,
903
$4.
5N
ew C
entr
al C
ity E
S 2
41,8
13$
Stu
dy o
nly
-$
41,8
13$
-$
41,8
13$
41,8
13$
Expa
nd E
duca
tiona
l Mis
sion
34,6
17,7
87$
-$
34,6
17,7
87$
21,4
48,3
24$
3,45
0,63
4$
24,8
98,9
58$
3%5.
1C
ente
rs fo
r E
arly
Inte
rven
tion
for A
utis
tic C
hild
ren
6,90
1,26
7$
-$
6,90
1,26
7$
3,45
0,63
4$
3,45
0,63
4$
6,90
1,26
7$
5.2
Life
Ski
lls /
Trai
ning
Cen
ter
2,15
6,37
7$
-$
2,15
6,37
7$
2,15
6,37
7$
-$
2,15
6,37
7$
5.3
Exp
and
OT
/ PT
720,
112
$-
$72
0,11
2$
720,
112
$-
$72
0,11
2$
5.4
Exp
and
Loca
l Sch
ool E
mot
iona
lly D
istu
rbed
Stu
dent
Pro
gram
s64
9,89
0$
-$
649,
890
$64
9,89
0$
-$
649,
890
$5.
5A
dd P
re-k
inde
rgar
ten
prog
ram
s to
15+
site
s19
,437
,659
$R
educ
e sc
ope
/ ret
rofit
-
$19
,437
,659
$9,
718,
830
$-
$9,
718,
830
$5.
6A
. War
ren
McC
lask
ey A
dult
Cen
ter
4,75
2,48
2$
-$
4,75
2,48
2$
4,75
2,48
2$
-$
4,75
2,48
2$
Crit
ical
Sys
tem
s Pr
ojec
ts w
ith P
riorit
y / T
imin
g 1
186,
812,
706
$-
$18
6,81
2,70
6$
82,7
57,8
52$
101,
247,
729
$18
4,00
5,58
1$
25%
6.1
Roo
fing
Pro
ject
s P
riorit
y 1
12,3
11,7
73$
-$
12,3
11,7
73$
12,3
11,7
73$
-$
12,3
11,7
73$
6.2
Roo
fing
Pro
ject
s P
riorit
y 2
18,5
68,3
81$
-$
18,5
68,3
81$
9,28
4,19
1$
9,28
4,19
1$
18,5
68,3
81$
6.3
HVA
C P
roje
cts
Prio
rity
152
,892
,922
$-
$52
,892
,922
$26
,446
,461
$26
,446
,461
$52
,892
,922
$6.
4H
VAC
Pro
ject
s P
riorit
y 2
18,1
21,1
42$
-$
18,1
21,1
42$
-$
18,1
21,1
42$
18,1
21,1
42$
6.5
HVA
C E
nerg
y M
anag
emen
t Sys
tem
5,61
4,25
0$
-$
5,61
4,25
0$
1,40
3,56
3$
1,40
3,56
3$
2,80
7,12
5$
6.6
Ele
ctric
al U
pgra
des
Prio
rity
1 in
clud
ing
Clo
ck S
yste
ms
45,5
52,6
67$
-$
45,5
52,6
67$
22,7
76,3
34$
22,7
76,3
34$
45,5
52,6
67$
6.7
Ele
ctric
al U
pgra
des
Prio
rity
212
,680
,508
$-
$12
,680
,508
$-
$12
,680
,508
$12
,680
,508
$6.
8U
pgra
de P
avin
g A
reas
Prio
rity
121
,071
,063
$-
$21
,071
,063
$10
,535
,532
$10
,535
,532
$21
,071
,063
$A
ddre
ss N
eeds
at F
acili
ties
Scor
ing
on A
RC
Sca
le <
70%
32,6
85,6
10$
-$
32,6
85,6
10$
12,7
49,3
31$
19,9
36,2
79$
32,6
85,6
10$
4%7.
1F
acili
ty h
ousi
ng S
t. H
ope
PS
-7 S
choo
l5,
029,
552
$S
elec
ted
wor
k fr
om C
IPs
-$
5,02
9,55
2$
-$
5,02
9,55
2$
5,02
9,55
2$
7.2
8th
and
V S
t Le
land
Sta
nfor
d A
nnex
with
Suc
cess
Aca
dem
y2,
013,
219
$S
elec
ted
wor
k fr
om C
IPs
-$
2,01
3,21
9$
2,01
3,21
9$
-$
2,01
3,21
9$
7.3
Old
Mar
shal
l Sch
ool
3,73
9,60
2$
Sel
ecte
d w
ork
from
CIP
s-
$3,
739,
602
$-
$3,
739,
602
$3,
739,
602
$7.
