Riverside Unified School District staff on Tuesday presented a draft long-range facilities plan that uses four “pillars” and a data-driven scoring matrix to rank capital needs across campuses.
Assistant Superintendent Williams and outside architects described the framework—leverage state funding, replace portables, renovate infrastructure, and campus equity—and showed how those pillars are combined into a normalized rubric and a single draft prioritization score sheet. Large-format copies of the rubric were provided to trustees for review during the study session.
Staff said the rubric weighs multiple factors for each pillar: eligibility windows for state funding and past modernization dates under the leverage pillar; share and (planned) age of portable classrooms under the portable pillar; concealed systems (water, gas, sewer, electrical) and levels of modernization (light, moderate, heavy) under renovation; and equity gaps such as lack of restrooms for young children, missing EXLP facilities, or missing gym space under campus equity. The district team noted some anomalies on the first pass; for example, a campus that is portable in configuration but sits on permanent foundations (EOC) ranked unexpectedly high for portable replacement and will be reclassified after follow-up.
Trustees asked for further refinements: incorporate portable age in the replacement formula; add job-alike (programmatic) team review (e.g., band directors, VAPA teachers, CTE leads) so school-level program priorities are validated; and consider weighting the pillars differently. Staff and their design consultants (LPA) said some principal and program focus-group input is already in the plan and that the rubric is built from common district best practices while customized to Riverside Unified.
Why it matters: The rubric will be central to how the district prioritizes projects for local bond funds and for state matching programs administered under California facility funding rules. Staff said the plan is a “living document” to be iterated with additional job-alike collaboration and data corrections.
Next steps: staff agreed to add more school-level collaboration, adjust weighting if the board requests it, re-run prioritization after correcting data anomalies, and present refined options back to trustees for guidance.