Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan

AUSTIN Independent School District

Confidential. Draft Working Document

Update on the Administrative RecommendationAISD Facility Master Plan

September 12, 2011Work Session

Presented to the AISD Board of Trustees

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011



Purpose The primary purpose of tonight’s meeting is to

provide an update to the Board of Trustees on the Administrative Recommendation for the Facility Master Plan. The focus for tonight is on the framework, especially the process.

At the September 26 Regular Board Meeting, the administration will present the Administrative Recommendation, which may include specific facility recommendations.

2




All Plans Align to the Strategic Plan

The Facility Master Plan is a framework in

alignment with the district’s 2010-2015

Strategic Plan.

3


44

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011Theory of Action 2011-2012

If we prioritize our work to target our greatest needs; stabilize our plans around a set of proven practices; and optimize our resources by eliminating what doesn’t work, and redirecting it to what works well, then we can focus on the whole child, streamline our systems management and improve human capital.



Prioritize, Stabilize, OptimizeSuperintendent’s 2011-2012 Work Plan

5

Whole Child

• Rich Portfolio of Academic Options• Dual Language Immersion• Response to Intervention• Social Emotional Learning• Child Study Teams• Fine Arts• Health and Wellness• Attendance

• Staffing to Maximize Learning• Performance and Accountability• New Performance-Based Appraisal System • Staff Wellness and Attendance

Human Capital

• Cloud Computing – Anywhere, Any Time!• Performance-Based Empowerment • Integrated Curriculum Management System• Long-Term Facilities Master Plan• Long-Term Fiscal Planning & External Resources• Multicultural Outreach• Focus on Efficiency and Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability

Systems Improvement

(In addition to the core curriculumand assessments)

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011Presented at 2011 Staff Convocation



Draft Board Identified 2011-2012 Priority Initiatives for Superintendent’s Evaluation

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

Human CapitalRefine 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 PopulationsDevelop 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

6




Facility Master Plan The FMP is a three-part framework which includes:

An FMP process; Annual information needed to inform the

process; and Annual Facilities Recommendations (AFR).

The FMP is a comprehensive and long-term process supporting the AISD Strategic Plan.

The Annual Facilities Recommendation results from identification of academic program and operational facility needs.

7




Needs of the District

8

A strong framework in which facilities decisions support the Strategic Plan, including academic goals and measurable outcomes.

A FMP that is sufficiently flexible to respond to Board decisions and actions from year to year, as well as rapid changes in the economic and demographic environment.

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 TREs and bond elections.




Where We’ve Been Over the past 18 months, AISD has been in the process of

developing a long-term Facility Master Plan. While the process was launched in November 2009, the Facility

Master Plan Task Force completed its work in March 2011. From March 2010 to March 2011, the Facility Master Plan Task Force

worked on an FMP that was received by the Board on March 28, 2011.

On May 16, 2011 the administration presented its response to the Facility Master Plan Task Force Report.

On May 23, 2011, the Board referred the plan to the administration for development of an administrative recommendation, and approved a revised timeline for implementation with key benchmarks.

9




Board-Approved Timeline with Key Benchmarks

10


3 Present Administrative Recommendation September 26,2011 The Superintendent and administration will work through a four-month analysis to prepare the Administrative Recommendation using the following key sources:

· Facility Master Plan Task Force Report

· School Community Proposals

· Facility Master Plan Task Force Minority Report

· Board Policy · Census Data · Meeting with representatives from selected board-approved committees and district-established advisory bodies

The Superintendent and administration will communicate and distribute the Administrative Recommendation to the community.

4 Board Review of Adminstrative Recommendation October 2011

The Board decides which aspects of the Administrative Recommendation it approves, which will then become the draft of the Facilities Master Plan (FMP).

5 Present and Approve the Final Facility Master Plan End of November The Board will need to approve the final Facility Master Plan by November, 2011. The Board will take action to implement the recommendations of the plan by December 2011, noting that some earlier action may be required on a case-by-case basis.

