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

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:

Facilities Assessment Scores

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 Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair 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.

Building Condition Score Range Site Type Building Condition Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 5 This slide shows the resulting range of building condition scores for Fremont schools.

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 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 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling 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.

Suitability Score Range Site Type Suitability Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 7 This slide shows the resulting range of educational suitability scores for Fremont schools.

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 Good: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance Fair: The site and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair 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.

Site Scores Range Site Type Site Assessment Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 9 This slide shows the resulting range of site condition scores for Fremont schools.

Technology Scores 90+ Excellent: The facility has excellent infrastructure to support information technology Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology Fair: The facility lacking in some infrastructure to support information technology 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.

Technology Scores Range Site Type Technology Readiness Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 11 This slide shows the resulting range of technology readiness scores for Fremont schools.

Combined Scores Site Name Building Condition Score Suitability Score Site Condition Score Tech. Readiness Score Combined Score 40/30/10/20 Elementary Schools Ardenwood ES Azevada ES Blacow ES Brier ES Brookvale ES Cabrillo ES Chadbourne ES Durham ES Forest Park ES Glenmoor ES Gomes ES Green ES Grimmer ES Hirsch ES Leitch ES Maloney ES Mattos ES Millard ES Mission San Jose ES Mission Valley ES Niles ES Oliveira ES Parkmont ES Patterson ES Vallejo Mill ES Warm Springs ES Warwick ES Weibel ES Elementary School Average

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 Hopkins JrHS Horner JrHS Thornton JrHS Walters JrHS Junior High School Average High Schools American HS Irvington HS Kennedy HS Mission San Jose HS Washington HS Robertson HS High School Average Other Facilities Corporation Yard N/A N/A Ed Center N/A N/A Fremont Adult School Glankler Preschool Marshall N/A Regional Occupational Program Tak Fudenna Stadium N/A69.87 N/A Other Facilities Average District Average

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, 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.

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

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 16

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 17

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 18

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary 19

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

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary Site Plan 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

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