Oakdale district unveils $210 million draft facilities master plan and asks board to consider June bond resolution

Consultants and district staff presented a draft comprehensive facility master plan that inventories building and site needs across the Oakdale Joint Unified School District and outlines candidate projects, prioritization and preliminary costs.

Gary, the facilities consultant introduced to the board, said the plan is built from site walks, principal interviews and community surveys and provides project‑level recommendations — from light modernization to major renovation and replacement of portable classrooms. He summarized the draft cost estimate presented in spring 2024 dollars as roughly $210 million for the district, with Oakdale High School singled out at about $64 million and Magnolia Elementary shown at roughly $28 million. "This at least puts it in terms of dollars today so that it's a little bit easier to understand," the consultant said while citing the estimates and the approach of adding a 7% construction contingency plus 25% soft costs for the budget line items.

District staff explained how projects were categorized (priority A immediate 0–4 years; B next 5–9 years; C 10+ years) and how major systems such as roofing, HVAC and windows factored into the totals. The presenter noted that many of the district’s facilities include infrastructure dating from the 1940s–1950s and that ongoing reactive maintenance — including hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on repairs — will not keep pace with aging systems.

Funding options were reviewed: state modernization funding generally covers about 60% of project costs if the district can provide the required 40% match; district eligibility estimates were discussed (staff cited roughly $15 million of eligibility) and staff said grants (CTE, developer fees, other competitive programs) can help but the bulk of funding would likely require a general obligation bond. Consultant John E and board members discussed bond capacity formulas and possible tax‑rate scenarios, with examples discussed in terms of $40–$60 per $100,000 of assessed valuation to reach various funding levels.

Board discussion focused on timing, public receptivity and next steps. Trustees asked for more detail on seismic triggers, what constitutes a "major" modernization under code, and how scope and language in a bond resolution would limit or permit specific project types. One trustee moved that staff bring a resolution to the June meeting to begin the process of placing a bond measure on the November ballot (or to pursue a bond extension timed with the district’s 2002 bond expiration); another trustee seconded. Board members asked staff to provide bond‑capacity analyses, outreach plans and cost escalation scenarios ahead of the June discussion.

What happens next: staff said the full, adopted facility master plan document will be available for review and the board directed staff to return in June with a draft resolution and additional information on campaign framing, cost escalation assumptions and funding alternatives. The board noted that the county elections office has an early filing deadline to get measures on the November ballot.