4O
ak R
idge
ES
10,7
36,1
12$
Sel
ecte
d w
ork
from
CIP
s-
$10
,736
,112
$10
,736
,112
$-
$10
,736
,112
$7.
5F
reep
ort E
S4,
628,
561
$S
elec
ted
wor
k fr
om C
IPs
-$
4,62
8,56
1$
-$
4,62
8,56
1$
4,62
8,56
1$
7.6
Woo
dbin
e E
S6,
538,
564
$S
elec
ted
wor
k fr
om C
IPs
-$
6,53
8,56
4$
-$
6,53
8,56
4$
6,53
8,56
4$
Key
Edu
catio
nal /
Pro
gram
mat
ic28
3,17
5,28
5$
-$
283,
175,
285
$52
,849
,096
$10
1,49
4,45
0$
154,
343,
546
$21
%8.
1R
osem
ont C
lass
room
Add
ition
16,0
70,4
46$
Con
side
r m
odul
ar c
onst
r.-
$16
,070
,446
$8,
035,
223
$-
$8,
035,
223
$8.
2Im
prov
e K
itche
ns L
evel
16,
106,
495
$-
$6,
106,
495
$6,
106,
495
$-
$6,
106,
495
$8.
3Im
prov
e K
itche
ns L
evel
219
,208
,364
$-
$19
,208
,364
$-
$19
,208
,364
$19
,208
,364
$8.
4S
cien
ce Im
prov
emen
ts to
K-8
, MS
, and
HS
43,1
46,9
65$
Cha
nge
scop
e /
retr
ofit
-$
43,1
46,9
65$
14,3
82,3
22$
21,5
73,4
83$
35,9
55,8
04$
8.5
Med
ia C
ente
rs a
t ES
86,6
06,9
90$
Do
1/4
of M
C-
$86
,606
,990
$-
$21
,651
,748
$21
,651
,748
$8.
6G
ym s
pace
s in
K-8
Sch
ools
14,7
35,8
00$
-$
14,7
35,8
00$
-$
14,7
35,8
00$
14,7
35,8
00$
8.7
Upg
rade
Por
tabl
e / M
odul
ar S
pace
s97
,300
,225
$C
hang
e sc
ope
/ re
trof
it-
$97
,300
,225
$24
,325
,056
$24
,325
,056
$48
,650
,113
$Im
plem
entA
thle
tic F
ield
s an
d G
rass
Are
a U
pgra
des
50,0
37,9
38$
-$
50,0
37,9
38$
26,0
91,4
44$
11,9
73,2
47$
38,0
64,6
91$
5%9.
1P
urch
ase
Mow
ing
Equ
ipm
ent
662,
614
$-
$66
2,61
4$
662,
614
$-
$66
2,61
4$
9.2
Mod
em C
ontr
olle
d Ir
rigat
ion
Tim
e C
lock
Sys
tem
1,48
2,33
6$
-$
1,48
2,33
6$
1,48
2,33
6$
-$
1,48
2,33
6$
9.3
Ath
letic
Fie
lds
/ Gra
ss A
rea
Impr
ovem
ents
47,8
92,9
88$
Beg
in u
pgra
ding
pro
cess
-$
47,8
92,9
88$
23,9
46,4
94$
11,9
73,2
47$
35,9
19,7
41$
Con
tinge
ncy
Allo
wan
ce (1
/3 fo
r uni
dent
ified
roof
ing
prob
lem
s)56
,250
,000
$-
$56
,250
,000
$28
,125
,000
$28
,125
,000
$56
,250
,000
$7%
902,
175,
089
$12
,849
,716
$88
9,32
5,37
4$
375,
760,
478
$37
5,22
7,72
7$
750,
988,
204
$Ta
r get
Fun
d Va
lue
375,
000,
000
$37
5,00
0,00
0$
750,
000,
000
$D
iffer
ence
Rem
aini
ng to
allo
cate
(760
,478
)$
(227
,727
)$
(988
,204
)$
Cap
ital F
undi
ng S
trat
egy
Opt
ion
B S
cena
rio
Dec
isio
nM
akin
gG
uide
line
T ype
Scho
ol /
Proj
ect a
t Sch
ool
Est
imat
ed T
otal
Proj
ect C
ost
(TPC
)N
otes
Pote
ntia
l Sta
te
Shar
e*Po
tent
ial
Dis
tric
t Sha
re*
Fun
d Pr
ogra
m
2008
Fun
d Pr
ogra
m
2012
Tot
al P
rogr
am
Impa
ct P
erce
nt o
f Pr
ogra
mC
ompl
ete
Proj
ects
in P
lann
ing
13,9
75,0
12$
-$
13,9
75,0
12$
11,6
90,8
50$
-$
11,6
90,8
50$
2%1.
