Gimme shelter ... and fast! As one of the fastest growing districts in the nation, Elk Grove USD has had to be innovative in the areas of funding, planning and construction in order to build cost-effective, quality schools in a timely manner.

With an average of eight new students moving into the Elk Grove Unified School District every day, the district continues to be one of the fastest growing in the nation. Our dramatic growth has challenged us to find innovative and efficient ways to build quality, cost-effective schools in a timely manner.

The tremendous growth in south Sacramento County has pushed our enrollment from 18,200 in 1987 to 55,600 today. Even when the state's economy lagged, the housing market in Elk Grove remained strong, and today we are seeing a tremendous increase in the number of new houses being built. Last year more than 6,000 housing permits were issued in our district. We expect to reach 80,000 students within six years, and we will continue to grow well after that.

We now operate 51 schools, including 33 elementary schools, six high schools and six middle schools. We project that we will need an additional 24 schools within the next six years--in addition to the six that are currently under construction and will open within the next 18 months.

That's a tall order for any district, and we are fortunate in Elk Grove to receive strong leadership from our Board of Education. Board members have always been proactive in planning schools and have made it a priority to keep our older schools in top condition.

We also have an outstanding facilities and planning department headed up by Constantine Baranoff, a veteran school builder for more than 30 years. He is, without a doubt, one of the best school planners in California, if not the nation. His foresight in planning has been instrumental in our ability to keep pace with growth.

Funding streams

Dealing with growth is a way of life in Elk Grove. We have needed to be very proactive in order to open 28 new schools in the past 18 years. Another critical step in being able to build schools has been to combine three funding streams--local bonds, state bonds and developer fees.

Under our funding plan, local bonds contribute 19 percent, developer fees 40 percent and state bonds 41 percent. Without this shared cost, the $200 million annual construction budget would be too burdensome on our local homeowners.

We are very grateful that our community has passed two local bonds since 1987. Combined with developer fees, the bond proceeds provide a steady income that we use to qualify for matching state funds.

But building the school is only part of the cost of opening new schools. We also need to pay for new desks, school supplies and additional staff members such as principals, custodians and counselors whenever we open a new school.

As with any large expenditure, it's wise to save up, and that's just what we do with our "new school start-up fund." Right now we need to set aside about $6 million a year so that we will be prepared to operate three to five new schools annually for the next several years when they are completed.

Unfortunately, our district construction schedule largely depends on the availability of state bonds. Therefore, we work to have our school construction plans approved by the state so that we are in position to apply for state funds when state bonds pass. A few months can make the difference between opening a school on schedule or the following year.

School architectural plans

One way we have been able to build schools quickly is to reuse a school's architectural plan several times. Even though the plan must be adjusted each time to accommodate the unique features of a new site, that is still quicker than creating a new design each time a school will be built. It also cuts down on the review process at the design stage because our staff is already familiar with the plan.

Reusing school plans also helps us make any adjustments we need based on input from principals, teachers and staff who work at schools with the same design and can of for suggestions on what will work better for students and staff. Staff may suggest adjusting the layout of the office, or where to install wiring for phones and computers.

And having the experience of seeing how well a plan holds up also helps us know when some materials will age too quickly, so that we can use something different when the school is built.

This helps us save money in two ways--it cuts down on architectural fees when we don't have to start from scratch every time, and we have discovered that contractors can bid more competitively because of their experience with the design. But the bottom line for us is that reusing designs improves the plans so that we can build the best possible schools for our students and staff.

We don't just reuse designs for an entire school. We also reuse plans for individual buildings at different schools that have proven to be popular with staff, parents and students.

For example, nearly 20 years ago our board made it a priority to have a library building at each of our elementary schools, which most of our older schools did not have. One particular design for a stand-alone library with an attached computer room and classroom has been reused quite effectively at a number of schools. By having the exterior design and color match the surrounding buildings, it makes a wonderful addition at any school.

Other cost-saving design features

When Proposition 1A passed in 1998, it limited the amount of state funding available for school construction. This prompted us to re-examine designs for each building and bow buildings are laid out at a school. Our architects then went to work to trim the designs down to the "fundamental fighting weight" for each building and school.

