ATTACHMENT "1" FACILITY MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK AUSTIN ISD November 21, 2011 WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 I. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT "1" Facility Master Plan Framework I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUSTIN ISD November 21, 2011 WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 I. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT "1" Facility Master Plan Framework INTRODUCTION The Facility Master Plan (FMP) Framework includes the following three components: 1) a comprehensive, long-term FMP process; 2) annual updated information used to inform the FMP process; and 3) Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations (AAFRs), to support the district's long-term goals, including the AISD Strategic Plan, as well as shorter-term Board-Identified Priority Initiatives. BACKGROUND In past years, the Austin Independent School District (AISD or District) and the City of Austin have worked closely on two important initiatives, the Community Committee on Neighborhoods and Schools, and the Family and Children's Task Force, designed to improve neighborhood schools facility planning processes. Notwithstanding these critical endeavors, a formal long-term Facility Master Plan (FMP) Framework has never been developed. Under the current Administration, a long-range FMP process was launched in November 2009, when the Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to initiate this work. From March 2010 to March 2011, the Facility Master Plan Task Force (FMPTF) worked on an FMP Framework that was received by the Board on March 28, 2011. The Board then referred the Task Force's work to the Administration for development of an administrative response. On May 23, 2011, the Board approved the Facility Master Plan Next Steps, which embodies a timeline for key benchmarks. On August 27, 2011, the Board identified its priorities for school year 2011-2012. The Superintendent presented the Administrative Recommendations to the Board at its September 12, 2011, Work Session. Subsequent presentations were made on September 19 and 26; October 10 and 17; and on November 7, 2011 to provide additional opportunities for the Board to review and provide input on FMP development. APPROACHES TO FMP DEVELOPMENT There are four key differences in the work of the FMPTF and the Administration in its approach and/or recommendations: 1. First, the FMPTF used an enhanced definition of Facility Condition Index to determine the Facility Assessment. It included the Facility Condition Index (FCI) industry standard components and added others not normally found in an FCI analysis. The Administration adheres strictly to the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) definition. 2. Second, the FMPTF recommendations were perceived to be primarily efficiency focused in order to assist in addressing the District's budget shortfall by closing and consolidating schools. The Administration incorporated both academic and operational factors to inform the FMP Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations (AAFRs). 3. Third, the facility criteria considered by the FMPTF relating to utilization was limited to permanent capacity while the Administration incorporated both permanent and functional capacity in the criteria to be applied annually to all facilities; and 4. Finally, the FMPTF used the range of 85-105% for the percentage of permanent capacity to define the range for under and over capacity, whereas the Administration used its standard range of 75-115%. SCHOOL YEAR 2011-2012 SCHEDULE One key benchmark of the timeline is the development of an administrative recommendation for 20112012. The Administration has been meeting with representatives from selected board-approved WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 2 I. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT "1" Facility Master Plan Framework committees, district-established advisory bodies, and other advisors to the Superintendent regularly to develop and inform its recommendations, referred to as Annual Academic Facilities Recommendations (AAFRs). ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The Superintendent's FMP Work Group reviewed the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan to support the boardapproved goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. All students will perform at or above grade level. Achievement gaps among all student groups will be eliminated. All students will graduate ready for college, career, and life in a globally competitive economy. All schools will meet or exceed state accountability standards, and the district will meet federal standards while exceeding state standards. There was also a purposeful effort to honor Strategy 4, Action 9 in the Strategic Plan, which states, "ensure that instructional initiatives, the budget, and other district and campus plans align with each other and support the Strategic Plan goals and policies." The Superintendent's FMP Work Group was ever mindful of crafting options with considerations of their minimal, moderate, and maximum impact on graduation rates and increasing student achievement. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT The Administration also used the following factors in its development of its recommendation(s): o o o o o Accomplishing goals and priorities with a shrinking budget and growing population Student movement (in and out of attendance zones) and transfer policies Attendance area population vs. enrollment Boundary adjustment solutions Balancing short- and long-term facility needs FMP FRAMEWORK Within the FMP Framework, the District assesses and predicts both the need and timing for new or expanded facilities, bond elections and programs, lease arrangements, general transportation needs, major renovations, and policy and procedure adjustments. A biannual review of the FMP Framework provides for adjustments for changes such as public funding structures, legislative session outcomes, newly defined industry standards or best practices, and demographic and population shifts. The Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations (AAFRs) included in the FMP, address information and data that change on a yearly basis, such as Board priorities, facility conditions and assessments, and campus factors. The FMP Framework includes an outreach and communication program. Families, community stakeholders, staff and principals throughout the district will be engaged in local and regional discussions to brainstorm, discuss, and vet ideas within a district-wide context that are in alignment with Board priorities and district goals. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 3 I. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT "1" Facility Master Plan Framework SCHEDULE FOR FMP AAFRs Preparation of the AAFRs begins in the spring and ends with Board approval in December of each year. After this initial year, the schedule will encompass 18 months as a complete cycle. The annual planning schedule will ensure timeliness and consistency for delivering the AAFRs. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The FMP Framework includes both community outreach and a proactive and transparent communications plan starting in January of every year. From February to May, the Superintendent or designee will host local and regional discussions with principals, staff, families and community stakeholders to brainstorm, discuss, and vet ideas within a district-wide context in alignment with the Board-Identified Priority Initiatives and the Strategic Plan. The Administration will present updates on demographics and academic trends to the Board to identify potential district needs. Stakeholders will provide feedback to the Administration from February to May of each year. In conjunction with national best practices and other research, the Administration will consider family and community input in the development of its AAFRs. Once the recommendations are presented to the Board, families and community stakeholders can continue to provide input in concert with the fall budget planning process, and at public hearings and through citizens communications. The Administration will also gather community input from formal Board-approved committees and District-established advisory bodies, including the Boundary Advisory Committee and the District Advisory Council. The Administration will continue to inform the community about the FMP Framework and timeline using established processes such as electronic communication and web updates in advance of the annual September recommendations. ACADEMICS AND OPERATIONS INFORM RECOMMENDATIONS Academically Information Driven THE FMP ANNUAL ACADEMIC AND FACILITIES The AISD Strategic Plan and the annual Board-identified priority initiatives inform the development of the AAFRs. The AAFRs will be selected based on academics, quality, rigor, inspiration, cultural relevance, and proven results. Some AAFRs may be expansions to existing programs; others may be new to the District; WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 4 I. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT "1" Facility Master Plan Framework and others may be new delivery models for existing programs. Operations Driven Information The second circle is the operational component. This includes an objective Facility Criteria Assessment consistently applied to all facilities across the district. The FMP includes two sets of evaluation data, one quantitative and one qualitative. The quantitative criteria include: o o o o o Percent of permanent capacity; Percent of functional capacity; Facility condition (using the revised FCI discussed in the next section); Academic performance; The Texas Comptroller's FAST rating (The FAST Report will be updated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts each year. Should these updates no longer occur, a similar report, if one can be identified, will be used in its place.); Cost per student; and Student movement (in and out of attendance zone). o o The data utilized in creating a portion of the quantitative criteria for the facility assessment represents a collaborative data gathering process with the City of Austin and other community organizations. AISD Operations: o o o o o o Data Verification o o City of Austin Demographer/Census Planning and Development Review Capital Planning Office Parks and Recreation Department Watershed Protection Department Sustainability Office Community Community Action Network MetroStudy Principal Site Verification WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 5 I. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT "1" Facility Master Plan Framework The qualitative criteria accommodate factors that can ultimately affect facility use. These include: o o o o o o o Historic significance; Special programs and/or academic portfolio of options; Equity and parity; Community needs; Proximity to "like" schools that affect planning decisions; Swing space capability; and Overflow capacity for surrounding over-capacity campuses. The application of both quantitative and qualitative criteria yields an objective and consistent assessment of all facilities. As a critical part of the quantitative facility assessment criteria, the FCI has been adjusted to meet the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) Industry Standards and includes a Site Verification Process. The school or facility administrator will receive two pieces of FCIrelated information: (1) a one-page Facility Condition Assessment summary report that groups the campus' deficiencies by site, building system group, and by priority; and (2) a detailed description of previously identified deficiencies. The school or facility administrator, joined by a Campus Advisory Committee member and/or head custodian, will be asked to review the validity of the facility condition deficiency report to the best of their ability, and to provide the District with any confirming or dissenting comments that they may have about the information. Finally, it is the overlap of Academics and Operations that determines the AAFRs. The overlap may be larger or smaller, depending on the impact of the board priorities, emergency needs (i.e. natural disasters), available resources, unexpected population shifts and urgent facilities condtions in any given year. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Included in each of the proposed educational options is a Financial Implications section. This section presents the financial implications of the proposed educational programs and designs. It also includes estimated revenue and savings from possible budgetary reallocations that could be made to support new initiatives. Estimated program costs will be based on prototypical designs and historical spending. Actual program costs will not be available until final decisions are made regarding program design, scope and site. In some cases, a range is being presented as the actual costs could vary depending upon those variables. SITE SELECTION PROCESS FOR NEW SCHOOLS In cases where it is decided that a new school is needed, the specific location begins with site selection to meet capacity needs. A sequence of activities has been outlined to determine the areas for school site acquisition. This sequence is detailed in the FMP Framework. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 6 I. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT "1" Facility Master Plan Framework CONCLUSION The Facility Master Plan Framework is not complete without using detailed information regarding district utilization, district assessment, facility condition index results, and individual facility assessments to inform the process annually. (See Annual Information) The outcomes of the FMP Framework provide a long-term plan for a community engaged process to provide for academically-driven, ongoing facility utilization and improvements. The Framework is deliberately designed to be flexible enough to respond to necessary changes in academic and operational needs so that adjustments to the allocation of resources can be incorporated accordingly each school year. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 7 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" II. THE FMP FRAMEWORK AUSTIN ISD November 21, 2011 WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" INTRODUCTION This Facility Master Plan (FMP) Framework establishes a three-part framework, which includes the following three process components: 1) a comprehensive, long-term FMP process; 2) annual updated information used to inform the FMP process; and 3) Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations (AAFRs), to support the district's long term goals, including the AISD Strategic Plan, as well as shorterterm Board-Identified Priority Initiatives. The Framework will establish processes for an annual schedule for developing recommendations, academic and operational guidance, and the site selection process for new schools. Detailed information regarding district utilization, district assessment, facility condition index results, and individual facility assessments will be updated annually to inform the Framework. The outcome of the FMP Framework (which would utilize the updated data) will be the Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations (AAFRs) that reflect the intersection of academic expectations and operational needs to provide the yearly actions for ongoing facility utilization and improvements. The Framework has been deliberately designed to be flexible enough to respond to necessary changes in academic and operational needs so that adjustments to the allocation of resources can be incorporated accordingly each school year. BACKGROUND In past years, the Austin Independent School District (AISD or District) and the City of Austin have worked closely on two important initiatives, the Community Committee on Neighborhoods and Schools, and the Family and Children's Task Force, designed to improve neighborhood schools facility planning processes. Notwithstanding these critical endeavors, a formal long-term Facility Master Plan (FMP) Framework has never been developed. Under the current administration, a long-range facility planning process was launched in November 2009, when the Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to initiate this work. From March 2010 to March 2011, the Facility Master Plan Task Force (FMPTF) developed an FMP that the Task Force submitted to the Board on March 28, 2011. The Board then referred the plan to the Administration for development of an administrative response. The Board also approved the Facility Master Plan Next Steps (a timeline for key benchmarks) on May 23, 2011. Chronology The following is a chronology of various references to FMP work: o o o o o o o o May 29, 2009: MGT Efficiency Study recommended development of a long-range facility master plan. November 16, 2009: Board of Trustees gave initial direction to staff in a dialogue meeting to design a facility master planning framework. March 2010-March 2011: FMPTF convened and worked in conjunction with a nationally recognized educational facility planning firm to develop a FMP. March 7, 2011: FMPTF chairs and the consultants presented to the Board the final draft of Facility Master Plan. March 28, 2011: AISD Board of Trustees received FMPTF Facility Master Plan and referred it to the Administration for the development of administrative recommendations. May 23, 2011: Board approved the Facility Master Plan Next Steps outlining key benchmarks. July, 2011-September, 2011: Administration worked on FMP Administrative Recommendation. August 27, 2011: Board Priorities for (School Year 2011-2012) are drafted by Board. Superintendent received guidance from Board on FMP. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 2 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework o o o o o o ATTACHMENT "1" September 12, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to Board at work session. September 19, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation the Board at Board dialogue for review and input. September 26, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation the Board at regular Board meeting for review and input. October 10, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation the Board at Board work session for review and input. October 17, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation the Board at Board dialogue for review and input. November 7, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation the Board at Board work session for review and input. The following table is the Facility Master Plan Next Steps outlining key benchmarks for the Administration approved by the Board on May 23, 2011. FACILITY MASTER PLAN NEXT STEPS WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 3 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" Key Differences between FMPTF and Administrative Recommendation There are four key differences in the work of the FMPTF and the Administrative Recommendation: 1. First, the FMPTF used an expanded Facility Condition Index to determine the Facility Assessment. It included the FCI industry standard components but added others not normally found in FCI analysis. These additional components were: o o o o o Expansion and associated costs for buildings and site systems; Addition and/or replacement of moveable equipment; Technology needs; Code-related enhancements/ ADA renovation needs; and Portable building renovations. This method of calculating FCIs caused the district to reconsider its methodology and eliminate from the calculations the more variable cost components not strictly related to curing deficiencies of existing permanent site and building systems. Therefore, the Administrative Recommendation adheres strictly to the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) definition. For the Administrative Recommendation, it has been applied consistently to all facilities. By aligning with these industry standards used by the majority of school districts in Texas, we can review our data with comparable data of other districts. 2. Second, the FMPTF recommendations were perceived to be primarily efficiency focused in order to assist in addressing the district's budget shortfall by closing and consolidating schools. This perception led to a conclusion from communities, which were affected directly, that efficiency was more important than the education of students. In the Administrative Recommendation, both Academics and Operations inform the FMP AAFRs. 3. Third, the facility criteria considered by the FMPTF to consider utilization was limited to permanent capacity, while the Administrative Recommendation built in the consideration of both permanent and functional capacity into the criteria that are applied annually to all facilities. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 4 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" 4. Fourth, the FMPTF used the range of 85-105% for the percentage of permanent capacity to define the range for under- and over-capacity, whereas the Administrative Recommendation returns to the standard range used by AISD of 75-115%. School Year 2011-2012 Schedule One key benchmark of the timeline is the development of an Administrative Recommendation. The Administration has held meetings with representatives from selected board-approved committees, district-established advisory bodies, and other advisors to the Superintendent, to develop and inform the Administrative Recommendation. This work group attended multiple meetings and devoted a great deal of time to closely analyzing materials on academic programming, student population data and facilities needs, as well as reviewing: o o o o o Facility Master Plan Task Force Report; School Community Proposals; Facility Master Plan Task Force Minority Report; Board Policy; and Census Data. Alignment with Strategic Plan Further, the work group reviewed the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan to support the Board-approved goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. All students will perform at or above grade level. Achievement gaps among all student groups will be eliminated. All students will graduate ready for college, career, and life in a globally competitive economy. All schools will meet or exceed state accountability standards, and the district will meet federal standards while exceeding state standards. There was also a purposeful effort to honor Strategy 4, Action 9 in the Strategic Plan which states, "ensure that instructional initiatives, the budget, and other district and campus plans align with each WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 5 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" other and support Strategic Plan goals and policies." The work group was ever mindful of crafting options with considerations of their minimal, moderate, and maximum impact on graduation rates and increasing student achievement. Additional Considerations The following are other examples of points considered and discussed over the course of developing the Administrative Recommendation: Accomplishing goals and priorities with a shrinking budget and growing population Unlike most urban school districts, AISD's student population is growing at a steady rate (projected over 1,000 annually through 2020-21) and is faced with a projected budget shortfall in the out years, possibly through school year 2017-2018 under current Senate Bill 1. Student movement (in and out of attendance zones) and transfer policies The number of students previously living within the Austin urban core has declined over the past 20 years. However, not all under- and over-capacity is a direct result of population and demographic shifts. Large numbers of students that attend a school outside of the boundary of their assigned schools present a challenge when the district is making future facility decisions. Attendance area population vs. enrollment The most reliable figure that can be used for planning purposes is the number of students living within each attendance area. Actual enrollment due to student movement changes each year. Boundary adjustment solutions A logical and seemingly simple solution to improve efficiencies among over- and under-capacity schools is to adjust attendance boundaries and assign more or fewer students as appropriate. In practice, it is far more complex. Balancing short- and long-term facility needs As is the case in any long-term facility plan, significant resources will be needed to address capital projects. In addition to the funds needed to renovate AISD's facility inventory, additional investment to address deferred maintenance and small capital projects will increase as buildings age. At the same time, new schools will need to be constructed to accommodate concentrated growth in heavily populated areas of the district. FMP FRAMEWORK Within the FMP Framework, the district assesses and predicts both the need and timing for new or expanded facilities; bond elections and programs; lease arrangements; general transportation needs; major renovations; and, policy and procedure adjustments. A biannual review of the FMP Framework provides for adjustments for changes such as public funding structures, legislative session outcomes, newly defined industry standards or best practices, and demographic and population shifts. The AAFRs included in the FMP Framework address information and data that change on a yearly basis such as shorter-term, Board-Identified Priority Initiatives, facility conditions and assessments, and campus factors. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 6 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" Annual Schedule for FMP Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations Decisions The annual planning schedule will ensure timeliness and consistency for delivering the AAFRs. Based on availability of information and currently defined administrative deadlines, preparation of the AAFRs begins in the spring and ends with Board approval in December of each year. The recommendations approved in December are for the next academic school year and satisfy District Policy CT (LOCAL): FACILITIES PLANNING. Annual Schedule for Community Engagement In order to foster dialogue and solicit input from stakeholders, every year the Administration will follow a community engagement and implementation schedule as part of the FMP Framework. Once staff initiates the preparation of the next academic year's plan, it will begin with Board discussion on demographic and population trends and their impact on the District. This information will inform the identification of priority regions or school areas that will need to be studied carefully for the AAFRs. The District wants to ensure that staff, family and community engagement occurs early in this process. Depending on whether there is a need for a bond program in the near future, the FMP implementation schedule may require the recruitment and appointment of a Citizens' Bond Advisory Committee to recommend the scope of work for a future bond program. To support a transparent community engagement process, the district will launch a website every year to update all stakeholders about the Framework and collect input and publish public records related to recommendations and actions under consideration. From February to May, the Superintendent or designee will host local and regional discussions with principals, staff, families and community stakeholders to brainstorm, discuss, and vet ideas within a district-wide context. From June to August, formal board-approved committees and district-established advisory bodies, including the Boundary Advisory Committee and the District Advisory Council, will be consulted for ongoing input. The Administration will continue to inform the community about the Framework and timeline using established processes, such as electronic communication and web updates before the annual September recommendations are made public. Every September, the Administration will present draft AAFRs to the Board of Trustees, informed by the feedback and input collected from principals, staff, families and community stakeholders from the previous spring. Once the draft AAFRs are made public, the Administration will communicate with impacted staff, families and the community using linguistically and culturally appropriate electronic communication and direct outreach. The Superintendent or designee will host one public hearing in October and another in November of each year. Each public hearing will be recorded and broadcast live on AISD Channel 22. Families and community stakeholders will also have an opportunity to provide input regarding the AAFRs during the public budget planning process from October to December. The public will also be able to provide comment during the citizens communication portion of the Board's regular meeting. The board will receive a full report of all input and feedback collected to-date before the December action on the AAFRs. All approved actions will have individualized strategies for WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 7 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" communications, marketing and outreach to support the execution and implementation of the Facility Master Plan AAFRs. Community Engagement Touch Points The Administration has also developed the following internal and external community engagement touch points to be implemented during the AAFR process each year. Different AAFRs require different types of engagement based on the complexity of the issues and/or the significance of the AAFR's impact on the community. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Internal/External FMP Work Group Engagement with Principals (Impacted Areas) Cabinet/Expanded Cabinet Engagement Presentations/Discussions with Board of Trustees Engagement with Trustee(s) of Impacted District Public Information with Proactive Media Strategies Hosting Community Meetings Materials/Handouts for Community Meetings Notification of Community Meetings Principal-Led School Specific Meetings and Outreach District-Led School Specific Meetings and Outreach Engagement with School District Advisory Groups, Committees, and Other District Affiliated Groups Stakeholder Engagement Public Hearings and Citizens Communications The general public can follow the process and recommendations online via www.austinisd.org/fmp. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 8 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework January o o o o o ATTACHMENT "1" Begin implementation plan for approved AAFRs Initiate preparation of next academic year's plan Begin discussion with Board on population trends and impacts on district with demographic update Appoint Boundary Advisory Committee (BAC) Seek individual school-generated facilities planning input February - May o o o o o Identify priority areas or regions for public engagement Begin public engagement: conduct local and regional meetings to brainstorm, discuss, and vet ideas within a district-wide context Promote engagement process and begin direct outreach with families Recruit and appoint CBAC for proposed bond program Present the next year's draft preliminary AAFRs to Board of Trustees June-July o o o o August o o o Initiate BAC Cost Board priorities Define Priorities 1 & 2 building system upgrades and costs Analyze and apply academic and operational (facilities) needs to identify possible options Update and verify FCI (campus/facility level) Receive continued community feedback through established processes Define Board priorities used to inform possible recommendations September o o o o o o Present draft AAFRs to Board of Trustees Present annual data to support AAFRs to Board of Trustees Evaluate (Board)any exceptions to the recommendations Review (Board)FMP Framework (every two years) Provide citizen communication opportunities during board meeting Begin budget planning public process October-December o o o o o o o Host (Superintendent) public hearings and meetings with families and impacted communities Continue communicating recommendations with stakeholders Provide citizen communication opportunities during board meeting Take action (Board) on changes to FMP Framework (every two years), if needed Provide feedback (Board) on AAFRs Prepare final AAFRs for Board action Take action (Board) on final AAFRs for following academic year by Board WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 9 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" Academics and Operations Inform the FMP Annual Facility Recommendations Academically Driven information In addition to the AISD Strategic Plan, Board Priorities are used as a guide in the development of the AAFRs. Any academic options considered are those that have proven results, are high quality, challenging, inspiring and culturally relevant. Some options are expansions to existing programs; others are new to the District; and some are new delivery models for existing programs. These two elements, the Strategic Plan and the applicable Board Priorities, form the first circle in the development of the FMP AAFRs. Operation Driven Information The second circle is the operational component. This includes an objective Facility Criteria Assessment consistently applied to all facilities across the district. The Administrative Recommendation for the FMP includes two sets of evaluation data, one quantitative and one qualitative. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 10 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" The quantitative criteria include: o o o o o o o Percent of permanent capacity; Percent of functional capacity; Facility condition (using the revised FCI discussed in the next section); Academic performance; The Texas Comptroller's Financial Allocation Study for Texas (FAST) rating (The FAST Report will be updated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts each year. Should these updates no longer occur, a similar report, if one can be identified, will be used in its place); Cost per student; and Student movement (in and out of attendance zone). The qualitative criteria accommodate factors that can ultimately affect facility use. These include: o o o o o o o Historic significance; Special programs and/or academic portfolio of options; Equity and parity; Community needs; Proximity to "like" schools that affect planning decisions; Swing space capability; and Overflow capacity for surrounding over-capacity campuses. The application of both quantitative and qualitative criteria yields an objective and consistent assessment of all facilities. While these criteria will not change, the data generated from the application of the criteria changes annually as new facility condition assessments are completed, school enrollments and utilization percentages are updated, school ratings for academic performance are announced and cost per student calculations are figured. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 11 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" Each school facility is awarded one to three points for each of the seven quantitative criteria (listed above). The points are then totaled, and the schools with the lowest scores are identified as potential candidates for enhanced academic programs (that would draw additional students), repurposing, consolidation, or right sizing. The first two criteria focus on Efficient Space Utilization by using both permanent capacity and functional capacity when measuring facility use efficiency. This method allows for like comparisons across our entire facility portfolio. 