Summary and Cost Estimates
A Facilities Master Plan is a critical tool for ensuring that school facilities support safe, modern, accessible, and effective learning environments for all students. This plan provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating existing conditions, identifying facility needs, and establishing priorities that align with the District’s educational goals.
The Facilities Master Plan provides a roadmap for long-term planning and informed decision-making related to infrastructure and site improvements throughout the District. By proactively identifying and prioritizing facility needs, the District is better positioned to implement projects efficiently as funding becomes available, maximizing benefits for students, staff, and the community. The plan also strengthens the District’s ability to pursue future community-supported bond measures.
In the State of California, an adopted Facilities Master Plan is an important prerequisite for eligibility for certain state funding programs. Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) Proposition 2 state funding and other grant opportunities require districts to demonstrate thoughtful, well-documented planning before funds are awarded. This plan helps ensure the District remains competitive for these funding sources, which can support classroom modernization, improved safety, enhanced accessibility, and 21st-century learning environments.
While the Facilities Master Plan establishes a long-term vision for District facilities, it is important to recognize that not all projects identified in the plan will be implemented. The District’s goal is to complete as many modernization projects as possible by focusing first on the highest-priority needs as funding becomes available.
Summary of Existing Condition Assessment
The elementary schools across the school district remain largely operational but reflect a wide range of ages, conditions, and levels of deferred maintenance. Campuses generally include a mix of permanent buildings and portable classrooms, with permanent structures typically in fair condition and portables consistently exhibiting the most significant deterioration. Common issues districtwide include aging interior finishes, worn flooring, outdated lighting and furniture, water-damaged ceilings, and incomplete accessibility compliance in classrooms, restrooms, parking, and site circulation. Site infrastructures such as asphalt paving, play yards, drop-off areas, and parking are frequently uneven, congested, or undersized, contributing to safety and accessibility concerns. While some newer or recently modernized facilities, such as multi-purpose rooms, libraries, and select classroom wings, are in good condition and function effectively, many campuses lack adequate shade, storage, flexible learning spaces, and support areas to meet current educational and enrollment demands. Overall, the district’s facilities would benefit from a coordinated program of modernization focused on replacing aging portables with permanent construction, upgrading finishes and building systems, improving accessibility and site circulation, and addressing deferred maintenance to support long-term functionality and evolving instructional needs.
The conditions across the District’s middle school campus buildings range from recently modernized facilities in excellent condition to older campuses with fair conditions and targeted needs for upgrade. Brownell Middle School and South Valley Middle School represent the District’s newest investments, with comprehensive modernizations completed in 2019 and 2021, respectively. These campuses feature cohesive site planning, modern finishes, flexible learning environments, integrated technology, and well-maintained building systems, with only minor, localized deficiencies such as acoustics, shade enhancements, or selective equipment repairs.
In contrast, Ascencion Solorsano Middle School remains generally functional and well-organized but reflects an older generation of facilities. While major buildings—including administration, library, gym, and multi-purpose spaces—are in fair to good condition, classroom interiors, outdoor athletic areas, circulation clarity, shade coverage, and building finishes exhibit deferred maintenance and would benefit from modernization. Overall, the District’s middle schools are operational and supportive of current educational programs, with newer campuses requiring minimal intervention and older campuses presenting opportunities for targeted upgrades to finishes, outdoor environments, building systems, accessibility, and learning space flexibility to achieve greater consistency and long-term performance across all sites.
The conditions across the District’s High School campuses range from recently modernized and well-performing facilities to aging campuses with significant deferred maintenance and functional deficiencies. The District’s newest high school campus, Christopher High School, is generally cohesive, attractive, and operationally effective, with access to natural light and building in working conditions; however, even these sites exhibit wear in paving, landscaping, finishes, wayfinding, and accessibility connections that warrant targeted upgrades. In contrast, older campuses, including Gilroy High School and Mt. Madonna Continuation High School, are characterized by aging permanent and portable buildings, deteriorated finishes, outdated building systems, and limited accessibility, particularly within restrooms, locker rooms, CTE spaces, and athletic facilities.
Portable-heavy campuses such as GECA remain functional but constrained by limited site area, insufficient shade, aging exterior elements, and a lack of flexible support spaces to accommodate program growth. District-wide, common themes include worn interior finishes, outdated furniture and technology infrastructure, lack of shading and outdoor amenities, inconsistent accessibility compliance, and aging site infrastructure. Collectively, these conditions indicate a need for comprehensive modernization strategies, ranging from targeted refreshes at newer campuses to substantial reinvestment and reconfiguration at older sites, to support contemporary high school programming, student well-being, safety, and long-term durability.
Campus Cost Estimates
| Site | Immediate Needs (0-5 Years) |
Facility Condition Index (FCI)* (5 Years) |
Long Term Needs (5-10 Years) |
Facility Condition Index (FCI)* (10 Years) |
New Construction |
Deferred Maintenance | Sport Fields & Playgrounds | Total Site Project Cost (0-5 Years)*** |
Total Site Project Cost (5-10 Years)**** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State Preschools | |||||||||
| All three sites | Included in New Construction | 13.8% | $892,136 | 19.3% | $11,188,125 | $170,408 | n/a | $12,687,603 | $16,978,875 |
| Elementary Schools | |||||||||
| El Roble ES | $1,942,714 | 13.8% | $3,670,777 | 19.3% | $44,402,167 | $4,868,915 | $121,720 | $56,968,153 | $76,236,239 |
| Eliot ES | $941,597 | 5.5% | $1,281,640 | 16.2% | n/a | $2,445,519 | $1,037,986 | $5,910,279 | $7,909,286 |
| Glen View ES | $1,108,471 | 4.1% | $1,716,610 | 9.6% | $14,015,700 | $3,508,269 | $817,672 | $21,921,656 | $29,336,121 |
| Las Animas ES | Included in New Construction | 9.2% | $2,483,804 | 11.1% | $6,819,900 | $1,570,515 | $994,524 | $12,292,055 | $16,449,542 |
| Luigi Aprea ES | $403,168 | 13.1% | $2,204,564 | 13.3% | $24,515,768 | $9,648,263 | n/a | $38,083,268 | $50,964,003 |
| Rod Kelley ES | $2,543,725 | 12.2% | $1,010,992 | 15.8% | $37,626,516 | $8,947,924 | $171,840 | $52,095,037 | $69,714,911 |
| Rucker ES | $1,707,517 | 10.8% | $3,205,532 | 15.4% | $48,366,516 | $2,578,612 | $1,454,912 | $59,357,223 | $79,433,354 |
| Gilroy Prep | $593,564 | 2.1% | Included in New Construction | 4.3% | $26,850,000 | $172,377 | $250,600 | $28,860,431 | $38,621,768 |
| Elementary School Total | $9,240,756 | $15,573,919 | $202,596,567 | 33,740,394 | 4,849,254 | $275,488,101 | $368,665,223 | ||
| Middle Schools | |||||||||
| Ascencion Solorsano MS | Included in New Construction | 5.0% | $64,440 | 13.9% | $17,914,320 | $1,315,027 | $6,909,400 | $27,137,752 | $36,316,434 |
| Brownell MS | $1,945,658 | 2.0% | $4,952,214 | 6.4% | $1,890,240 | $1,773,890 | $2,563,280 | $13,593,409 | $18,191,048 |
| South Valley MS | $82,340 | 0.1% | $457,667 | 1.6% | $1,890,240 | $1,709,450 | $1,437,012 | $5,775,608 | $7,729,067 |
| Middle School Total | $2,027,998 | $5,474,321 | $21,694,800 | $4,798,367 | $10,909,692 | $46,506,770 | $62,236,549 | ||
| High Schools | |||||||||
| Christopher HS | $2,086,424 | 6.1% | $3,222,000 | 8.4% | $19,761,600 | $14,966,790 | $11,256,952 | $53,123,214 | $71,090,844 |
| Gilroy HS** | $5,994,638 | 14.6% | $1,510,760 | 19.2% | $162,603,600 | $28,019,749 | $7,553,800 | $213,018,439 | $285,066,723 |
| Mt Madonna Continuation HS | $2,329,864 | 5.2% | $3,257,800 | 20.7% | $30,072,000 | $4,287,650 | $11,793,952 | $53,586,674 | $71,711,058 |
| Gilroy Early College Academy (GECA) | $179,000 | 2.5% | Included in New Construction | 67.0% | $2,693,592 | $309,491 | $1,034,620 | $4,367,096 | $5,844,160 |
| High School Total | $10,589,926 | $7,990,560 | $215,130,792 | $47,583,680 | $31,639,324 | $324,095,423 | $433,712,785 | ||
| District Sites | |||||||||
| District Office | $627,216 | 4.2% | $3,412,456 | 9.8% | n/a | $1,902,978 | n/a | $6,154,601 | $8,236,245 |
| District MOT | $2,519,604 | 3.9% | $3,128,920 | 5.4% | $6,408,200 | n/a | n/a | $12,486,740 | $16,710,075 |
| Club Drive | See Fields | n/a | $6,167,392 | n/a | $4,188,600 | n/a | $12,781,316 | $23,962,525 | $32,067,264 |
| District Site Total | $3,146,820 | $12,708,768 | $10,596,800 | $1,902,978 | $12,781,316 | $42,603,866 | $57,013,584 | ||
| TOTAL PROJECT COST | $25,005,500 | $42,639,705 | $461,207,085 | $88,195,827 | $60,179,586 | $701,381,764 | $938,607,016 | ||
**Gilroy High School has two options the cost shown here are for option #2.
See the site specific section for Gilroy High School for the full breakdown of each option.
*** Total Project Costs Include: Base Construction Cost + Contractor Mark Up (30%) + Soft Costs (44%) w. Escalation (5yr)
****Total Project Costs Include: Base Construction Cost + Contractor Mark Up (30%) + Soft Costs (44%) w. Escalation (10yr)
FCI Ratings:
| 0-5% | In new or well-maintained condition, with little visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. |
|---|---|
| 5-10% | Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. |
| 10-30% | Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. |
| 30% and Above | Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary. |