Santa Paula board directs staff to prioritize Brighton gym and Isbell Phase 1 after cost review

The Santa Paula Unified School District board met in a special session on the evening of Feb. 1 to review schematic designs and funding options for multiple campus projects and to give staff guidance on which pieces to advance.

Architects presented the campus as four discrete areas — Area 1 (the new gym and associated accessible paths and locker-room work), Area 2 (a new pool, pool equipment and multipurpose rooms), Area 3 (performing-arts classrooms) and Area 4 (a weight/cardio facility). The presenter said Area 2 depends on Area 1 because the pool design needs locker and shower space. “Area 1 is the gym itself,” the architect said, adding the team had prepared schematic-level numbers and options so the board could consider carrying forward only specific areas.

Laurie, district finance staff, walked trustees through fund balances and transfers, including an insurance amount listed for the Brighton Gym and several planned transfers from capital funds into the general fund. “It’s 40 millions,” Laurie said in response to a board question about available shared funds; earlier in the presentation Laurie outlined transfers including a $3,600,000 move from fund 140 into the general fund and measure P balances that start near $29 million and net to about $27 million after encumbrances.

Trustees repeatedly emphasized that rebuilding the gym and associated locker facilities is the political and programmatic priority. “This is our master plan for the high school,” Trustee Sandoval said, urging the district to move forward with the gym and with a first phase at Isbell. Several trustees said they preferred continuing the design work now rather than pausing for a future bond, citing rising costs: “The sooner you build it, the cheaper it is,” the architect warned.

The board did not approve construction contracts or a spending motion at the meeting. Instead trustees gave staff direction to continue design and value-engineering, to keep DSA (Division of the State Architect) submissions moving and to return with formal action items when bids and a defined funding plan are in hand. The construction manager said design work will proceed and staff will track progress in weekly updates.

Trustees also discussed a separate district-office portable project the board is considering for IT and operations. Staff said the portable building contract is roughly $573,000 and that site development — footings, parking, a new sewer connection and substantial stormwater work — drives a roughly $1.4 million additional cost, bringing the portable-related total near the $2.0 million range. Trustees debated whether the portable should be sited differently to reduce site-development costs and asked staff to explore lower-cost alternatives and rental options.

Board members raised budget cautions: finance staff showed multi-year projected deficits and explained some capital-to-general-fund transfers are being used to cover short-term general-fund needs. One trustee summarized the concern that the district is “papering over” deficits by using capital transfers and asked staff to pursue budget savings so capital funds need not be raided.

Next procedural steps: staff will continue the design and DSA submission work, pursue value engineering during the design-development phase, and return to the board with staff reports and action items when bids, formal cost updates and funding allocations are available. The board set its next meeting for March 12 at Glen City and adjourned at 6:19 p.m.