Administrative Recommendation Presentation AISD Facility Master Plan

Presented to the AISD Board of Trustees September 26, 2011

Background
 

Over the past 18 months, AISD has been in the process of developing a long-term Facility Master Plan (FMP). The process was launched in November 2009. The Facility Master Plan Task Force completed its work in March, 2011. The Task Force Report was received by the Board on March 28, 2011. The administration presented its response to the Facility Master Plan Task Force Report on May 16, 2011 . On May 23, 2011, the Board referred the plan to the administration for development of an administrative recommendation and approved a revised timeline with key benchmarks. On September 12, 2011, the Board of Trustees was updated on the administrative recommendation for the Facility Master Plan.

 

jdkjlsg

1

Tonight’s Purpose

Present the FMP Administrative Recommendation. Continue the September 12 Board Work Session discussion regarding the FMP.

jdkjlsg

2

Needs of the District
 

  

A strong framework in which facilities decisions support the Strategic Plan. A Facility Master Plan that is sufficiently flexible to respond to Board priorities, emergency needs and available resources, in any given year. A formal process that will make facilities planning more systematic and transparent. A process that will allow for on-going community engagement. A basis for informed decisions regarding Tax Ratification Election (TRE) and bond elections.
3

jdkjlsg

Administrative Recommendation

Adopt a Facility Master Plan at the November 21 Regular Board Meeting. Appoint a Citizens’ Bond Advisory Committee at the December 12 Regular Board Meeting. Approve Annual Facilities Recommendations at the December 12 Regular Board Meeting.

jdkjlsg

4

Recommendation:
Adopt a Facility Master Plan at the November 21 Regular Board Meeting.
5

Facility Master Plan The FMP is a framework with the following three process components:
1. A

comprehensive, long-term FMP;

2.

Annual updated information; and Annual Facilities Recommendations (AFRs)

3.

AFRs are driven by academics and balanced by operational needs.

jdkjlsg

6

Facility Master Plan Process

     

Academic and operational guidance; Data verification; Community engagement; Site selection process for new schools; Development of AFRs; and Board of Trustees action.

jdkjlsg

7

Community Engagement and FMP Implementation May Schedule January February• Begin implementation plan for approved Annual Facilities Recommendations (AFRs) • Staff initiates preparation of next year’s plan • Begin discussion with Board on population trends and impacts on district with demographic update • CBAC recruitment and appointment for proposed Bond program • Administration identifies priority areas or regions for public engagement • Begin public engagement: establish local and regional meetings to brainstorm, discuss, and vet ideas within a district-wide context • Promote engagement process and begin direct outreach with families

June-July

• Begin analyzing and applying academic and operational (facilities) needs to identify possible options • Update and verify (campus/facility level) FCI • Administration continues to receive community feedback through established processes • Appoint Boundary Advisory Committee (BAC) • Board Priorities used to inform possible AFRs

August
• Initiate BAC • Cost Board Priorities • Define Priorities 1 & 2 building system upgrades and costs

September
• Board receives draft AFRs • Board receives annual data to support AFRs • Board evaluates any exceptions to the recommendations • Board reviews FMP framework (every two years) • Citizen communication sessions during Regular Board Meeting • Begin budget planning public process

October - December
• Superintendent hosts public hearings and meetings with families of impacted communities • Continue communicating recommendations with stakeholders • Citizen communication session during board meeting • Action on changes to FMP framework (every two years), if needed • Board provides feedback on draft AFRs • Administration prepares final AFR for Board action • Action on final AFRs for following academic

jdkjlsg
8

Annual Information Annually updated information to inform the process about our district and our schools includes: 1. District Utilization – including population projections and facility utilization 2. District Assessment – facility assessment criteria, facility inventory status and timeline 3. Facility Condition Index (FCI) 4. Individual Facility Assessments

jdkjlsg

9

Development of Annual Facilities Recommendations
Driven by Academics; Balanced by Operations

ACADEMICS

OPERATIONS

AFRs

• AISD Strategic Plan • Annual Board Priorities

• Facility Assessment Results

The overlap of Academics and Operations determines the AFRs. This overlap can be larger or smaller, depending on the impact of board priorities, emergency needs (i.e. natural disasters), available resources, unexpected population shifts, and urgent facilities conditions in any given year.

