APS Capital Master Plan


APS › Capital Master Plan › About Us › History

Capital Master Plan

History

The APS Capital Master Plan is nearing its 20th anniversary. Since its adoption in 1989, the plan has guided the investment of $1.85 billion in district facilities.
  • 1985 - APS starts to use a 8 mill levy ("pay-as-you-go") to finance district capital needs.
  • 1988 - An election to increase mill levy funding fails 2:1. A post-election survey indicates that voters were not angry at the district, but did not want to pay more taxes.
  • Facilities Master Planning (FMP) process was started and was completed in 1989. APS Facilities Master Plan adopted and used to guide capital requests to district voters and expenditures.
  • 1989 - Mill levy reduced to 4 mills because of yield control.
  • 1990 - A mill levy continuation was approved by voters by a 5:1 margin.
  • 1992 - Finance Election Advisory Committee recommends that APS use a combination of funding sources to meet capital needs (GO Bonds, Mill Levies).
FMP Review Committee recommends a $66.5 million bond and $30 million mill levy (SB 9) school finance package.
  • 1993 - School finance package is approved 2:1 by voters
  • 1994 - Board adopts 1996-2001 Capital Strategy
  • 1995 - HB33 96-01 approved by voters
  • 1996 - GO 96 / SB9 97 approved by voters
  • 1999 - GO 99 / SB9 00 approved by voters
  • 1999 - 2001 - 05 Capital Strategy approved by Board
  • 2000 - HB33 01-05 approved by voters
  • 2002 - GO 02/SB9 03 not approved by voters
  • 2003 - GO 03/SB9 04 approved by voters
Scales back technology recommendations, accelerates westside growth-related projects Facilities Master Plan incorporates technology and becomes the "Capital Master Plan"
  • 2005 - HB 06- 10 approved by voters
  • 2006 - GO 06 and GO Supplemental approved by voters
  • 2007 - SB 9 08-13 approved by voters
APS conducts a systematic evaluation of all facilities every five years to develop the Capital Master Plan Strategy.

Architects visit every school in the district and identify deficiencies with input from school administrators.

Growth needs are identified by extensive demographic analysis and assessment of the use and capacity of every school facility

All school technology was was also assessed in 2004.

Other needs are based on a department requests and independent review.