Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District presents required Long‑Range Facilities Plan; says no bond planned now
Summary
District staff and Soderstrom Architects presented the Long‑Range Facilities Plan, highlighting declining enrollment, Facilities Condition Index results, and recommendations to repair or replace specific buildings. The district said it is not pursuing a bond currently but must complete the LRFP by statute.
District staff and outside architects presented the Gresham‑Barlow School District’s Long‑Range Facilities Plan on Nov. 20, telling the board the review is a statutory requirement even though the district is not pursuing a bond at this time. Dr. Sara Deboy, assistant superintendent, said the LRFP will document demographics, capacity, building structural and seismic condition, and cost estimates to bring facilities to “like new” condition.
Meagan Baker‑Wilmes and Marlene Gillis of Soderstrom Architects described the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) used in the assessment and said the FCI is the repair cost to bring a facility to like‑new condition divided by its replacement cost; anything over 30% is considered critical. The consultants reported no schools in the very‑high risk band, but identified high‑risk areas in gymnasiums, classrooms, music rooms or pools at several sites and recommended weighing replacement versus repair for East Orient and West Orient. Dr. Deboy said, “usually when districts complete this process it is to go out for a bond. The district is not going out for a bond at this time, but still needs to complete the process by statute.”
Terry Taylor, who led facility analysis work, reviewed past bond outcomes and how prior projects standardized systems across sites to reduce future maintenance complexity. Board members asked for a field trip to inspect buildings and raised equity concerns about what was improved in the last bond versus remaining needs on the Barlow side. The presentation included a site‑level cost estimate and recommendations from the LRFP committee that combined district leadership, school staff, students, parents and public partners.