1C
onse
nt D
ecre
e S
mal
l HS
11,6
90,8
50$
-$
11,6
90,8
50$
11,6
90,8
50$
-$
11,6
90,8
50$
1.2
16th
and
N P
rope
rty
2,28
4,16
2$
Dev
elop
er c
over
s co
sts
-$
2,28
4,16
2$
-$
-$
-$
Prov
ide
Dis
tric
t Fun
ds12
1,90
6,64
9$
19,2
74,5
73$
102,
632,
076
$37
,892
,559
$37
,892
,559
$75
,785
,118
$10
%2.
1C
ompu
ter
Ref
resh
Fun
d / B
and
Wid
th, S
erve
r S
pace
26
,036
,910
$-
$26
,036
,910
$13
,018
,455
$13
,018
,455
$26
,036
,910
$2.
2B
us R
epla
cem
ent F
und
25,6
99,4
31$
Ass
ume
75%
sta
te h
elp
19,2
74,5
73$
6,42
4,85
8$
3,21
2,42
9$
3,21
2,42
9$
6,42
4,85
8$
2.3
Boo
k P
urch
ase
Fun
d7,
278,
710
$-
$7,
278,
710
$3,
639,
355
$3,
639,
355
$7,
278,
710
$2.
4P
aint
ing
/ Lea
d M
anag
emen
t Fun
d14
,074
,484
$50
% p
rogr
am-
$14
,074
,484
$3,
518,
621
$3,
518,
621
$7,
037,
242
$2.
5A
sbes
tos
/ Mol
d / H
azm
at F
und
5,90
3,28
5$
-$
5,90
3,28
5$
2,95
1,64
3$
2,95
1,64
3$
5,90
3,28
5$
2.6
Pla
nnin
g F
unds
3,29
4,39
7$
-$
3,29
4,39
7$
1,64
7,19
9$
1,64
7,19
9$
3,29
4,39
7$
2.7
Pro
gram
Equ
ipm
ent U
pgra
des
11,2
28,5
00$
50%
pro
gram
-$
11,2
28,5
00$
2,80
7,12
5$
2,80
7,12
5$
5,61
4,25
0$
2.8
Mai
nten
ance
Sup
plie
s / E
quip
. / V
ehic
le F
unds
28,3
90,9
32$
50%
pro
gram
-$
28,3
90,9
32$
7,09
7,73
3$
7,09
7,73
3$
14,1
95,4
66$
Hea
lth /
Safe
ty p
roje
cts
65,9
99,9
52$
-$
65,9
99,9
52$
48,3
12,9
32$
-$
48,3
12,9
32$
6%3.
1Tr
ansp
orta
tion
Com
plex
Rep
lace
men
t14
,704
,559
$-
$14
,704
,559
$14
,704
,559
$-
$14
,704
,559
$3.
2S
ecur
ity S
yste
ms
Pro
ject
s4,
398,
377
$-
$4,
398,
377
$4,
398,
377
$-
$4,
398,
377
$3.
3In
trus
ion
Ala
rm F
und
2,65
8,51
3$
-$
2,65
8,51
3$
2,65
8,51
3$
-$
2,65
8,51
3$
3.4
Dro
p-O
ff / P
ick-
up Z
one
Impr
ovem
ents
17,6
87,0
20$
-$
17,6
87,0
20$
-$
-$
-$
3.5
Rem
aini
ng H
ealth
/ S
afet
y P
roje
cts
26,5
51,4
83$
Mos
tly r
enov
atio
n-
$26
,551
,483
$26
,551
,483
$-
$26
,551
,483
$A
ddre
ss G
row
th (H
ousi
ng S
tude
nts)
112,
964,
150
$-
$11
2,96
4,15
0$
6,08
3,28
4$
58,2
87,3
51$
64,3
70,6
35$
9%4.
1N
ew S
outh
Are
a E
S 1
29,9
01,0
84$
Land
Pur
chas
e-
$29
,901
,084
$3,
815,
940
$26
,085
,144
$29
,901
,084
$4.
2N
ew S
outh
Are
a E
S 2
30,9
62,9
42$
Land
Pur
chas
e-
$30
,962
,942
$-
$3,
815,
940
$3,
815,
940
$4.