10

jdkjlsg

10

Recommendation:
Appoint a Citizens’ Bond Advisory Committee at the December 12 Regular Board Meeting.
11

Citizens’ Bond Advisory Committee
1. Identify

and appoint a diverse group of representatives including subject matter experts; 2. Develop a recommended scope of work for future bond programs; and 3. Allow sufficient time to study data to make informed recommendations.

jdkjlsg

12

Recommendation:
Approve Annual Facilities Recommendations for SY 2012-13 implementation at the December 12 Regular Board Meeting.
13

Development of Annual Facilities Recommendations
Driven by Academics; Balanced by Operations

ACADEMICS

OPERATIONS

AFRs

• AISD Strategic Plan • Annual Board Priorities

• Facility Assessment Results

The overlap of Academics and Operations determines the AFRs. This overlap can be larger or smaller, depending on the impact of board priorities, emergency needs (i.e. natural disasters), available resources, unexpected population shifts, and urgent facilities conditions in any given year.

14

jdkjlsg

14

Administrative Recommendation

Adopt a Facility Master Plan at the November 21 Regular Board Meeting. Approve Annual Facilities Recommendations at the December 12 Regular Board Meeting. Appoint a Citizens’ Bond Advisory Committee at the December 12 Regular Board Meeting.

jdkjlsg

15

Planning for SY 2012-13

16

Planning for SY 12-13

Define Annual Information, and present draft thinking on developing Annual Facilities Recommendations. Review detailed timeline for FMP activities from September 26 to December 12.

jdkjlsg

17

2011 Community Engagement September – December  September 26
-

Update AISD website Community can submit comments Outreach and discussions with principals, staff, families, and community stakeholders Hold two public hearings which will be accessible via website and Channel 22
Tuesday, October 25 at 6:00pm in CAC Board Auditorium • Monday, November 28 at 6:00pm (location TBD)

September-October
-

October-November
-

December
-

Gather and submit community input to Board
18

jdkjlsg

Annual Information

19

Annual Information Annually updated information to inform the process about our district and our schools includes: 1. District Utilization – including population projections and facility utilization 2. District Assessment – facility assessment criteria, facility inventory status and timeline 3. Facility Condition Index (FCI) 4. Individual Facility Assessments

jdkjlsg

20

21

1. District Utilization

21 21

District Utilization: Historical Enrollment and Population Projections

Historical student enrollment data, for the entire district, by grade level, and by school provides the context for annual population projections.  Birth data is used to project future kindergarten class sizes.  Projection of student population data for the years 2011 to 2021 is generated for the entire district, by grade level.
jdkjlsg
22

District Utilization: Historical Enrollment and Population Projections
AISD Historic Enrollment by Grade Level 2002-03 to 2010-11
60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 PK-5 6-8 "9-12"
14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Live Births by Year in Zip Codes within AISD Boundaries

AISD Projected Enrollment by Grade Level 2011-12 to 2020-21
60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 PK-5 6-8 9-12

AISD predicts steady growth at all grade levels for the next ten years jdkjlsg
23

District Utilization: Capacity Analysis Permanent and Functional Capacity

Permanent Capacity is the number of students a school was designed to accommodate and counts only the permanent classrooms in the calculation. This is a very stable number.
-

At schools where portables have existed on site for an extended period, and there is no feasible way to construct classroom additions due to site limitations, qualitative factors may be considered.

Functional Capacity is the number of students a school can hold given the way a campus is being used. It counts all classrooms, including portables, and excludes classrooms used to house administrative staff. This number can change every year.
24

jdkjlsg

District Utilization: Capacity Analysis
Population and Enrollment The district uses two methods for counting students:

1.