1. Efficient Space Utilization - Permanent Capacity For long-range planning, the percent of permanent capacity is calculated by dividing the number of students in the school's attendance zone population by the number of students the school facility can accommodate within its permanent building(s). While specific quantitative factors may exist at certain schools whereby portables may need to be counted as permanent classroom space, permanent capacity as utilized for these calculations does not include portable buildings. Percent of Permanent Capacity = _____Attendance Zone Population_____ # of Students Facility Can Accommodate (permanent buildings only) 2. Efficient Space Utilization - Functional Capacity For annual planning efforts, the percent of functional capacity is calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled at the school, taking into account all "in" and "out" student movement, by the number of students the school facility can accommodate within its permanent and portable building(s), and also taking into consideration all special programs available at the school that particular year that may reduce the number of classrooms available for instructional use. Percent of Functional Capacity = ________# of Students Enrolled_______ # of Students Facility Can Accommodate (with permanent and portable classroom buildings) The target range that AISD has used in the past for either methodology is 75% - 115%. Schools below 75% may be available to provide relief for overcrowded schools or may be considered as potential candidates for other purposes. Schools above 115% are monitored for upward growth trends and schools that exceed 125% are considered for additions, boundary changes or as candidates to benefit from the construction of new school facilities. The FMPTF used a narrower target range of 85% - 105% when assessing the percent of permanent capacity of school facilities. Although the percent of functional capacity was provided to the task force, it was not part of their evaluation criteria. o 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 201516, is scored as follows: Below 75% - 1 point, 75% to 115% - 2 points, Above 115% - 3 points o 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: WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 12 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework Below 75% - 1 point, 75% to 115% - 2 points, Above 115% - 3 points 3. Facility Condition ATTACHMENT "1" Facility condition is the state of repair of the school facility's existing infrastructure. School facility condition takes into consideration all of the major facility systems from roofs and windows to electrical and mechanical systems. Although there is a cost associated with rectifying every school facility according to current codes and standards, these costs are not included in the FCI calculations, but have been captured for future use. The implementation of these improvements will not be required until extensive facility renovations take place. o To identify the physical condition of the school facility, and the expense associated with repairs and improvements, the Facility Condition Index rating categories are as follows: 50.1% 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 4. Academic Performance o 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 the average is calculated. The performance average is then scored as follows: 0.0 - 0.5 - 0 points, 0.6 - 1.5 - 1 point, 1.6 - 2.5 - 2 points 2.6 - 3.0 - 3 points 5. Cost per Student o To identify efficiencies in operating costs (includes both 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 6. Student Movement (in and out of attendance zones) To support the neighborhood schools concept, a student's residence determines the school he or she will attend. Use of attendance zones for school assignments is designed to promote balanced enrollments and the efficient use of school facilities. However, students may attend a school outside their attendance zone for a variety of reasons including magnet programs, priority or general transfers and federal- or state-mandated school choice options. o 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 enrollment from areas other than the school's attendance zone is scored as follows: WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 13 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework More than 25% - 1 point, Between 25% - 15% - 2 points, Less than 15% - 3 points 7. Financial Allocation Study for Texas (FAST) Rating ATTACHMENT "1" The 2009 Legislature's House Bill 3 directed the Texas Comptroller's Office to examine how schools and school districts spend their money, and how this spending translates into student achievement. In response, the Comptroller's office created the FAST Report. The FAST Report will be updated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts each year. Should these updates no longer occur, a similar report, if one can be identified, will be used in its place. This study includes many factors both in and outside school that influence the cost of education, some beyond the District's control. These factors include federal, local and state funding, academic progress, state accountability rating, drop-out rates, average class size, and District demographics. o 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 The qualitative criteria are defined below: 1. 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? 2. 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? 3. 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? 4. 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? 5. 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? 6. 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? 