A Strategic Blueprint for Developing and Delivering a California K-12 Deferred Maintenance Plan

Introduction: Beyond the Template – Positioning as a Strategic Facilities Planning Partner

The project outlined by the job poster represents a significant opportunity that extends far beyond the creation of simple templates. At its surface, the request is to build a data collection and reporting system for a California K-12 Deferred Maintenance Plan based on specific, named documents: the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) Deferred Maintenance Handbook and the State Allocation Board (SAB) Form 40-20. However, a deeper analysis reveals a critical nuance that is the key to unlocking this project's full potential and justifying an expert-level engagement.

The core challenge and opportunity lie in a fundamental shift in California's educational regulatory landscape. The client's request is anchored in an obsolete framework—the state-run, matching-fund Deferred Maintenance Program (DMP) that was officially rendered inactive in 2013. The OPSC handbook itself states unequivocally: "THIS PROGRAM IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Effective July 1, 2013, Assembly Bill 97 repealed State Allocation Board apportionment authority for the Deferred Maintenance Program and provided for the governing boards for each school district to have full local control over deferred maintenance expenditures, earnings and funds".¹

This discrepancy is not a flaw in the client's request but rather a strategic opening. It signals that the client's team and internal processes are likely rooted in the well-established, pre-2013 system. They value the structure, categories, and reporting format of the old DMP. The expert approach, therefore, is not to simply point out that the program is defunct, but to architect a solution that honors the client's familiar framework while making it a powerful and relevant tool for the current regulatory environment. Today, school facility maintenance is governed by the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and is a key component of a district's Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).²

This report provides a comprehensive blueprint to navigate this complexity. It deconstructs the project's requirements, offers a detailed analysis of the pivotal regulatory shift from the DMP to the LCAP, and provides a phase-by-phase guide to creating deliverables that are not only compliant with the client's request but are strategically indispensable for modern school district management. By understanding and articulating this value proposition, a freelancer can transform this project from a $500 task into a high-value strategic partnership. The "legacy request" is the entry point; delivering a modern solution is the path to demonstrating true expertise.

Part I: Anatomy of the Project – A Phase-by-Phase Execution Plan

The project is logically structured into four distinct phases, moving from system architecture to pilot implementation and knowledge transfer. A successful execution requires a detailed understanding of the deliverables and objectives for each phase.

Deconstructing Phase 1: The Data and Template Architecture

This initial phase is the most critical, as it establishes the foundation for the entire system. The goal is to create a "turnkey, fillable template" system that is both user-friendly for field assessors and powerful enough for district-level planning and analysis [User Query].

Building the Site-Walk Checklist (Excel/Sheets)

This checklist is the primary data capture instrument. Its design must prioritize simplicity for field use while ensuring data integrity and comprehensiveness for the backend dashboard. The structure should be directly informed by the historical SAB 40-20 form, which organized projects into 12 distinct categories: Asbestos, Classroom Lighting, Electrical, Floor Covering, HVAC, Lead, Painting, Paving, Plumbing, Roofing, Underground Tanks, and Wall Systems.⁵ These categories provide a proven and comprehensive taxonomy for school facility assets that the client will recognize and value.

To elevate the tool beyond a simple form, it should incorporate best practices from modern Facilities Condition Assessments (FCAs). This includes adding fields for asset-specific details (e.g., HVAC unit model number, roof membrane type), a standardized condition rating system (e.g., a 1-to-5 scale from Excellent to Failed), and a mechanism for linking photographic evidence directly to each assessed item.⁷ To make the template "turnkey," it must employ features like data validation (e.g., dropdown menus for asset categories and condition ratings), conditional formatting to automatically highlight high-priority issues, and protected cell ranges to prevent accidental modification of formulas or headers.

