The Executive Summary - Facility Master Plan was presented to the Board of Trustees on February 4th, 2014. However, the following documents also provided an overview of project focus areas and needs:
Resolution #13-19 was passed on February 25, 2014, indicating the district's intention to place a General Obligation Bond on the June 3, 3014 ballot. The Resolution also provided a summary of potential projects, identified during the facility needs assessment.
Additional information regarding a potential General Obligation Bond to address facility needs was mailed to the community in February.
Once Measure E passed – thanks to the hard work of our campaign committee and the support of our community, we wanted to take a moment to review the process we went through to identify facility needs and potential projects and to share information about our next steps.
The process began in the spring of 2013 when the Board of Trustees contracted with Bartos Architecture to conduct a facility needs assessment and prepare a Master Plan. This action was in response to community interest in a potential bond and concerns about needs for facility upgrades, renovations and expansion due to anticipated student growth.
To prepare the Master Plan, site "Input Meetings" for parents and staff were held, including meetings where Mark Bartos was present on campus for a day and staff were invited to drop in and share information about needs and concerns. Following these site meetings, the board held three Facility Master Plan study sessions providing an opportunity for additional feedback. The Master Plan/Executive Summary was presented to the board and made available to the public on February 4th, 2014. The Board then took action at the February 25th board meeting, formally authorizing the placement of Measure E on the June 3rd ballot.
Beginning in March 2014, sites began "Design Team" meetings. These meetings were designed to provide representatives from the various site stakeholder groups an opportunity to work collaboratively to learn more about proposed projects, share their interests and, ultimately, develop a site priority list. The Design team included teachers and staff from different departments, parents from various stakeholder groups on campus, students, district administration, and a board member. These groups met a total of five times at each school (a total of 10 meetings) and developed two priority lists which will be used by the Board as they make decisions regarding which projects to do when and how much to allocate to each project.
In anticipation of a positive election outcome, the district developed plans for a top priority project at each site – something that could begin immediately and take advantage of the summer break. At LGHS, that project was the restoration of the front steps (a safety issue). At SHS the project addressed HVAC needs in the portions of the school that did not benefit from the 1998 bond which were left with HVAC that was both expensive to operate and unpredictable, creating sub-standard learning environments.
At the June 17th School Board meeting, there was a discussion about architectural contracts for a new classroom wing at LGHS and a new music building at SHS – both long term, essential projects. Project manager, Rick Kramer explained that this was being brought to the board at this time, not because any final board decision had been made, but because these projects were identified as "high priority" by the design teams and that there is a long lead time for projects of this scope. The board and Superintendent discussed the challenge of soliciting stakeholder input over the summer months and the tight timelines they faced in order to move the projects forward in a timely manner. They remained committed to being inclusive and transparent to ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input at all stages of the process.