Population is the number of students who live within the school’s attendance zone and are assigned to the school. Enrollment is the number of students who actually attend the school, regardless of what attendance zone they live in.

Since population projections are more reliable than enrollment projections, the former is used for long-range planning purposes.

2.

The administration will be analyzing the effect transfers on over-capacity schools.

jdkjlsg

25

District Utilization: Utilization/Efficiency
District-wide Percent of Permanent Capacity 2010-11

District-wide, AISD is within the 75%-115% target range; the district population, at all school levels, is trending upward with elementary schools approaching 115% of permanent capacity.

jdkjlsg

26

27

2. District Assessment

27 27

District Assessment: Facility Assessment Criteria
1. % of permanent capacity 2. % of functional capacity 3. Academic performance 4. Facility condition (FCI) 5. Texas Comptroller’s FAST rating 6. Cost per student 7. Student movement (INtransfers)

Quantitative Criteria

Data created through formulas and established protocols to calculate scores that standardize the way we look at each school or facility.

1. Historic significance 2. Special programs/portfolio of options 3. Equity and parity 4. Community needs 5. Proximity to “like” schools 6. Swing space capability 7. Overflow capacity

Consistent Facility Assessment
Qualitative Criteria

jdkjlsg

28

District Assessment: Quantitative Criteria
Percent of Permanent Capacity: Elementary Schools 2010-11
To identify a school facility’s ability to accommodate its future neighborhood population, the percent of permanent capacity (based on its projected attendance zone population for 2015-16) is scored as follows: • • • Below 75% - 1 point, Between 75% and 115% - 2 points, Above 115% - 3 points

jdkjlsg

29

District Assessment: Quantitative Criteria
Percent of Functional Capacity: Elementary Schools 2010-11
To identify a school facility’s ability to accommodate its current enrollment, including “in” and “out” student movement, the percent of functional capacity (based on enrollment) is scored as follows: • • • Below 75% - 1 point, Between 75% and 115% - 2 points, Above 115% - 3 points

jdkjlsg

30

District Assessment: Quantitative Criteria
Academic Performance (5 yr avg.): Elementary Schools 2010-11
To address school performance, the five year average (2006 – 2010) of TEA ratings was derived by assigning the following point system for each year the school has been rated (Academically Unacceptable: 0 points, Academically Acceptable – 1 point, Recognized – 2 points, Exemplary – 3 points) and then calculating the average. The average is then scored as follows: • • • • 0 - 0.5 – 0 points, 0.6 – 1.5 – 1 point, 1.6 – 2.5 – 2 points 2.6 – 3.0 – 3 points

jdkjlsg

31

District Assessment: Quantitative Criteria
Facility Condition Index: Elementary Schools 2010-11
To identify the physical condition of the school facility, and the expense associated with repairs and improvements, the Facility Condition Index rating is as follows: • • • • 50% or more; “Poor” – 0 points, 30.1% to 50%; “Fair” – 1 point, 15.1% to 30%; “Moderate” – 2 points, 0 to 15%; “Good” – 3 points

jdkjlsg

32

District Assessment: Quantitative Criteria
FAST Rating: Elementary Schools 2010-11
To address school performance as it relates to cost over time, the 2011 FAST star rating is scored as follows: • • • 1 to 2 stars– 1 point, 2.5 to 3.5 stars - 2 points, 4 to 5 stars – 3 points

jdkjlsg

33

District Assessment: Quantitative Criteria
Cost per Student (5 yr avg.): Elementary Schools 2010-11
To identify efficiencies in operating costs (includes M&O and grants/other external funds), the five year average (2006 – 2010) cost per student is ranked and grouped to identify schools that fall above or below the mean plus one standard deviation: • • • Highest Range - 1 point, Mid-Range (approximately 2/3 of the schools) - 2 points, Lowest Range - 3 points

