1. Fremont Unified School District Board Report March 28, 2012 B&F 7 1

2. Major Themes  Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District  Theme 2: Facilities have a long list of needs  Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY!  Theme 4: Technology is lacking  Theme 5: the long-range facility plan needs to be inclusive 2 Themes from stakeholder input:

3. Facilities Assessment Scores

4. Building Condition Scores 90+ New or Like New: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than one year old, and only require preventive maintenance. 80-89 Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance. 65-79 Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair. 50-64 Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement. 4 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the building conditions.

5. Building Condition Score Range Site Type Building Condition Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools72.8587.74 Middle Schools75.4879.40 High Schools65.7979.35 Other Facilities55.0085.08 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 5 This slide shows the resulting range of building condition scores for Fremont schools.

6. Suitability Scores 90+ Excellent: The facility is designed to provide for and support a majority of the educational program offered. It may have a minor suitability issues but overall it meets the needs of the educational program. 80-89 Good: The facility is designed to provide for and support the educational program offered. It may have minor suitability issues but generally meets the needs of the educational program. 65-79 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling. 50-64 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling or additions. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility is unsuitable in many areas of the educational program. 6 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the educational suitability.

7. Suitability Score Range Site Type Suitability Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools55.0774.88 Middle Schools60.3377.36 High Schools58.0371.79 Other Facilities41.9897.53 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 7 This slide shows the resulting range of educational suitability scores for Fremont schools.

8. Site Scores 90+ New or Like New: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than one year old, and only require preventive maintenance. 80-89 Good: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance. 65-79 Fair: The site and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair. 50-64 Poor: The site and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The site and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement. 8 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the site conditions.

9. Site Scores Range Site Type Site Assessment Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools53.6489.10 Middle Schools51.4581.25 High Schools56.6180.20 Other Facilities65.1890.00 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 9 This slide shows the resulting range of site condition scores for Fremont schools.

10. Technology Scores 90+ Excellent: The facility has excellent infrastructure to support information technology. 80-89 Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology. 65-79 Fair: The facility lacking in some infrastructure to support information technology. 50-64 Poor: The facility is lacking significant infrastructure to support information technology. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility has little or no infrastructure to support information technology. 10 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate technology readiness.

11. Technology Scores Range Site Type Technology Readiness Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools35.7079.10 Middle Schools45.80 76.70 High Schools53.40 89.20 Other Facilities38.25 100.00 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 11 This slide shows the resulting range of technology readiness scores for Fremont schools.

12. Combined Scores Site Name Building Condition Score Suitability Score Site Condition Score Tech. Readiness Score Combined Score 40/30/10/20 Elementary Schools Ardenwood ES76.6373.02 60.6539.9566.61 Azevada ES75.5067.90 72.9073.2072.50 Blacow ES72.8562.27 72.5144.8564.04 Brier ES77.8662.09 68.2051.6066.91 Brookvale ES76.1171.20 67.1635.8565.69 Cabrillo ES77.4558.95 67.8544.9564.44 Chadbourne ES80.3573.77 74.4947.5571.23 Durham ES77.3070.35 75.0458.3071.19 Forest Park ES78.1674.88 68.4764.9073.55 Glenmoor ES78.0761.80 64.7362.5068.74 Gomes ES87.7461.47 78.7275.0076.41 Green ES78.7157.16 76.8561.6068.64 Grimmer ES76.4164.46 89.1035.7065.95 Hirsch ES77.3363.34 80.7958.3069.67 Leitch ES78.8274.10 80.4179.1077.62 Maloney ES78.1762.92 82.0648.2568.00 Mattos ES73.9161.36 67.8557.4066.24 Millard ES77.2855.07 80.9051.6065.85 Mission San Jose ES79.1665.02 77.6169.9072.91 Mission Valley ES77.7056.46 76.5645.8064.83 Niles ES84.2756.72 78.3846.7067.90 Oliveira ES73.6959.33 81.5145.8564.60 Parkmont ES80.9363.59 53.6441.7065.15 Patterson ES78.3063.87 74.8664.9070.95 Vallejo Mill ES75.6362.48 74.7849.9066.46 Warm Springs ES78.5055.46 79.2649.9065.94 Warwick ES77.3471.90 67.5751.6069.59 Weibel ES80.0269.71 81.0953.2071.67 Elementary School Average78.0164.31 74.0753.9368.69 12

13. Combined Score (continued) Site Name Building Condition Score Suitability Score Site Condition Score Tech. Readiness Score Combined Score 40/30/10/20 Junior High Schools Centerville JrHS 76.3871.7370.9376.7074.50 Hopkins JrHS 79.4067.3575.8551.6069.87 Horner JrHS 77.9560.3351.4545.8063.58 Thornton JrHS 78.5477.3666.6154.2072.12 Walters JrHS 75.4875.9281.2561.7073.43 Junior High School Average 77.5570.5469.2258.0070.70 High Schools American HS 74.3763.9280.2053.4067.63 Irvington HS 75.4165.1775.5989.2075.12 Kennedy HS 79.3558.0366.8081.7072.17 Mission San Jose HS 77.8459.3772.2959.3068.04 Washington HS 77.6971.7956.6178.4073.95 Robertson HS 65.7969.3574.7956.7065.94 High School Average 75.0764.6171.0569.7870.47 Other Facilities Corporation Yard 76.33 N/A72.7638.25 N/A Ed Center 55.00 N/A90.0051.89 N/A Fremont Adult School 83.0769.7370.1851.7071.50 Glankler Preschool 79.6441.9869.9859.1063.27 Marshall 85.0851.5977.35 N/A Regional Occupational Program 75.5097.5365.18100.0085.98 Tak Fudenna Stadium 75.44 N/A69.87 N/A Other Facilities Average 75.7265.2173.6260.1973.58 District Average77.2365.1673.0857.2769.53 13

14. Estimated Budget School Type100% Elementary $213,789,000 Junior High $73,712,000 High School $225,923,000 Other Facilities $54,508,000 Total $567,932,000 14 Based on the Facilities Needs Assessment, in order to address 100% of the needs identified in the report, the estimated required budget would be $567,932,000.

15. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary Millard Elementary School Scores Building Condition Score77.28Fair Suitability Score55.07Poor Site Condition80.90Good Technology Readiness51.60Poor Combined Score65.85Fair 15

16. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 16

17. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 17

18. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 18

19. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 19

20. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 20 Comments from Millard Elementary - Technology Readiness assessment done January 2012

21. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary Site Plan 22

22. Sample Campus: Millard Elementary  Long-range planning process for each site  Review Scoring Data with Site Administrator and stakeholders  Validate results  Prioritize needs  Develop project descriptions  Develop campus masterplan  Compile District-wide Plan  Review potential categories of projects  Develop category descriptions  Prioritize needs  Develop bond ballot language 21

23. Next Steps  Present final report -March 28, 2012  Conduct meetings with schools to review their detailed reports -March 2012 to June 2012  Present timeline and tasks for community engagement -April 2012  Assemble committee for establishing priorities - April 2012  Present recommended list of priorities to the Board -June 2012 24