Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cypress School District presents $14M facilities master plan, board urged to explore bond
Summary
District staff outlined deferred-maintenance and capital needs—roofs, playgrounds, asphalt, HVAC and technology—totaling roughly $14 million (not including some items), and recommended exploratory work on funding options including a potential general obligation bond.
District staff presented a Facilities Master Plan to the Cypress School District Board of Trustees on July 10, detailing a multi-year list of deferred-maintenance needs and proposed capital projects.
In a presentation led by district facility staff, the plan highlighted major needs across the district’s six primary schools, including asphalt repairs (estimated $1.4 million in 2026 for areas that must be addressed within two years), playground replacements (a proposed budget of about $500,000 per year to replace two to three playgrounds), roofing (an estimated $8 million across the next five years and an additional ~$2.9 million for 13 more roofs in years five to seven) and increasing failures of HVAC and energy‑management systems. Staff described energy‑management replacement costs at specific sites as roughly $40,000–$75,000 per site and noted HVAC unit replacements typically range from $20,000 for modular/portable units to about $50,000 for rooftop systems.
Staff stressed that many figures exclude inflation and that some items (for example, full HVAC system analysis, classroom technology refresh and certain site‑specific projects) were not fully scoped in the current presentation. The presenters said the $14,000,000 figure they discussed does not include the full package of needs and that additional costs will appear as more assessments are completed.
On funding, business‑services staff reviewed revenue sources already available to the district: general fund and ongoing capital reserves (Fund 40), developer fees (Fund 25), small deferred‑maintenance funds (Fund 14), past certificates of participation/loans used to complete prior modernizations, and past voter‑approved Measure M bond proceeds. Staff reported a nominal Measure M balance in the neighborhood of $11.9 million from the 2008/2009 measure, but explained statutory limits on assessed‑value access would likely make only part of that sum ($~5 million, by staff estimate) available in roughly 5–7 years. Staff outlined other options—parcel taxes, positioning a new general obligation bond to capture state matching funds when eligible, or loans—and recommended exploratory planning to determine community receptivity before any formal measure would be placed on a ballot.
Trustees asked technical questions about priorities and life‑cycle expectations for roofs, playgrounds and roofing materials; staff described indicators that trigger reroofing (ponding, membrane deterioration, repeated patching) and clarified that changes in roofing materials or structural roof loading would require Division of State Architect (DSA) review, which can add time and cost. Staff also described site‑specific concerns—fields with gopher activity, playground areas with wood‑chip surfacing that perform poorly in shaded, damp zones—and the district’s current mitigation steps.
The master plan was presented as informational and will come back to the board in August for final approval. Staff recommended beginning exploratory work on potential funding measures so the community and board can assess options and timing ahead of future ballot cycles.
The presentation and discussion concluded with a reminder that many projects require DSA approval and that state matching funds are only available after a project is DSA approved, which can affect timing and eligibility for state grants.