jdkjlsg

34

District Assessment: Quantitative Criteria
Student Movement (IN-transfers): Elementary Schools 2010-11
To identify schools that serve large groups of students outside of their attendance zones, and that may not be considered a neighborhood school, the percent of 2010-11 enrollment from areas other than the school’s attendance zone is scored as follows: • • • More than 25% - 1 point, Between 25% - 15% - 2 points, Less than 15% - 3 points

jdkjlsg

35

District Assessment: Facility Assessment Matrix SY 2010-2011
School Total Score % Perm Cap 133% - 3 % Funct’l Cap 108% - 2 FCI % INTransfers 9% - 3 5 yr Avg Cost/Stude nt $6115 - 2 5 yr TEA Ratings 1.20 - 1 2010 FAST Rating 3 stars - 2 Odom ES

15

23.19 - 2

Elementary Schools Middle Schools

High Schools

jdkjlsg

36

District Assessment: Facility Inventory Status FY 2010-2011
School FAC Total Score Permanent Capacity 2394 2015-16 Projected Population 3305 2010-11 Enrollment 2720 Status Akins HS

15

Monitor student growth trends for possible boundary changes; very large population; more than 3000 HS students in attendance area

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools

jdkjlsg

37

District Assessment: Facility Assessment Criteria 1. % of permanent
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. capacity % of functional capacity Academic performance Facility condition (FCI) Texas Comptroller’s FAST rating Cost per student Student movement (INtransfers)

Quantitative Criteria

1. Historic significance 2. Special programs/portfolio of options 3. Equity and parity 4. Community needs 5. Proximity to “like” schools 6. Swing space capability 7. Overflow capacity

Consistent Facility Assessment
Qualitative Criteria

Each facility is then viewed through second lens based on criteria that are more subjective and not always easily measured.
38

jdkjlsg

District Assessment: Qualitative Criteria
1.

2.

3.

Historic Significance – Is this a facility that has been officially designated as having architectural or historic significance by a governmental entity and, as a result, should be preserved, conserved, and protected? Will this designation impact the potential uses for the building and restrict the types of renovations that can be made? Special Programs and/or Academic Portfolio of Options – Is this a campus or facility that serves a special population with specific academic needs and provides unique educational programs that may not be easily replicated at other facilities? Equity and Parity – Is this a campus or facility that provides improved academic programming or replicates quality programs to help balance offerings geographically throughout the district?

jdkjlsg

39

District Assessment: Qualitative Criteria
4.

5.

6.

7.

Community Needs – Is this a campus or facility where the district, in conjunction with other governmental entities, serves the needs of the community at large through joint-use projects such as libraries, health centers or recreational centers? Proximity to “Like” Schools That Affect Planning Decisions – Is this a campus or facility that addresses the unique needs of a community by providing programs that complement those of neighboring schools? Swing Space Capability – Is this a campus or facility that can be used temporarily to accommodate additional students, or a school population, during renovations, additions, or emergencies? Overflow Capacity – Is this a campus or facility that has capacity to permanently accommodate additional students from an over-capacity neighboring school?

jdkjlsg

40

41

3. Facility Condition Index

41 41

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Defined as the ratio of the Cost of Repairs divided by the Current Replacement Value of a facility
-

FCI= Cost of Repairs / Current Replacement Value The indexing ratio used in school facility management to benchmark relative physical condition of a school or a group of schools. This is the industry standard.

jdkjlsg

42

FCI: Relative Comparisons

Provides a metric that enables relative comparisons to be made among the physical condition of the facilities The lower the FCI, the better the physical condition of the building and site The FCI offers a qualitative sense of the “Good,” “Moderate,” “Fair,” or “Poor” condition of a facility FCI (as % of CRV)
-

  

Good: 0%-15% Moderate: 15.01%-30% Fair: 30.01%-50% Poor: 50.01% or more

jdkjlsg

43

FCI: AISD Facilities

jdkjlsg

44

45

4. Individual Facility Assessment

45 45

Individual Facility Assessment

A report for each facility contains:
-

School ID number, name, and address Grades served Permanent and portable/temporary square footage Number of classrooms Site size Number of parking spaces Individual building data Facility condition data Deficiency costs by building system and priority

Included in site verification package
46

jdkjlsg

Site Verification

Current Facility Condition Assessment information  Site Verification of data - Survey and feedback documents with instructions - Campus physical facts, deficiencies summary, and orientation diagram - Itemized Deficiencies Report - Contact information for assistance/explanation  Reconciliation and response
jdkjlsg

47

Development of Annual Facilities Recommendations (AFRs)
48

Board Priorities SY 2011-2012

New Delivery Models
Explore/establish new delivery models to provide an enhanced portfolio of academic options with supporting facilities plans and budget scenarios.

Human Capital
Refine human capital strategies to support and improve the new performance management model.

School & District Climate
Improve overall school and district climate for learning. • Whole Child/Every Child • Health & Wellness • Safety • Multicultural Outreach/ Engagement • Cultural Proficiency & Inclusiveness

Special Populations
Develop academic achievement and support strategies for special populations through accelerated and differentiated instruction. • Special Education • ELL and Secondary ESL Services • African American Student Support • Advanced Academics

jdkjlsg

49

Development of Annual Facilities Recommendations
Driven by Academics; Balanced by Operations

ACADEMICS

OPERATIONS

AFRs

• AISD Strategic Plan • Annual Board Priorities

• Facility Assessment Results

The overlap of Academics and Operations determines the AFRs. This overlap can be larger or smaller, depending on the impact of board priorities, emergency needs (i.e. natural disasters), available resources, unexpected population shifts, and urgent facilities conditions in any given year.

50

jdkjlsg

50

Academic Options Inform Development of AFRs

Single-gender middle school programs, one for young men, one for young women; Two-Way Dual Language Immersion programs to six additional schools; Two in-district charter initiatives - an alternative education program and a college preparation program; Regional 9-12 STEM Magnet Program;
51

jdkjlsg

(cont’d.)

Academic Options Inform Development of AFRs

Beyond current actions, address north central elementary school overcrowding with better use of existing AISD facility capacity - TBD;  New program design to replace the Alternative Learning Center, the secondary Disciplinary Alternative Education Program;  New program design to replace the Alternative Center for Elementary Students, the elementary Disciplinary Alternative Education Program;

jdkjlsg

52

Additional Considerations for AFRs
(cont’d.)

Evaluate, accept, or reject administrative facility bids for either or both Baker Administrative Center and Carruth Administrative Center;  Designate the 2008 Bond Program elementary school to provide relief for overcrowding in north central Austin;  Evaluate transfer policy and practice at overenrolled schools; and  Approve any boundary changes that are necessitated by AFRs.
jdkjlsg
53

Single-Gender Middle Schools:
School for Young Men School for Young Women

54 54

Single-Gender Middle Schools
ACADEMICS
• Rigorous academic prep • Research-based • Addresses special population • Increased equity and access to students within feeder pattern • Complements current academic programs within vertical teams

OPERATIONS
• Potential funding identified • Improve vertical alignment • Available capacity • Low renovation costs • Two campuses in close proximity • Uses available resources and existing facility space

?

jdkjlsg

55

Two-Way Dual Language Immersion

56 56

Two-Way Dual Language Immersion

ACADEMICS
• Enhances readiness for college, career, and life in a globally competitive economy • Research-based model with highest long-term academic success • Advances instructional and linguistic needs of all students, including ELLs

OPERATIONS
• Low cost • Efficient use of existing capacity

?

jdkjlsg

57

STEM Magnet 9 - 12

58 58

STEM Magnet 9 - 12
ACADEMICS
• Expands options for advanced academics • Establishes a new delivery model • More equitable geographic distribution of advanced academic programs

