School facilities assessment tool presented; staff recommends $1.62 million building reserve

The Facilities Committee of the Whole met May 27 and heard a presentation on a new facilities assessment tool and a staff recommendation to set a $1,620,000 minimum ending fund balance for the district’s building fund.

The presentation, delivered by facilities staff member Jonathan Show, explained the tool’s methodology and how it translates building-condition scores into a per-square-foot reserve target. "They protect us against unexpected facility costs. They avoid disruptions to instructional planning and staff," Show said of cash reserves, adding that the tool assigns weights to critical systems such as the building envelope, roof, HVAC and plumbing and then ties scores to dollar-per-square-foot multipliers.

The recommendation matters because a dedicated building reserve would reduce pressure on the district’s general fund when unplanned repairs occur, staff said. "This the one we're presenting on today is that first layer, that cash reserves. They allow the district to move quickly on critical repairs," Show told the committee.

The scorecard rates each building across systems (envelope, HVAC, roof, plumbing, electrical, safety, accessibility, interior finishes and grounds) and applies multipliers that place greater weight on envelope and roof conditions. Show said the district assessed inputs including system ages, work-order trends, ADA/accessibility considerations, and input from custodial and maintenance staff, plus outside industry partners used for targeted assessments (roofing, construction engineering).

Under the proposed tiers, reserves are calculated by condition per square foot: critical $15/sq ft, poor $5/sq ft, fair $1.75/sq ft, good $0.80/sq ft and excellent $0.50/sq ft. Using that method, staff reported a districtwide building-fund reserve target of approximately $1,620,000 and a per-school breakdown in the board packet; Show said he would double-check a minor math inconsistency in a slide.

Show provided an illustrative budgeting scenario (not actual budget commitments) showing how modest improvements over several years could reduce reserve needs and shift money into improvement projects. In the example, a reduction in reserve needs from about $1.62 million to roughly $1.35 million increased the hypothetical improvement budget from $500,000 to about $773,500, a 54.7% increase; staff described the example as illustrative rather than prescriptive.

Committee members pressed for additional detail and stakeholder engagement. "I would encourage you to somehow always ask those that are living it and walking it day to day about that," said Dr. Hodak, a board member, referring to building principals and school administrators. Show replied that custodial staff had been surveyed and that the district plans to engage principals during development of the facilities plan.

Board members also discussed next steps and governance. Show said the district will update facility scores annually and adjust reserve targets using national construction-cost indicators; he noted the Federal Reserve’s construction-cost data referred to as the producer price index as an input for annual adjustment. Staff told the committee the tool and a recommended ending balance will be discussed by the finance committee on June 3 and presented to the full board for final approval on June 9.

Committee discussion clarified that no formal committee action was taken at the Facilities Committee meeting. The meeting record includes a separate, earlier procedural vote: the committee approved minutes from its March 31, 2025 meeting by roll call (9 yes, 0 no). Staff also noted the district’s current building fund balance, and that any expenditure from the building fund requires board approval; Brandon (staff) said the fund balance was about $5.2 million and projected to end the year higher than the recommended minimum under current project timelines.

Members asked about funding history and constraints. At one point a board member recalled that voters approved a 10‑mill levy in 2021 that improved the district’s capital position after a prior period when reduced levy capacity had forced general-fund transfers to cover capital needs; staff and board members said the levy and past transfers informed the discussion of how to fund ongoing maintenance versus major capital work.

The committee endorsed moving the recommendation forward for finance committee discussion rather than taking formal action at the Facilities Committee meeting. Staff said the tool is intended as an administrative guide to set a building-fund minimum balance and to inform the five-year facilities plan scheduled for draft presentation in September and revision in November.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved the March 31, 2025 meeting minutes (motion moved by Dr. Juan; second by Mr. Anderson). Roll call recorded Glenn, Quinn, Thomasino, Larson, Cleven, Bodak, Anderson, Manly and Berger as voting yes (9–0); no members were recorded absent.

The committee did not adopt the reserve recommendation at this meeting; staff will present the recommendation and supporting materials to the finance committee on June 3 and to the full board on June 9.