Engineering the Master Dashboard (Excel/Sheets)

The master dashboard serves as the central analytical engine of the system. Its primary function is to "auto-roll" the data collected in the individual site-walk checklists into dynamic, board-ready summaries [User Query]. This can be most effectively achieved using pivot tables and charts, which allow for interactive data exploration. The dashboard must produce three specific outputs:

1. Five-Year Project Schedule by Site: This deliverable is a dynamic table that aggregates all identified deficiencies from the 80 school sites. It must be sortable and filterable by key criteria such as school site, priority code, asset category, and the target fiscal year for repair. This allows planners to view the entire project pipeline or drill down to a specific school's needs for a given year.

2. Summary Cost Table: This is a high-level financial summary designed to mirror the structure of the original SAB 40-20 form.⁵ It will present the total estimated costs broken down by the 12 project categories and summed for each of the five fiscal years. This provides the client with the familiar top-line figures needed for budget presentations.

3. Funding-Source Matrix: This component represents a significant value-add, moving the tool from a simple tracker to a strategic planning instrument. While not explicitly part of the old SAB form, it is essential for modern district budgeting. This matrix will allow the district to allocate the estimated costs of projects against various potential funding sources, such as the Routine Restricted Maintenance Account (RRMA), General Obligation (GO) Bonds, developer fees, or the general fund.² This helps answer the critical question: "How will we pay for this?"

Deconstructing Phase 2: The Board-Ready Reporting Shell (Word/Google Docs)

This phase involves creating the narrative counterpart to the Excel dashboard. The Word/Google Docs template translates the quantitative data into a persuasive, professionally formatted report suitable for presentation to a school district's board of trustees and the public. The client's request for a report that is "SAB-ready but visually branded" indicates a need for a document that is both highly professional and defensible, adhering to the spirit of the old compliance requirements while reflecting the district's identity [User Query].

The report shell must contain several key sections:

● Executive Summary: A concise, high-level overview of the district's total deferred maintenance needs, the projected five-year cost, a summary of the most critical projects (e.g., health and safety issues), and a clear statement of recommendations for the board.

● Methodology: A brief but clear explanation of the assessment process. This section should describe the tools used (the site-walk checklist), the timeline of the assessments, and the criteria used to assign priority codes to each deficiency.

● Project Lists: This section will present the detailed lists of proposed projects, likely exported or linked from the Excel dashboard. The information should be organized logically, for example, by priority level and then by school site, to allow for easy review.

● Funding Strategy: This is a crucial narrative section that explains the district's proposed plan to fund the identified projects. It should reference the funding-source matrix from the dashboard and connect the maintenance plan to the district's overall budget, its LCAP, and other financial commitments.

● Board Resolution: Including a template for a board resolution is a critical component. Under the old DMP rules, districts were required to have their five-year plan discussed and approved in a public board meeting.¹⁰ While no longer a state mandate, this remains a best practice for local governance and transparency, and its inclusion demonstrates a thorough understanding of the process.

Deconstructing Phase 3: The 80-Site Pilot Implementation

This phase serves as the proof-of-concept, where the newly created templates are populated with the client's real-world data for a single district with approximately 80 sites [User Query]. This is the opportunity to demonstrate the system's power and the freelancer's analytical capabilities.

The primary task is to import the client's existing "assessor spreadsheets & photos." It is highly probable that this raw data will be inconsistent and unstructured. A significant, though unstated, part of this phase will involve data cleaning and standardization—mapping the client's notes to the structured fields of the new template, normalizing cost data, and establishing a consistent naming convention for photos. This process, while labor-intensive, is a key value-add that transforms messy data into actionable intelligence.

Once the data is populated, the freelancer is tasked with writing the "brief narrative & recommendations" for the pilot district's report. This is a crucial deliverable that showcases expertise. The narrative should not merely summarize the data; it must connect the identified facility needs to the district's broader educational mission. For example, a recommendation might state: "The proposed $1.8 million investment in HVAC upgrades across 15 elementary schools in Year 1 directly supports the district's LCAP goal of providing safe, clean, and functional learning environments that are conducive to student achievement."

Deconstructing Phase 4: The Knowledge Transfer and Empowerment

The final phase ensures the client's team can independently own and operate the system moving forward. It consists of two key deliverables:

1. A 1-Hour Recorded Walkthrough: This session should be more than a simple software tutorial. It must be a strategic training that explains not just the "how" (how to enter data) but the "why" (how to use the dashboard to analyze trends, prioritize projects, and prepare for board meetings). Recording the session provides a lasting training asset for the client.

2. A Quick-Start User Guide: This 2-3 page document should serve as a concise, easy-to-use reference for both field assessors and district-level managers. It should include clear instructions, screenshots, definitions of key terms (like the priority codes and condition ratings), and simple troubleshooting tips. This guide ensures the long-term usability and adoption of the system.

Part II: The Regulatory Compass – Navigating California's School Maintenance Landscape

A deep understanding of the regulatory context of California school facilities maintenance is what separates a template-builder from a strategic consultant. The client's request is rooted in a specific historical context, and the optimal solution must be grounded in the current legal and financial reality.

The Historical Framework: The OPSC Deferred Maintenance Program (DMP)

From the late 1990s until 2013, California school facility maintenance was heavily influenced by the state's Deferred Maintenance Program (DMP). This was a state-matching fund program administered by the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the State Allocation Board (SAB). Its purpose was to provide a financial incentive for school districts to address their growing backlogs of major repair and replacement projects.¹⁰

To participate and receive state matching funds, districts were required to submit a comprehensive Five-Year Plan using Form SAB 40-20.⁵ This form is the blueprint for the client's requested template. It mandated a summary of all proposed projects broken down into 12 specific, eligible categories, with costs estimated and projected over a five-year period.⁵ The 12 official project categories were:

● Asbestos

● Classroom Lighting

● Electrical

● Floor Covering

● HVAC

● Lead

● Painting

● Paving

● Plumbing

● Roofing

● Underground Tanks

● Wall Systems ¹

This list provides a robust and time-tested taxonomy for categorizing major facility components, which is why it remains a valuable structure for the new template.

The Paradigm Shift: AB 97 and the Era of Local Control

The entire landscape of California school finance, including facility maintenance, was fundamentally altered by the passage of Assembly Bill 97 in 2013.³ This landmark legislation implemented the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The LCFF replaced the complex system of dozens of "categorical" programs—restricted funding streams for specific purposes like textbooks or maintenance—with a more flexible system. The new formula provides a base grant per student, with significant additional "supplemental" and "concentration" grants for districts serving high-needs students (English learners, low-income students, and foster youth).²

Crucially, AB 97 explicitly repealed the state's authority to apportion funds for the Deferred Maintenance Program.¹ This ended the state-matching system and gave school districts "full local control" over how they plan and pay for deferred maintenance.¹ This shift has profound implications: districts now have the

flexibility to use their general funds for maintenance as they see fit, but they also bear the full responsibility for funding these projects without a dedicated state match. In this new environment, a robust, data-driven internal planning tool is no longer just for state compliance; it is an essential instrument for local fiscal management and strategic decision-making.

The Current Mandate: The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)

With local control came a new system of local accountability: the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCAP is a three-year plan, updated annually, in which each district must engage its community to set goals, describe the actions it will take to achieve those goals, and detail how its budget supports those actions to improve student outcomes.⁴

The connection between this accountability framework and facility maintenance is direct and explicit. The LCAP requires districts to address eight state priorities. State Priority #1 is "Basic Services," which is defined by the state to include three key elements: appropriately credentialed teachers, access to standards-aligned instructional materials, and ensuring that school facilities are maintained in good repair.¹⁸

Therefore, a comprehensive Deferred Maintenance Plan is a foundational document for demonstrating compliance with the LCAP. It provides the tangible evidence—the data, project lists, and cost estimates—that a district is proactively identifying and addressing facility needs to ensure its schools are safe, clean, and functional. An audit of a district's LCAP could scrutinize how it is meeting this "good repair" standard. A well-documented DMP, like the one this project will produce, serves as a powerful, defensible response. This connection elevates the project's importance from an operational task to a core component of the district's educational and fiscal strategy. The final report and dashboard should be framed as a key supporting document for the district's LCAP, with the Executive Summary explicitly stating how the DMP addresses State Priority #1.

The following table summarizes this critical regulatory evolution.

Table 1: A Comparison of California School Maintenance Frameworks

Feature	Pre-2013 DMP Framework	Post-2013 LCFF/LCAP Framework
Governing Authority	State Allocation Board (SAB) / OPSC	Local School District Governing Board
Primary Document	SAB Form 40-20 Five-Year Plan	Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)
Funding Source	State matching funds; District contribution to a restricted fund ²	District General Fund (LCFF), local bonds, developer fees, etc. ²
Core Purpose	To apply for and justify receipt of state matching funds for maintenance.	To demonstrate local accountability and show how facility maintenance supports student outcomes as part of LCAP State Priority #1.
Primary Driver	Compliance with state program rules.	Strategic alignment with local educational goals and budget.
Consequence of Failure	Ineligibility for state matching funds.	Potential negative LCAP review, audit finding, or failure to meet local goals for student learning conditions.

Part III: A Blueprint for Excellence: Designing the Deliverables

This section provides the detailed technical specifications and structural blueprints for the project's core deliverables. The goal is to create a cohesive and powerful data ecosystem, from initial data collection to final board presentation.

The Assessor's Checklist: A Deep Dive into Data Structure

The site-walk checklist is the cornerstone of the entire system. It must be designed for efficient data entry in the field while capturing a rich dataset for analysis. The following table outlines the recommended data fields for the Excel/Sheets template. This design incorporates the client's specific requests, the structure of the historical SAB 40-20 form, and best practices from modern Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs).⁷

Table 2: Site-Walk Checklist Data Fields (Excel/Sheets)

Field Name	Data Type	Description/Purpose	Example	Data Validation/Formatting Rules
Site_Name	Text	The name of the school site.	"Northwood High School"	Dropdown list of the 80 district sites.
Building_ID	Text	The official name or number of the building.	"Admin Building" or "B-100"
Room_Number	Text	The specific room or area of the assessment.	"101" or "Gymnasium"
Asset_Category	Text	The major building system, based on SAB 40-20.	"HVAC"	Dropdown list of the 12 SAB categories.⁵
Asset_Description	Text	A specific description of the deficient item.	"Rooftop Package Unit #3"
Install_Year	Number	The year the asset was installed.	2005	Must be a 4-digit year.
Standard_Useful_Life	Number	The expected lifespan in years (from a lookup table).	20	Auto-populated via VLOOKUP from a separate "Useful Life" tab.
Condition_Rating	Number	A standardized rating of the asset's current condition.	4	Dropdown list: 1-Excellent, 2-Good, 3-Fair, 4-Poor, 5-Failed.
Priority_Code	Text	A code to classify the urgency of the repair.	"P1"	Dropdown list: P1-Health/Safety/Critical, P2-Failing System, P3-End of Useful Life, P4-Modernization Goal.
Observations	Text (Memo)	Detailed notes from the field assessor.	"Unit is leaking refrigerant and cycles frequently."
Recommended_Action	Text	The proposed solution for the deficiency.	"Replace with new 10-ton unit."
Estimated_Unit_Cost	Currency	The estimated cost per unit for the repair/replacement.	$15,000.00
Quantity	Number	The number of units requiring action.	1
Total_Estimated_Cost	Currency	The total projected cost for the action.	$15,000.00	Formula: Estimated_Unit_Cost * Quantity.
Target_Fiscal_Year	Text	The proposed year for project execution.	"Year 1 (2025-26)"	Dropdown list of the five fiscal years in the plan.
Photo_Link	Hyperlink	A link to a cloud-stored photo of the deficiency.	[Link to Photo]

The Master Dashboard: Visualizing the Five-Year Horizon

The master dashboard in Excel or Google Sheets should be built using PivotTables and PivotCharts, which will allow for the dynamic, "auto-rolling" functionality the client requires. This approach ensures that as new data is added to the site checklists, the dashboard can be refreshed with a single click to reflect the latest information.

The dashboard should be designed as a one-page summary for executive review, featuring:

● Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): A section at the top prominently displaying the most critical metrics:

○ Total 5-Year Estimated Cost

○ Number of P1 (Health & Safety) Projects

○ Total Number of Identified Deficiencies

○ Overall Facility Condition Index (FCI), if calculable (Total Repair Cost / Total Replacement Value)

● Data Visualizations (Charts): A series of charts to provide a quick visual understanding of the data:

○ Bar Chart: "Total Estimated Cost by Project Category" (e.g., Roofing, HVAC).

○ Stacked Bar Chart: "Annual Costs by Year," showing the total cost for each of the five fiscal years, with segments representing different priority levels.

○ Pie Chart: "Project Count by Priority Level" (P1, P2, P3, P4).

● Interactive Controls (Slicers/Filters): The dashboard must be interactive. Slicers for Site_Name, Priority_Code, and Asset_Category will allow users to filter all the charts and tables on the dashboard to drill down into specific areas of interest.

The Board Report: A Persuasive Narrative Structure

The Word or Google Docs report template must be structured to guide the user in creating a professional, logical, and persuasive document. It should translate the data from the dashboard into a compelling case for action. The following table provides a recommended structure based on the project requirements and best practices from existing facilities master plans.⁹

Table 3: Detailed Structure of the Board-Ready Report

Section Number	Section Title	Content/Purpose	Key Data to Include
	Cover Page	Professional title page.	Report Title, District Name, Date, Client Logo.
	Table of Contents	Navigational guide to the report.	Auto-generated list of sections and page numbers.
1.0	Executive Summary	A one-page overview for busy board members.	Total 5-year cost, summary of critical needs, key recommendations, and a statement linking the plan to LCAP Priority #1.
2.0	District Profile & LCAP Context	Sets the stage for the plan.	Number of sites, total square footage, student enrollment, and a brief explanation of how this plan supports the district's LCAP goals.
3.0	Assessment Methodology	Explains how the data was gathered and analyzed.	Assessment timeline, tools used (the site-walk checklist), and a clear definition of the condition ratings and priority codes.
4.0	Five-Year Plan Summary	High-level overview of the plan's findings.	Summary tables and charts from the dashboard (Cost by Category, Cost by Year, Projects by Priority).
5.0	Detailed Project Lists	Provides the granular detail of the plan.	Organized lists of projects, typically by priority and then by school site. Can be a summary in the main body with full lists in an appendix.
6.0	Funding Strategy	Answers the question, "How will we pay for this?"	Discussion of available funds (RRMA, capital funds), potential funding gaps, and recommendations for funding sources (e.g., GO Bond). References the Funding-Source Matrix.
7.0	Recommendations & Next Steps	Provides clear, actionable direction for the board.	A bulleted list of recommendations, such as "Approve the Five-Year Plan," "Direct staff to proceed with Year 1 projects," "Initiate planning for a GO Bond."
8.0	Board Resolution	A formal document for board action.	A pro-forma resolution for the board to officially adopt the Five-Year Deferred Maintenance Plan.
	Appendices	Supporting documentation.	Appendix A: Full project data export from Excel. Appendix B: Useful life tables used in calculations. Appendix C: Representative photos of deficiencies.

Part IV: The Winning Strategy: Securing the Project and Justifying an Expert Rate

Successfully securing this project and commanding an expert-level fee requires a strategic approach to the proposal and negotiation process. This involves demonstrating a superior understanding of the client's underlying needs and positioning the work as a high-value consulting engagement, not a simple task.

Crafting the Proposal: From Freelancer to Consultant

The proposal document is the first opportunity to establish expertise. It must immediately signal a deeper understanding of the problem than the job post itself describes.

● Lead with the Core Insight: The proposal should begin by acknowledging the client's reference to the OPSC DMP and Form SAB 40-20. Immediately following this acknowledgment, it should pivot to explain how the proposed solution will deliver a modernized tool that is fully relevant to their current obligations under the LCFF and LCAP framework. This demonstrates proactive problem-solving from the outset.

● Use the Language of an Expert: The proposal should be written using precise, professional terminology. Incorporate terms like "LCAP State Priority #1," "strategic asset management," "turnkey data ecosystem," and "Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA)." This signals fluency in the domain.

● Focus on the "Why," Not Just the "What": Instead of merely listing the deliverables, the proposal must explain the strategic value of each component. For example: "The automated dashboard will not only track deferred maintenance costs; it will provide your district with the defensible, data-driven evidence required to justify budget allocations to your board and community, ensuring you meet your LCAP obligations for maintaining facilities in good repair."

Justifying the Investment: A Counter-Proposal to the $500 Budget

The listed $500 fixed price is almost certainly a placeholder for a complex, multi-phase project. Addressing this requires a tactful and value-driven counter-proposal.

● Acknowledge and Reframe: Begin by politely acknowledging the listed budget, framing it as a starting point for discussion. A phrase like, "I understand the $500 budget listed is a placeholder to initiate discussion for this comprehensive and important project," can open the door to negotiation.

● Itemize the Value: Break down the proposed fee by phase, clearly linking the cost of each phase to the tangible value and deliverables produced. This transparent, milestone-based pricing is more professional and justifiable than a single lump sum.

● Anchor to the Client's Problem: The cost of not having a robust maintenance plan is substantial, including higher costs for emergency repairs, unexpected system failures, disruption to the educational environment, and potential audit findings related to LCAP compliance. The proposed solution mitigates these risks and saves money in the long run. The 80-site plan will likely identify millions of dollars in necessary facility work; the cost of the planning service is a minuscule and prudent investment in managing that liability.

Negotiating the Timeline: Setting Expectations for Success

The client's request for a "Monday End of Day" deadline is unrealistic for the full scope of work and likely refers only to an initial response or the template shells. This expectation must be managed professionally.

● Address the Deadline Directly: The proposal should politely and professionally state that a project of this complexity requires a more deliberate timeline to ensure a high-quality, expert-level outcome. Clarify the assumption that the "Monday EOD" deadline is for the proposal itself or, at most, a draft of the templates (Phases 1 and 2), not the full 80-site analysis.

● Propose a Phased Schedule: Present a realistic, phased timeline that demonstrates professional project management. This builds confidence and sets clear expectations for collaboration.

Table 4: Proposed Phased Project Timeline

Phase	Key Deliverables	Estimated Duration	Dependencies / Client Input Needed
Phase 1: Template Architecture	- Finalized Site-Walk Checklist (Excel/Sheets) - Functional Master Dashboard (Excel/Sheets)	5-7 Business Days	- Client review and approval of draft checklist. - Client provides useful-life tables and cost estimates (or approves use of standard industry data).
Phase 2: Reporting Shell	- Board-Ready Report Shell (Word/Docs) - Pro-forma Board Resolution	2-3 Business Days	- Client provides logos and brand color specifications.
Phase 3: District Plan	- Populated dashboard and report for 80 sites. - Written narrative and recommendations.	10-15 Business Days	- Critical Path: Client provides complete assessor spreadsheets, notes, and photos for all 80 sites. Timeline begins upon receipt of data.
Phase 4: Knowledge Transfer	- 1-hour recorded walkthrough session. - 2-3 page Quick-Start User Guide.	2 Business Days	- Scheduling of key personnel for the walkthrough session.

Conclusion: Delivering a Turnkey System for Strategic Facility Management

In summary, this project offers the opportunity to deliver a solution that is far more valuable than a simple set of templates. The final deliverable will be a comprehensive, integrated system for facility assessment, capital planning, and regulatory accountability. By understanding the client's historical context and bridging it to the current demands of the Local Control Funding Formula and the Local Control and Accountability Plan, the work becomes a strategic imperative. The proposed system will empower the client's team to move from a reactive to a proactive stance on facility management. It will provide them with the tools to make data-driven decisions, justify investments, and effectively communicate their needs to the school board and the community. This transforms a compliance-oriented task into a cornerstone of strategic asset management, ensuring that the district's facilities can support its educational mission for years to come.