OPERATIONS
• Capital cost avoidance • Efficient use of available capacity • Lower transportation costs and travel time with regional site

?

jdkjlsg

59

In-District Charter: Alternative Education Program

60 60

In-District Charter: Alternative Education Program

ACADEMICS
• Increase graduation rates by offering alternative pathways • Personalized learning provides credit recovery and accelerated learning • Enhances college and career readiness

OPERATIONS
• Efficient use of available capacity • Low renovation cost • Low operating costs • Community need • May increase ADA

?

jdkjlsg

61

In-District Charter: College Preparation

62 62

In-District Charter: College Preparation

ACADEMICS
• Prepares underserved populations for success after graduation • Fosters academic and leadership skills • Addresses needs of special populations

OPERATIONS
• Use of available resources, existing facility • More efficient use of available capacity • Provides support for improved human capital strategy • Opportunities for attracting external grants and support

?

jdkjlsg

63

Learning Support Centers

64 64

Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs: Transition to Learning Support Centers
ACADEMICS
• Strengthens academic programming for special populations • Provides more stable learning environment with fewer transitions • Increase graduation, attendance, and completion rates • Provides supports for the “whole child”

OPERATIONS

?

• Evaluates & considers options for old, outdated facility • Opens up space for other uses • Lower transportation costs • Efficient use of existing capacity

jdkjlsg

65

Designate the 2008 Bond Program Elementary School for North Central Austin

66 66

Designate 2008 Bond Program Elementary School
ACADEMICS
• Improves learning environment • Opportunity to expand portfolio of options

OPERATIONS
• Addresses critical overcapacity schools • Provides current and future student enrollment support • Designates location for for 2008 Bond Program expenditure

?

jdkjlsg

67

Address North Central Overcrowding

68 68

Address North Central Overcrowding

ACADEMICS
• Improves learning environment

OPERATIONS

?

• Addresses critical over-capacity schools • Improves safety and health • Provides some immediate relief • Better utilizes existing capacity • Capital cost avoidance

69

jdkjlsg

69

Financial Implications of Academic Options

Estimated Program Costs
-

Based on prototypical designs and historical spending Actual costs cannot be determined until program design, scope and site decisions are finalized Identifies possible budgetary reallocations that could be made to support new initiatives Specific site decisions greatly impact on the possibility of reallocating budget resources and/or realize new revenue, i.e. converting vs. co-location, or proceeds from building sales Revenue entitlement will not be known until specific students and sites are identified External support will be identified as commitments are made
70

Estimated Revenue/Savings
-

-

-

-

jdkjlsg

Financial Implications of Academic Options
(cont’d.)

Funding Gap
-

Cost and revenue estimates may be shown as a range since there are many variables that could affect costs and assumptions The difference between what we actually spend vs. what we would have spent in the future on maintaining existing infrastructure, i.e., savings on maintenance or utility costs for closed buildings

Cost Avoidance
-

Final estimates will be presented in December with the final AFRs

jdkjlsg

71

2011 Community Engagement September – December  September 26
-

Update AISD website Community can submit comments Outreach and discussions with principals, staff, families, and community stakeholders Hold two public hearings which will be accessible via website and Channel 22
Tuesday, October 25 at 6:00pm in CAC Board Auditorium • Monday, November 28 at 6:00pm (location TBD)

September-October
-

October-November
-

December
-

Gather and submit community input to Board
72

jdkjlsg

2011 Community Engagement September – December  September 26
-

Update AISD website Community can submit comments Outreach and discussions with principals, staff, families, and community stakeholders Hold two public hearings which will be accessible via website and Channel 22
Tuesday, October 25 at 6:00pm in CAC Board Auditorium • Monday, November 28 at 6:00pm (location TBD)

September-October
-

October-November
-

December
-

Gather and submit community input to Board
73

jdkjlsg

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful