Ventura Unified committee reviews revised capacity counts, DSA delays and $10M Anacapa project

The Ventura Unified School District’s school‑closure committee on Monday reviewed a revised demographic study and facility‑condition scoring that staff say will change some campus rankings and asked staff to provide more historical trend data before the panel finalizes recommendations.

Staff said the revised study excludes certain small or special‑use rooms — for example early‑intervention classrooms — from the district’s classroom counts, which lowered capacity estimates at some campuses and therefore changed utilization and excess‑capacity calculations. “We had over 900 work orders that generated from Williams inspections,” Marina Verdian, the district’s director of facilities, told the committee, adding that about 350 of those work orders have been completed and the remainder will be finished this summer.

The committee also heard a bond program update from Ryan Hughes, the district’s bond program manager, who reviewed long‑range master‑plan priorities and current expenditures (solar, HVAC, playgrounds, roofing). Hughes told members that a previously board‑approved Anacapa fencing and site‑improvement project — estimated at about $10 million and including fencing, parking and site circulation work — has been delayed while awaiting Division of State Architect (DSA) approval. “Anacapa currently has nearly $9,000,000 of state matching funds eligible that we can receive back in the bond,” Hughes said, explaining the district prioritized projects that can claim available state matching funds.

Committee members pressed staff for source documentation and longitudinal data. One member warned that a single‑day inspection may not reflect chronic campus problems and urged the group to review several years of inspection scores and maintenance history before reaching closure recommendations. “I think that we have to be very careful… if we look for the last five years and that school historically scores below 70%, then that tells you a different story,” a committee member said, asking staff to provide work‑order histories, past FIT/Williams reports and comparable trend data.

Risk management director Eric Reynolds explained that the district’s FIT (facility inspection tool) scores are a useful point‑in‑time comparison but can be affected by short‑term conditions such as recent storms. He and other staff said the committee will receive prior years’ results and work‑order system records so the panel can assess whether a low score reflects an isolated incident or a chronic maintenance problem.

The committee reviewed how ranking formulas will use a mix of relative and rank scores across the criteria (including condition, completed or board‑approved bond projects, historical investment, unique facilities, support spaces, environmental constraints and site revenue). Staff clarified that some items shown as “completed” in the slide deck reflect board‑approved projects that are not yet finished; the committee asked that those labels be clarified to distinguish board approval from project completion.

Members also discussed procurement and scheduling constraints: limited contractor availability has forced staff to phase projects to get the best pricing and assure contractor capacity. HVAC projects in particular attract fewer bids and require more technical work and more contractor hours during the short summer window. Staff said that bid timing and DSA approval cycles — including a recent statewide code update that increased DSA review volume — contributed to the schedule challenges.

On revenue and site use, staff reviewed lease and Facilitron rental figures (field use, theaters and multipurpose rooms), clarifying the revenues presented reflect the current school year through 06/30/2026. The committee asked for transparency on submitted questions and answers (the staff said the committee inbox and Q&A log will be shared) and requested hard copies or printable packets for members’ binders.

Next steps: staff committed to provide the committee with historical inspection scores, CMMS (computerized maintenance management system) work‑order histories, clarifications on which projects are board‑approved versus completed, and the planning‑department sources used for growth projections. The committee also scheduled an education‑services presentation for its next meeting to review student‑performance context and socioeconomic data before finalizing scoring weights and closure recommendations. The meeting adjourned after routine approval of the agenda and minutes.

What’s next: the committee will reconvene for the education‑services presentation (listed on the agenda for June 18) and expects staff to circulate the requested exhibits and the question‑and‑answer log ahead of that meeting.