Tehachapi Unified School District trustees on Oct. 25 received a presentation from Teeter Architects on a draft facilities master plan that lays out preliminary project lists and estimated costs totaling about $125,000,000 and asks the board to consider an implementation strategy, including local bonding and state funding applications.

The plan, presented by Robert Thornton, principal architect for Teeter, summarizes facility assessments, community and facility-advisory-committee input and demographic projections. Thornton told the board the district’s elementary enrollment shows a temporary increase tied to transitional kindergarten (TK) and that the middle and high school populations are projected to decline modestly. “I would really encourage you as you as we finalize the master plan that we look at the importance of updating it as we go along,” Thornton said.

Why it matters: The draft groups needs into modernization, new construction and maintenance. Priority items flagged by the consultants and community input include additional TK and kindergarten classrooms and age‑appropriate restrooms and playgrounds; a high‑school performing‑arts center and campus stadium; roof replacements (identified as a multi‑million‑dollar item); HVAC replacement or conversion from a central plant to stand‑alone units; and removal or replacement of dilapidated portable buildings. The plan also calls for improved pick‑up/drop‑off circulation and additional staff and health office space at several elementary sites.

Key findings and local details
- Capacity and TK: The consultant and the district’s demographic firm found an elementary TK “bubble” that could push classrooms at Golden Hills and Tompkins toward uncomfortable utilization levels, while middle‑ and high‑school capacity is generally underused. The presentation recommends adding one to two TK/kindergarten classrooms at each elementary campus and, where possible, upgrading classrooms so spaces currently used for other functions can be reconverted or subdivided.
- Campus needs: Thornton and the architects identified prioritized lists for each campus. High‑school needs highlighted new performance and VAPA classrooms, relocating a stadium onto the high‑school campus (rather than retrofitting the off‑campus stadium), major roof work, and a move away from a central HVAC plant to packaged units. Middle‑school priorities included gym modernization, roof replacement for most wings and classroom modernization. Elementary priorities included TK/K classrooms, accessible restrooms, SPED classroom restrooms and improved parking/drop‑off areas.
- Portables: The report notes the district has sufficient campus capacity in places to remove portables; in other cases portables should be replaced rather than retained.

Costs and funding options
Teeter provided high‑level construction and project costs (construction cost plus typical soft costs) and noted the total preliminary package would be equivalent to building roughly two elementary schools. The firm estimated escalation at roughly 3–4% annually for near‑term planning and noted tariffs and supply factors could raise that to 6–8% in later years. Thornton said the un‑escalated, preliminary project list sums to about $125,000,000.

On funding, the presentation explained typical sources the district would use: state modernization eligibility, state new‑construction eligibility, developer fees, and local general obligation bonds. The consultants said the district currently has modernization eligibility and limited new‑construction eligibility, and gave itemized state eligibility estimates by campus (Cummings ~ $6.0 million; Golden Hills ~ $7.0 million; Tompkins ~ $6.5 million; a campus listed as “Bridal” in the presentation ~ $10.4 million; Tehachapi High School ~ $18.5 million; district education center ~ $0.5 million). Thornton said state reimbursement timing has slowed compared with historical practice: districts often must fund projects up front and wait years for state reimbursement, and that state bond program money for modernization from the 2024 state bond is already allocated while new‑construction funds remain available.

Board questions, community engagement and next steps
Trustees asked for clarification on roof lifespans, portable contents and campus acreage norms; facility staff said some roofs have exceeded expected life and will require planning on a five‑to‑eight‑year horizon. The consultants emphasized the master plan should be updated regularly (year 2–3) and recommended developing an implementation plan that sequences projects into tiers. Thornton and district staff recommended that the existing Facility Advisory Committee (FAC) serve as or form a steering committee to finalize priorities and to help build community support, with an option to include a student representative at the steering‑committee level.

Trustees were presented two paths: (1) direct staff to pursue bond‑planning and bond‑counsel work with a specific bond size and timetable, then build an implementation plan around that funding assumption; or (2) accept the prioritized/tiered list now and return later with an implementation plan once the board decides on a funding approach. Thornton said bond timing is a local decision and noted March 2026 is likely too soon for a bond campaign while many districts consider November or 2028 bond elections.

Formal action on the agenda
Earlier in the meeting, the board approved the special‑meeting agenda. The motion to approve the agenda was made by Vice President Kelly and seconded by Trustee Christiansen; the board voted 5–0 in favor (President Kaminski, Vice President Kelly, Clerk Wood, Trustee Cooper and Trustee Christiansen voting yes). The agenda approval was the only formal vote recorded in the transcript excerpt related to the master plan presentation.

What’s next: The architects said they will produce an implementation‑level draft that sequences projects, applies escalation factors by expected construction year, and identifies next steps for bond counsel and stakeholder outreach. District staff and trustees signaled interest in using the FAC/steering committee as the public‑facing group to refine priorities before returning the draft master plan to the board for adoption.

(Quoted material in this article comes from the presentation by Robert Thornton, principal architect, and from recorded board discussion in the Oct. 25 special meeting.)