6 Shape Capital Improvement Projects - "New Vision" - to support academic programming and vertical team alignment

January - February 2012

7 Convene Citizens' Bond Advisory Committee March 20128 Plan and Implement FY12 Summer FMP Projects August 10, 2012

9 Determine and Implement Boundary Changes (as appropriate) TBD

10Schedule the Next Bond Election in Coordination with Other District and Public Partner Entity Initiatives

*May 2013 Election



11

FMP Task Force vs. Administrative Recommendation

Administrative Recommendation:Academically and operationally focused

School assessments include permanent and functional capacity factors

Return to traditional AISD permanent capacity range: 75-115%

Includes specific actions related to boundaries and transfers

Utilizes basic industry standard for Facility Condition Index

School performance included as assessment factor

FMPTF Report:Perceived to be efficiency focused

School assessments limited to permanent capacity factors

Narrower acceptable permanent capacity range: 85-105%

No specific boundary or transfer changes recommended

Basic industry standards utilized for Facility Condition Index plus enhancements

School performance not included as assessment factor




1. FMP Process

2. Annual Information

3. Annual Facilities Recommendations

FMP Framework

12




FMP Process Provides an annual schedule for academic and

operational guidance, data verification, community engagement, a site selection process for new schools, developing recommendations, and Board action

Utilizes annually updated information regarding district utilization, district assessment, facility condition index results, and individual facility assessments

13




Facility Assessment Criteria

14




Quantitative Criteria Percent of permanent capacity:

- Used in long-range planning, such as where to locate new schools or to construct classroom additions

- Assesses a school facility’s ability to accommodate its future neighborhood population

Percent of functional capacity: - Used to make annual decisions such as determining which schools to freeze to

transfers- The number of students a school can accommodate, taking into account permanent

and portable classrooms and classrooms used by district administrative staff- Assesses a school facility’s ability to accommodate its current enrollment, including

“in” and “out” student movement and additional capacity provided by portables

Permanent and functional capacity are considered together to reflect both long-range projections & current, real-time campus conditions

15




Quantitative Criteria (Continued) Academic Performance

- Identifies a method for quantifying academic performance, which is based on the rating earned by a campus in the Texas Education Agency Accountability System

Facility Condition - Assesses the state of repair of a facility’s existing building

systems by comparing the current cost to address building systems needs to the total cost to replace the building

Financial Allocation Study for Texas (FAST) – Examines the relationship of expenditures in a district and in individual campuses relative to its and their student achievement results

16




Quantitative Criteria (Continued)

Cost per student- Identifies efficiencies in operating costs for both

maintenance and operations and grant/external funding sources

Student movement- In support of the neighborhood schools concept,

student movement in and out of the attendance zone was assessed

17




Permanent Capacity

Count permanent classrooms Subtract special areas (art, music, multi-purpose rooms) at

elementary schools - 3-7 classrooms based on staffing ratios

Multiply by class size factor- 22 at elementary- 28 at middle and high schools

Apply efficiency factor- 95% (or 85% for Title 1 schools) at elementary- 75% (or 70% for Title 1 schools) at middle and high

schools

18




Functional Capacity Count permanent and portable classrooms Subtract special areas (art, music, multi-purpose rooms) at

elementary schools - 3-7 classrooms based on staffing ratios

Subtract classrooms used by District administration staff and special education, then

Multiply by class size factor- 22 at elementary, - 28 at middle and high schools

Apply efficiency factor- 95% (or 85% for Title 1 schools) at elementary- 75% (or 70% for Title 1 schools) at middle and high schools

19




Student Population Projection Methodology

Step 1: Move students forward from one grade to the next (cohort survival method)

Step 2: Add projected number of students from new housing based on data from MetroStudy to identify trends for individual subdivisions and multi-family developments

