The Facility Master Planning Process
A public explanation of how the plan was developed, what was measured, and where every figure comes from.
Overview
The Simi Valley Unified School District Facilities Master Plan provides a Districtwide framework for understanding existing conditions, identifying current and future needs, establishing priorities, and guiding responsible investment over the next five to ten years. Within it, the deferred maintenance implementation plan is scheduled across 15 years.
It is a living digital resource that can be updated as conditions, enrollment, programs, costs, funding opportunities, and District priorities change.
Verified data and demonstration data
The plan draws on two clearly separated sets of figures, and every view on this site states which one it is using.
Transcribed line by line from the District's own 2016 facility assessment documents and reconciled to the totals stated in those reports. Twenty-four facilities have assessment data. Five are reported as pending rather than estimated, because no assessment source was provided for them. Nothing is inferred to fill a gap.
A labeled sample model built to the District's own data structure, used to demonstrate what the platform reports once a full field assessment is loaded. These figures are not District findings, and they are replaced rather than adjusted as real data arrives.
The two are never combined in a single figure. Where a view crosses between them, the source is named.
Facility Condition and Projected Repair Costs
How observable deficiencies, remaining useful life, lifecycle needs, capital needs, and planning-level costs are identified and organized by timeframe. Findings are grouped into immediate needs, one to five years, six to ten years, and eleven to fifteen years, so the District can plan renewals rather than react to failures.
The Facility Condition Index is one planning tool. It does not independently determine whether a facility should be repaired, modernized, or replaced. Costs carried forward from earlier assessments are restated to a current planning basis using a single stated escalation convention rather than a figure chosen per project.
Deferred Maintenance
How identified but unfunded work is organized across a 15-year implementation schedule, sequenced by the condition and remaining useful life of Major Building Systems and site improvements, with the priority of each identified project attached.
Deferring work does not hold its cost still, so the schedule carries both a current-dollar figure and an escalated planning figure for the period in which the work is expected to occur. The difference between the two is the cost of the schedule itself rather than additional work.
Work Order Performance
How corrective and preventive work order records are used as evidence of actual building performance. What failed, where, how often, and what it took to repair shows recurring problems and operating burden that a point-in-time condition assessment cannot see on its own.
Those records move into the plan on a schedule the District sets. A roof generating repeat leak calls appears as a lifecycle need before it becomes an emergency.
Campus Utilization
How enrollment, capacity, acreage, building area, program use, and site constraints are evaluated. Reading these together shows where a campus has room to grow, where space is going unused, and where physical constraints limit what a site can accommodate.
Utilization findings depend on verified enrollment and capacity by campus, and are published once that data is confirmed with the District.
Enrollment Projections
How District-supplied projections are compared with capacity and utilization to identify future space and program needs. The projection itself is produced by the District. The plan reports it and tests it against the physical capacity of each campus rather than generating a forecast of its own.
Equity-Based Planning and Prioritization
How verified student-need indicators, facility condition, educational adequacy, and barriers to access are considered, so that investment is weighed against need rather than distributed evenly by default.
Equity carries its own weight in the scored model that produces the ranked project list, alongside condition, adequacy, and eligibility for outside funding. District leadership sets those weights, and the ranking recalculates when they change. The full explanation of all six inputs is on How Projects Are Prioritized.
Options and Costs
How Districtwide and campus-specific recommendations are developed from assessments, records, meetings, educational analysis, enrollment information, and stakeholder input. Options range from targeted repair through lifecycle replacement, modernization, reconfiguration, and full replacement.
Funding Opportunities
How potential local, state, federal, grant, developer-fee, energy, joint-use, and other sources are aligned with eligible projects. Identifying a potential source does not imply that funding is guaranteed.
Proposition 2 and State Matching Funds
Proposition 2 requires a board-approved Five-Year Facilities Master Plan as a condition of participating in the State School Facility Program. The plan documents the nine components required on Form SAB 50-MP and identifies the source of each one, so the District can see what it already holds and what it still needs to supply.
Five of the nine report from the platform. Two come from outside the District, the OPSC eligibility estimate and the County Auditor-Controller's assessed value. Two come from District records, the five-year enrollment projection and the LCAP alignment narrative. The state-matched pipeline appears in District Summary.
Living Digital Plan
How maps, dashboards, findings, photographs, documents, priorities, costs, and completed-project information can remain current over time, so that the plan continues to reflect the District's facilities rather than becoming a snapshot of one moment.
As work is completed and conditions change, the underlying records are updated and every view built on them changes with it, without rebuilding the plan.
Detailed Methodology
The complete Facility Master Planning Process document sets out the full methodology, definitions, assessment categories, planning periods, option-development process, and funding discussion.
19 pages. Includes the assumptions register, the full prioritization formula, the schedule and a glossary.