Board hears Grace Design pitch for comprehensive capital master plan; debate centers on cost, scope and community engagement

Paradence Valley Unified School District administrators presented a proposed Strategic Master Capital Planning (SMCP) engagement with Grace Design Studio and the board held an extended discussion about scope, cost and community input.

Superintendent Dr. Corson framed the effort as a long‑range, systemwide strategy to align facilities, programs and enrollment rather than a standard roof‑and‑repair facilities assessment. "This is about understanding how our facilities, enrollment patterns, and academic programming intersect and how we intentionally align those elements to support student success," he told the board.

Grace Design’s presenter outlined a multi‑stream method: combine demographic projections, facility conditions assessments, adequacy and suitability rubrics, community engagement and scenario modeling into a prioritization and action plan. The firm cited examples in Peoria, Gilbert and Maricopa Unified where similar planning informed consolidation, program relocation and bond or funding strategies.

Board members asked for specifics about cost and overlap with existing district work. Several trustees voiced concern about the consultant price tag relative to in‑house expertise and earlier facility assessments already completed by district staff. Mrs. Christensen said she had solicited feedback from other districts and called the work high‑quality but “very expensive.” Dr. Lim asked whether the proposal accounted for prior condition inventories prepared by district staff; the presenter said those datasets would be incorporated and the fee adjusted accordingly.

Administrators and the consultant described staged community engagement (large district forums followed by small breakout focus groups and feeder‑pattern engagements) and said material would be translated for Spanish speakers; trustees asked for more detail about reaching non‑English or underrepresented households.

No vote was taken; the item was presented for discussion and will return for possible action at a later meeting. Board members asked staff to clarify scope, cost breakouts and how bond funds could legally be applied to fees associated with planning and architect/engineering services.