1 / 30

Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan

Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan. Presented to the AISD Board of Trustees. September 12, 2011 Work Session. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011. Purpose. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011.

danil
Download Presentation

Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan Presented to the AISD Board of Trustees September 12, 2011 Work Session Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  2. Purpose Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 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.

  3. All Plans Align to the Strategic Plan The Facility Master Plan is a framework in alignment with the district’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 2

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

  5. Whole Child Prioritize, Stabilize, OptimizeSuperintendent’s 2011-2012 Work Plan • Rich Portfolio of Academic Options • Dual Language Immersion • Response to Intervention • Social Emotional Learning • Child Study Teams • Fine Arts • Health and Wellness • Attendance (In addition to the core curriculum and assessments) Human Capital • Staffing to Maximize Learning • Performance and Accountability • New Performance-Based Appraisal System • Staff Wellness and Attendance • 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 Presented at 2011 Staff Convocation Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  6. Draft Board Identified 2011-2012 Priority Initiatives for Superintendent’s Evaluation New Delivery Models Explore/establish new delivery models to provide an enhanced portfolio of academic options with supporting facilities plans and budget scenarios. • School & • District Climate • Improve overall school and district climate for learning. • Whole Child/Every Child • Health & Wellness • Safety • Multicultural Outreach/ Engagement • Cultural Proficiency & Inclusiveness Human Capital Refine human capital strategies to support and improve the new performance management model. • 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 5

  7. 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. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  8. Needs of the District • 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. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  9. 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. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  10. Board-Approved Timeline with Key Benchmarks Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  11. FMP Task Force vs. Administrative Recommendation 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 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  12. FMP Framework FMP Process Annual Information Annual Facilities Recommendations Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 11

  13. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  14. Facility Assessment Criteria Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  15. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 14

  16. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 15

  17. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 16

  18. Permanent Capacity Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 • 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 17

  19. Functional Capacity Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 • 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 18

  20. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 19

  21. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  22. Differences in Facility Condition Index 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 FMPTF COMPONENTS • Basic Industry Standards: + • Expansion of various building and site systems • Addition/replacement of moveable equipment • Technological needs • ADA renovation needs • Portable renovations Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 21

  23. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  24. Qualitative Criteria • Historic Preservation • Special programs/ Portfolio of Options • Equity and Parity • Community Needs • Proximity to “Like” Schools • Swing Space Capability • Overflow Capacity Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  25. FMP Framework FMP Process Annual Information Annual Facilities Recommendations Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 24

  26. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

  27. FMP Framework FMP Process Annual Information Annual Facilities Recommendations Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 26

  28. FMP Annual Facilities Recommendations Diagram • ACADEMICALLY DRIVEN: • AISD Strategic Plan; Annual Priority Initiatives • OPERATIONS DRIVEN: • Facility Assessment Results Annual Facilities Recommendations Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 27

  29. Schedule for FMP Annual Facilities Recommendations January-August February-May October-December September August May-July • Board updated on population trends and impacts on school capacities • AFR implemented/ completed; • CBAC members recruited and appointed for proposed 2013 Bond Program • 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 • Family and community engage-ment: local workgroups to identify regional solutions within a district-wide context • 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-tionof the AFR • 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011 28

  30. 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 Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

More Related