4 Capital Improvement Plan...Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09/2006 ARC 20208.402 Capital Improvement Plan 727$/ &$3,7$/ 1(('6 7KH HYDOXDWLRQ LGHQWL¿HG DERXW $1,600,000,000

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.


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


• 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


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.


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)


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)


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


4.5 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Exhibit 4-7 Sample of 9 SchoolsPriorities 1 through 4only

project groupings that should be considered on a districtwide basis rather than by school.


4.6 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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


• 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).


4.8

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.


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


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

Documents

4 Capital Improvement Plan...Facilities Master Plan 2006 - 2015 ARC - 09/2006 ARC 20208.402 Capital Improvement Plan 727$/ &$3,7$/ 1(('6 7KH HYDOXDWLRQ LGHQWL¿HG DERXW $1,600,000,000