Step 3: Estimate kindergarten student population using Travis County live births

Step 4: Aggregate planning area projections. The sum always exceeds the mid-range projection total, which serves as a control parameter

Step 5: Adjust projection downward based upon out-migration trends

20




What is a Facility Condition Index (FCI)? An indexing ratio used in the school facility management

industry to benchmark the relative physical condition of a group of schools

Defined as the ratio of the Cost of Repairs divided by the Current Replacement Value (CRV) of a facility- FCI= Cost of Repairs / CRV

Strict definition compares the cost of repairing the existing deficient site and building systems of a facility to the cost of replacing the facility exactly as currently constructed

Facility condition assessment deficiencies are verified at the facility level. The FCI calculation will reflect occupant feedback

21




Differences in Facility Condition IndexFMPTF COMPONENTS

Basic Industry Standards:

+ Expansion of various building

and site systems Addition/replacement of

moveable equipment Technological needs ADA renovation needs Portable renovations

BASIC INDUSTRY STANDARDS(NACUBO*)

Actual condition of existing permanent building and site systems, including:‾ Roofs‾ HVAC systems‾ Site drainage systems‾ Plumbing systems‾ Electrical and lighting systems‾ Paving and sidewalks ‾ Wall and floor coverings

*National Association of College and University Business

22




How is a FCI Used? Provides a metric to be used to enable relative

comparisons to be made among the physical condition of facilities

The lower the FCI, the better the physical condition of the building and its site improvements

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%-30%- Fair: 30%-50%- Poor: 50% or more

23




Qualitative Criteria Historic Preservation Special programs/ Portfolio of Options Equity and Parity Community Needs Proximity to “Like” Schools Swing Space Capability Overflow Capacity

24




1.FMP Process

2.Annual Information

3.Annual Facilities Recommendations

FMP Framework

25




Annual Information

Annual Information to inform the process about our district and our schools:- District utilization- District assessment- Facility Condition Index (FCI)- Individual facility assessments

26




1.FMP Process

2.Annual Information

3.Annual Facilities Recommendations

FMP Framework

27




ACADEMICALLY DRIVEN:

AISD Strategic

Plan; Annual Priority

Initiatives

OPERATIONS DRIVEN:Facility

Assessment Results

FMP Annual Facilities Recommendations Diagram

Annu

alFa

cilit

ies

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

28




Schedule for FMP Annual Facilities Recommendations

September October-December

February-May May-July August

• Administration receives community feedback

• Facility condition assessment updated

• FCI updated and verified (at a campus/facility level)

• Initiate Boundary Advisory Committee

• Assessment criteria will be applied to identify current status of all facilities

• Superintendent’s Priority Initiatives will be defined and applicable initiatives will be applied to AFR planning

• Boundary Advisory Committee will be convened, as appropriate

• Academic portfolio of options and associated costs defined

• Priorities 1 & 2 building system upgrades and costs defined

• Placement of academic options determined

• Implementation issues and costs defined

• Public comments Board of Trustees meeting

• Public communica-tion of the AFR

January-August

• Family and community engage-ment: local workgroups to identify regional solutions within a district-wide context

• Board will consider/revise AFR

• Board will approve FMP AFR for following academic school year

• Public comment period at regular Board of Trustees meeting (November)

• Public communication of the AFR; public feedback through the budget planning process

• Board updated on population trends and impacts on school capacities

• AFR implemented/ completed;

• CBAC members recruited and appointed for proposed 2013 Bond Program

29




Next Steps At the September 26 Regular Board Meeting, the

Administration will present its Administrative Recommendation and propose Board actions needed to implement the Annual Facilities Recommendation for 2012-2013.

October through mid-November will be devoted to community outreach and engagement.

At the November 28 Regular Board Meeting, the Board is scheduled to take action on the Facility Master Plan.

At the December 12 Regular Board Meeting, the Board will take action on the Annual Facilities Recommendation for 2012-2013

30


Documents

Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan