Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campus Improvement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OUSD outlines $40M campus improvement program, details scope and timeline
Summary
District staff proposed a Campus Improvement Program using board‑approved allocations and a $40 million package to address visible curb appeal, safety upgrades, playgrounds, teaching walls and targeted HVAC/window work; staff proposed two multi‑trade crews and a summer/school‑year schedule to accelerate work and a public dashboard to report progress.
The Orange Unified School District on Feb. 5 presented a proposed Campus Improvement Program that layers previously approved funding to address long‑standing deferred‑maintenance needs and visible campus improvements.
Superintendent Dr. Menares told trustees the board has already dedicated roughly $57.7 million this school year to campus improvement and deferred‑maintenance work. Facilities staff (presenter Mr. Calderon) described the program as a targeted effort using the $40 million the board approved in December to deliver upgrades that are visible and address safety and usability rather than full modernization projects.
Scope and priorities: staff said the program will emphasize campus curb appeal, student safety and learning environments. Specific project types cited include shaded outdoor learning areas, playground surface and equipment replacement at multiple elementary sites, marquee signage, additional slurry/restriping and three repaving jobs, replacement of some teaching wall systems and interactive displays at a limited number of elementary schools, and targeted HVAC/window repairs for systems at end‑of‑life. Staff also described a $5 million IP speaker/communication project and security front‑door access control for many sites.
Delivery approach and timeline: the district proposed two five‑member multi‑trade project crews (plumber, electrician, carpenter, painter and supervisor) plus two three‑person landscape crews. Those crews would 'camp out' at sites for one to two weeks or work night shifts to avoid disrupting classrooms; staff estimated about a 10‑month schedule to address most elementary and middle schools and said larger modernization would require separate bond funding. Playground replacements that require Division of the State Architect review were acknowledged as subject to design and DSA timelines.
Funding and oversight: presenters said the $40 million is intended to supplement prior allocations (bringing the district to the roughly $57–58 million level this year) and that staff will seek matching or reimbursable funding where feasible. Trustees urged staff to analyze opportunities that could generate matching funds and to coordinate with PTA and community donors to avoid duplication. Staff committed to regular updates and a public dashboard indicating completed work and site status.
Board questions and concerns: trustees raised operational concerns (storage, neighborhood impacts, how marquees and fencing will be standardized), environmental and sustainability choices for landscaping, the need for equitable distribution so each school 'gets something,' and the potential to prioritize projects that yield reimbursement or matching funds. Trustees also asked how portables will be handled; staff said degraded portables will be demolished and reusable ones relocated where needed (noting TK and early childhood space pressures).
What’s next: staff said they will return with a recommended project list and request for formal approval at the Feb. 19 board meeting and will develop a dashboard to report progress to the public.