Works cited

1. Deferred Maintenance Program Handbook - DGS (ca.gov), accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Services/Guides-and-Resources/DMP_Hdbk.pdf

2. General Fund This is the chief operating - Fullerton Joint Union High School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.fjuhsd.org/cms/lib/CA02000098/Centricity/Domain/18/Definitions%20of%20District%20Funds.pdf

3. AB 97 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis - Leginfo.ca.gov, accessed July 3, 2025, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_97_cfa_20130614_153238_asm_floor.html

4. Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) - Excel Academy Charter School, accessed July 3, 2025, https://excelacademy.education/accountability/local-control-and-accountability-plan-lcap

5. SAB 40-20 Five Year Plan.indd - DGS, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Forms/SAB_40-20_ADA.pdf

6. FIVE YEAR PLAN, accessed July 3, 2025, https://buildingpropo.sweetwaterschools.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/96/wp-content/uploads/blogs.dir/96/files/2013/12/7.-SAB_40-20-Updated-5-28-14-to-reflect-new-projects.pdf

7. 2023 Facilities Master Plan - Woodside School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.woodsideschool.us/documents/Wooside-Elementary-School-District-2023-Master-Plan-Final-DRAFT-R4.pdf

8. The 2014-15 Budget: Maintaining Education Facilities in California, accessed July 3, 2025, https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/education-facilities/maintaining-facilities-041114.aspx

9. Millbrae School District - Facilities Master Plan, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.millbraeschooldistrict.org/cms/lib/CA50000692/Centricity/Domain/33/Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf

10. Deferred Maintenance Plan - Hemet Unified School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.hemetusd.org/ourpages/maintenance/2006-2010%20Deferred%20Maintenance%20Plan.pdf

11. -1- Title 2. Administration Division 2. Financial Operations Chapter 3. Department of General Services Subchapter 4. Office o - DGS (ca.gov), accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Resources/Laws-and-Regulations/DMP_Regs.ashx?la=en&hash=B6AF8C5E2DBFE06C6C1DD05ED57682ED72CA1995

12. ED440518 - Deferred Maintenance Program Handbook., 1999-Mar - ERIC, accessed July 3, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED440518

13. SOUTH WHITTIER SCHOOL0001.tif - South Whittier School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.swhittier.k12.ca.us/district/Board_Meeting_Agendas_and_Minutes/Board_Agenda_June_26_2012.pdf

14. AB 97 Assembly Bill – ENROLLED, accessed July 3, 2025, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_97_bill_20130614_enrolled.htm

15. California's New School Funding Flexibility, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/report/R_511MWR.pdf

16. Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) - Resources (CA Dept of Education), accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/

17. LCAP Template Instructions - Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) (CA Dept of Education), accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/templateinstructions.asp

18. How Current is Your Maintenance Plan? - Dixon Smart School House, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.dixonssh.com/how-current-is-your-routine-restricted-maintenance-plan/

19. Local Control Accountability Plan / What is the LCAP? - Larkspur-Corte Madera School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.lcmschools.org/domain/493

20. Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) – Resources - Rosewood Park STEAM Academy, accessed July 3, 2025, https://rpe.montebello.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=2173191&type=d

21. LCAP - Evergreen School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.eesd.org/departments/educational-services/assessments-and-accountability/lcap

22. Downey Unified School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://web.dusd.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Downey-USD-FMP-2022-Final.pdf

23. Long-Range Facilities Master Plan - Murrieta Valley Unified School District, accessed July 3, 2025, https://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/cms/lib/CA01000508/Centricity//Domain/32/MurrietaValleyUSD_FMP_0924_FN.pdf

Search This Blog

Strategic Content & Business Insights