3N
ew S
outh
Sm
all H
S22
,588
,551
$La
nd P
urch
ase
-$
22,5
88,5
51$
2,26
7,34
4$
22,5
88,5
51$
24,8
55,8
95$
4.4
New
Cen
tral
City
ES
129
,469
,760
$La
nd P
urch
ase
-$
29,4
69,7
60$
-$
5,75
5,90
3$
5,75
5,90
3$
4.5
New
Cen
tral
City
ES
241
,813
$S
tudy
onl
y-
$41
,813
$-
$41
,813
$41
,813
$Ex
pand
Edu
catio
nal M
issi
on34
,617
,787
$-
$34
,617
,787
$16
,588
,909
$3,
450,
634
$20
,039
,543
$3%
5.1
Cen
ters
for
Ear
ly In
terv
entio
n fo
r Aut
istic
Chi
ldre
n6,
901,
267
$-
$6,
901,
267
$3,
450,
634
$3,
450,
634
$6,
901,
267
$5.
2Li
fe S
kills
/ Tr
aini
ng C
ente
r2,
156,
377
$-
$2,
156,
377
$2,
156,
377
$-
$2,
156,
377
$5.
3E
xpan
d O
T / P
T72
0,11
2$
-$
720,
112
$72
0,11
2$
-$
720,
112
$5.
4E
xpan
d Lo
cal S
choo
l Em
otio
nally
Dis
turb
ed S
tude
nt P
rogr
ams
649,
890
$-
$64
9,89
0$
649,
890
$-
$64
9,89
0$
5.5
Add
Pre
-kin
derg
arte
n pr
ogra
ms
to 1
5 si
tes
19,4
37,6
59$
Red
uce
scop
e / r
etro
fit
-$
19,4
37,6
59$
4,85
9,41
5$
-$
4,85
9,41
5$
5.6
A. W
arre
n M
cCla
skey
Adu
lt C
ente
r4,
752,
482
$-
$4,
752,
482
$4,
752,
482
$-
$4,
752,
482
$C
ritic
al S
yste
ms
Proj
ects
with
Prio
rity
/ Tim
ing
118
6,81
2,70
6$
-$
186,
812,
706
$64
,266
,856
$95
,979
,963
$16
0,24
6,81
9$
21%
6.1
Roo
fing
Pro
ject
s P
riorit
y 1
12,3
11,7
73$
-$
12,3
11,7
73$
12,3
11,7
73$
-$
12,3
11,7
73$
6.2
Roo
fing
Pro
ject
s P
riorit
y 2
18,5
68,3
81$
-$
18,5
68,3
81$
9,28
4,19
1$
9,28
4,19
1$
18,5
68,3
81$
6.3
HVA
C P
roje
cts
Prio
rity
152
,892
,922
$R
educ
e sc
ope
/ ret
rofit
-
$52
,892
,922
$13
,223
,231
$26
,446
,461
$39
,669
,692
$6.
4H
VAC
Pro
ject
s P
riorit
y 2
18,1
21,1
42$
-$
18,1
21,1
42$
-$
18,1
21,1
42$
18,1
21,1
42$
6.5
HVA
C E
nerg
y M
anag
emen
t Sys
tem
5,61
4,25
0$
-$
5,61
4,25
0$
1,40
3,56
3$
1,40
3,56
3$
2,80
7,12
5$
6.6
Ele
ctric
al U
pgra
des
Prio
rity
1 in
clud
ing
Clo
ck S
yste
ms
45,5
52,6
67$
-$
45,5
52,6
67$
22,7
76,3
34$
22,7
76,3
34$
45,5
52,6
67$
6.7
Ele
ctric
al U
pgra
des
Prio
rity
212
,680
,508
$-
$12
,680
,508
$-
$12
,680
,508
$12
,680
,508
$6.
8U
pgra
de P
avin
g A
reas
Prio
rity
121
,071
,063
$R
educ
e sc
ope
/ ret
rofit
-
$21
,071
,063
$5,
267,
766
$5,
267,
766
$10
,535
,532
$A
ddre
ss N
eeds
at F
acili
ties
273,
777,
483
$-
$27
3,77
7,48
3$
136,
888,
742
$13
6,88
8,74
2$
273,
777,
483
$36
%7.
1M
eet S
ite Id
entif
ied
Prio
ritie
s (1
-4)
273,
777,
483
$S
choo
l bas
ed-
$27
3,77
7,48
3$
136,
888,
742
$13
6,88
8,74
2$
273,
777,
483
$K
ey E
duca
tiona
l / P
rogr
amm
atic
16,0
70,4
46$
-$
16,0
70,4
46$
8,03
5,22
3$
-$
8,03
5,22
3$
1%8.
