Facilities committee presents five options, including two‑campus plan; committee flags $175M 20‑year need

A facilities committee that worked with RRMM and FutureThink presented a set of options to address aging schools and long‑range capacity needs, and the committee recommended narrowing the field to three candidate approaches for formal architectural costing and public review.

The presenter summarized five to six options analyzed by the committee: (1) continue the current nine‑building configuration and fund deferred maintenance, (2) phased occupied renovation of existing buildings, (3) targeted renovations that reassign grade bands and explore capacity swaps among schools, (4) adding grades 7–8 to the high schools with elementary renovations, and (5) a longer‑range two‑campus plan with two new primary schools that would consolidate many sites. "If you take that CIP out to 20 years, those numbers can grow substantially — the committee's estimate landed at roughly $175 million over 20 years," the presenter said, citing consultant input.

Committee members and staff highlighted tradeoffs: renovation schedules that avoid major student disruption; the operational and safety drawbacks of modular classrooms; transportation and staffing efficiencies from fewer campuses; and the need to test likely sites for new construction. The consultant work includes capacity analyses, site feasibility and cost modeling; next steps outlined were a narrower set of options, site‑level feasibility checks and a joint meeting with county supervisors.

Board members requested clearer renderings and site plans during the consultants' next phase, and staff said the consultants will produce site assessments and block‑level cost estimates as the committee moves to public engagement. The board and staff emphasized the study is informational at this stage and that any major capital decision would require separate public hearings, detailed architectural plans and coordinated county funding.