Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Prioritization Tool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft facility evaluation tool to prioritize capital projects
Summary
Staff presented a draft E‑5 evaluation tool that scores projects on infrastructure condition, instructional impact, project readiness and other categories; committee members asked for higher weight for future planning and for sustainability to be included.
Staff presented a draft evaluation tool intended to help the district prioritize facility and infrastructure projects by a numerical rubric.
Why it matters: The tool is intended to make project prioritization more transparent and data driven, producing a ranked list of projects for the next capital program and explaining to school stakeholders why one project appears ahead of another.
Tool structure and weighting
- Staff said the tool uses categories that include safety systems; infrastructure condition (the FCI score); instructional impact; project scope, complexity and readiness; past East Bloss commitments; monetary savings; site capacity; future planning; and technology support. Each category is scored 0–5 and then multiplied by a weight to produce a composite score.
- In the draft shown to the committee, infrastructure condition received the largest weight, site capacity 15%, and safety systems, project readiness, and past commitments each 10%. Future planning and technology were assigned 5% each. A worked example in the presentation produced composite scores and a ranked example list of a new elementary, an HVAC replacement and a gym renovation.
Committee feedback and directions
- Several committee members asked staff to raise the weighting for future planning, noting rapid housing growth in some parts of the county and the need to anticipate enrollment pressures. "As soon as we build them, they're over capacity," one member said when describing West-side development.
- Members asked staff to consider where sustainability and carbon‑reduction goals should appear in the rubric. Staff agreed to consider adding sustainability either as a distinct category or embedded in infrastructure and life-cycle cost scoring.
- Board members asked for accompanying timeline and communications materials so principals and community members can see where a project sits in a broader multi-school timeline and why a given project is not ranked first.
- Staff said the tool is a draft and will be revised based on committee feedback; it will guide scheduling after the committee approves the form and weights.
Discussion vs. decision
- Discussion only: Committee provided feedback on weights and categories and asked for sustainability and stronger future planning emphasis.
- Direction/assignment: Staff was asked to revise the draft to reflect the committee's feedback, include explanation slides that show how scores translate into a timeline, and return with a revised rubric for approval.
- Formal action: None. The committee did not vote to adopt the tool at this meeting.
Ending
Staff said they will revise the evaluation tool and bring an updated version for the committee's further consideration; no prioritization rollouts or schedule changes were approved at this meeting.