1R
osem
ont C
lass
room
Add
ition
16,0
70,4
46$
Con
side
r m
odul
ar c
onst
r.-
$16
,070
,446
$8,
035,
223
$-
$8,
035,
223
$Im
plem
entA
thle
tic F
ield
s an
d G
rass
Are
a U
pgra
des
50,0
37,9
38$
-$
50,0
37,9
38$
17,8
87,9
18$
14,3
82,2
79$
32,2
70,1
97$
4%9.
1P
urch
ase
Mow
ing
Equ
ipm
ent
662,
614
$-
$66
2,61
4$
662,
614
$-
$66
2,61
4$
9.2
Mod
em C
ontr
olle
d Ir
rigat
ion
Tim
e C
lock
Sys
tem
1,48
2,33
6$
-$
1,48
2,33
6$
1,48
2,33
6$
-$
1,48
2,33
6$
9.3
Ath
letic
Fie
lds
/ Gra
ss A
rea
Impr
ovem
ents
47,8
92,9
88$
LBH
S s
tadi
um m
ain
cost
-$
47,8
92,9
88$
15,7
42,9
68$
14,3
82,2
79$
30,1
25,2
47$
Con
tinge
ncy
Allo
wan
ce (1
/3 fo
r uni
dent
ified
roof
ing
prob
lem
s)56
,250
,000
$-
$56
,250
,000
$28
,125
,000
$28
,125
,000
$56
,250
,000
$7%
876,
162,
123
$19
,274
,573
$85
6,88
7,55
0$
375,
772,
272
$37
5,00
6,52
7$
750,
778,
799
$Ta
rget
Fun
d Va
lue
375,
000,
000
$37
5,00
0,00
0$
750,
000,
000
$D
iffer
ence
Rem
aini
ng to
allo
cate
(772
,272
)$
(6,5
27)
$(7
78,7
99)
$
Exh
ibit
4-13
C
apita
l Fun
ding
Str
ateg
y O
ptio
n B
Sce
nari
oK
ey E
duca
tiona
l / P
rogr
amm
atic
list
s of
pro
ject
s, f
ew, i
f an
y, g
o w
ithou
t an
y w
ork
in a
fun
ding
opt
ion.
•K
ey E
duca
tiona
l / P
rogr
amm
atic
Nee
ds is
a li
st o
f ou
r th
ough
ts a
bout
gr
eate
st n
eed.
All
prog
ram
-typ
e pr
ojec
t cat
egor
ies
shou
ld b
e re
view
ed f
or
impo
rtan
ce.
•Im
plem
ent A
thle
tic F
ield
s an
d G
rass
Are
a Im
prov
emen
ts p
roje
cts
deal
the
expe
ctat
ion
that
the
dist
rict
will
pay
for
all
irri
gatio
n w
ater
by
2010
+/,
such
a p
rogr
am o
f im
prov
emen
t is
nece
ssar
y. M
uch
of th
is w
ork
will
hav
e so
me
pay-
back
ret
urn
to th
e di
stri
ct.
Part
of
this
rec
omm
enda
tion
is th
e cr
eatio
n of
a d
istr
ict A
thle
tics
Dir
ecto
r to
ove
rsee
pro
gram
s an
d im
prov
emen
ts.
Man
y di
stri
cts
are
expe
rim
entin
g
inve
stig
ated
.
Cap
ital F
undi
ng S
trat
egy
Opt
ion
BT
his
stra
tegy
has
the
sam
e de
cisi
on-m
akin
g gu
idel
ines
, exc
ept:
prio
ritie
s ea
ch s
choo
l fel
t mos
t im
port
ant t
o th
eir
site
. T
his
num
ber
is
an e
stim
ate,
sin
ce n
ot a
ll si
tes
resp
onde
d to
the
requ
est f
or p
rior
itiza
tion.
Not
ing
that
$27
4 m
illio
n w
as f
or a
ll 1
thro
ugh
8 pr
iori
ties
for
the
53 s
ites,
th
e le
vel o
f ne
eds
for
the
rem
aini
ng is
like
ly to
fal
l clo
se to
the
stat
ed
valu
e.
Mor
e su
b-di
vidi
ng o
f pr
ojec
ts is
req
uire
d un
der
this
sce
nari
o, il
lust
ratin
g ho
w
agre
ed-u
pon
need
s.
4-28
Faci
litie
s M
aste
r Pl
an 2
006
- 20
15A
RC
- 0
9/20
06A
RC
202
08.4
02