Our goal was to maintain the same high quality of construction and look for our schools on a tighter budget. While it has been a challenge, we have implemented a number of design changes that helped us reach that goal. Based on the comments we receive, I know that our community is very proud of the quality of schools we are building.

In designing the layout at a school, we strive to create a compact design to minimize the costs to install and connect utilities. This includes lining up classroom buildings next to each other wherever possible. Even though the classrooms are built close together, each school still maintains an attractive, open quad area in the center of the campus so that the schools have an open feet.

In looking for a compact yet efficient design, we also created what we call the "six-pack," "nine-pack," and "12-pack" classroom sets. These buildings use a similar design to have either six, nine or 12 classrooms in one rectangular building, depending on the needs of the campus. This design easily accommodates our year-round schedule.

The buildings also include an interior space that serves as a storage area for teachers and an area where teachers can meet with students to do assessments or serve other small-group activities. By using this interior space for more than one purpose, we do not need to build separate classrooms for teachers who occasionally need to meet with a small group of students.

We also have the emergency access routes double as pedestrian paths and make them part of the blacktop area. Not only does this help maintain a tight campus design, but it also saves money. We can reduce the number of sidewalks that need to be poured and, at the same time, the state will pay for the portion of paths and blacktop areas that also serve as emergency access routes.

By designing buildings with simple footprints and simple--yet attractive--architecture, we are able to save money that can then be put into the classroom for such things as casework, quality carpet or windows that can reduce lighting and electricity costs.

Year-round calendar

We also use our schools efficiently by operating most of our elementary schools on a four-track, year-round calendar. While the year-round calendar has been controversial in some areas of the state, our parents and staff strongly embrace the year-round calendar that we use. Since a year-round school can accommodate one-third more students than a traditional schedule, we don't need to build as many schools. And with an elementary school costing $15 million today, that is a significant savings.

When the state introduced class size reduction for kindergarten through third grade in the mid 1990s, putting schools on a year-round calendar saved us the expense of purchasing additional portables at some schools. It will also help us move forward with an agreement we just reached with our teachers' association to reduce class sizes to 26-to-1 in grades four through six by the 2006-07 school year.

Construction managers

We have found that having our own construction management team has helped us build schools efficiently while maintaining the same high construction standards. We employ our own construction managers, some of whom are parents in our district, so they take great pride and ownership of the schools built under their watch. And since they are still with us once the school opens, we hold them responsible for resolving any construction problems that are discovered after the school opens.

Another advantage to having our own construction managers is that they know our staff, culture and way of doing business, so we don't have train a new manager for each new project. This helps ensure during the construction phase that schools are being built to the district's high standards.

Making the most of existing facilities

Lastly, I believe an efficient school construction plan includes making the most out of our existing facilities. It's a philosophy that Assistant Superintendent Baranoff calls "Leave no school facility behind."

This philosophy reasserts our board's desire to keep older schools on par with newer schools through a combination of additions, modernization projects and deferred maintenance. For example, after our community approved a local bond in 1987, we have been adding multipurpose rooms and libraries at our older schools. Many of these older schools are in poorer neighborhoods, but these additions demonstrate that we believe in offering the same educational opportunities to all of our students--regardless of where they live.

Modernization projects

We also modernize schools when they are 25 years old and become eligible to receive state funding for modernization. For example, a recent $9.1 million renovation at Elk Grove High School greatly increased the efficiency of the school. The school, which opened in 1963, now has nearly twice as many students for which it was designed. Although we have added portable classrooms over the years, the original classrooms needed to brought up to today's standards, and common areas needed to be renovated.

The modernization work included building a new science wing with larger classrooms that replaced those built for 24 students, expanding the library, installing wiring for technology and adding second gymnasium, to name just some of the work. A similar renovation of Valley High School, which opened in 1977, is underway, even though the school is past its peak enrollment.

Making our community proud

Our rapid growth has challenged us to find ways to deliver quality schools that make our community proud. By being innovative with funding, planning and construction, we have been able to deliver quality schools in an efficient manner.

David W. Gordon has served as superintendent of the Elk Grove Unified School District since 1995. Located in south Sacramento County, Elk Grove is the third-fastest-growing school district in the nation.