7. Overflow capacity for surrounding over-capacity campuses - Is this a campus or facility that has capacity to permanently accommodate additional students from an over-capacity neighboring school? The data utilized in creating a portion of the quantitative criteria for the facility assessment represents a collaborative data gathering process with the City Austin and other community organizations, which is summarized below. 1. City of Austin demographic, census, residential development information, approved plats and MetroStudy housing data are all used in the development of the district's annual demographic report. AISD Facilities planning staff and the current district demographic consultant, meet at WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 14 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" least two times a year with the city demographic expert, and a leading provider of housing market information, to exchange information about Austin area demographic and economic trends that are likely to have an impact on the student population projections for the next five years. 2. AISD Office of Facilities planning staff works with the Community Action Network to compare aggregate student population data and demographic and census data with area school districts to identify trends that may impact student population. 3. AISD Office of Facilities planning staff works with the City of Austin's Planning and Development Review Department to complete Educational Impact Statements for residential developments in order to identify, evaluate and communicate the educational impact of real-estate development and redevelopment projects. 4. AISD Office of Facilities staff periodically contacts the Assistant City Manager for Community Services, which includes the Parks and Recreation Department, to explore the possibility of jointuse projects in conjunction with future district facilities. 5. In addition to the City of Austin departments mentioned above, AISD's Office of Facilities and Construction Management staff work with the Planning and Development Review Department, the Watershed Protection Department and the Sustainability Office to ensure construction projects are aligned with City of Austin policies and ordinances and to consult and collaborate on sustainability initiatives. 6. AISD Office of Facilities staff also consults frequently with Austin Energy and the Office of RealEstate Services to identify energy and sustainability issues and to explore the possibility of mutually beneficial interlocal agreements or potential land exchanges. SCHOOL YEAR 2011-2012 SCHEDULE AISD Operations: o o o o o o City of Austin Demographer/Census Planning and Development Review Capital Planning Office Parks and Recreation Department Watershed Protection Department Sustainability Office Community Community Action Network MetroStudy Principal Site Verification Data Verification o o WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 15 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" FACILITY CONDITION INDEX In 1991, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) established the Facility Condition Index (FCI) standard and defined it as a ratio of the Cost of Repairs divided by the Current Replacement Value of a facility: FCI = Cost of Repairs/Current Replacement Value NACUBO developed the FCI as a means of quantitatively measuring the physical condition of a facility or portfolio of facilities, which is widely used today by those engaged in the management of facilities in both the private and public sectors. This standard provides for a rating relative to the FCI to offer a qualitative sense of the "Good", "Moderate", "Fair" or "Poor" condition of a facility (or its components, or a group of facilities) against a cost model of a similar facility as if it were at the beginning of its useful life, or fully "renewed" to today's standards. As shown below, the lower the FCI, the better the facility condition. 0 - 15% 15.1% - 30% 30.1% - 50% Good: The facility is in overall good physical condition, with 15% or less of the value of the building and site systems needing repair or replacement. Moderate: The facility is in overall moderately good physical condition, with 15.1% to 30% of the value of the building and site systems needing repair or replacement. Fair: The facility is in overall fair physical condition, with 30.1 to 50% of the value of the building and site systems needing repair or replacement. Many of the building and site systems are approaching or have exceeded their expected useful life. Poor: The facility is in unsatisfactory physical condition with more than 50% of the value of the building and site systems needing repair of replacement. Many of the building and site systems are failing or no longer meet the needs of the facility. [Note: When the FCI begins to reach 61% ( 2/3 the cost of replacing the building), strong consideration is usually given to having the facility replaced, if the need continues to exist, in lieu of continuing to commit additional capital resources to the sustenance of the existing building.] 50% or more WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 16 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" As part of the Facility Master Plan Task Force effort during March 2010, the District's Facility Master Plan consultants developed an FCI calculation that went beyond the conventions described above by the inclusion of costs for: The expansion of various building and site systems (e.g., adding cameras to closed-circuit television security systems); o The addition or replacement of some moveable equipment; o Technology needs (including a computer refresh schedule, and new system software and programs); o Both public and program-related accessibility renovations to achieve eventual compliance with the American with Disabilities Act/Texas Accessibility Standards (ADA/TAS); and o The renovation of temporary classroom buildings (portables). The consultant's approach yielded an index that went beyond the more basic industry standard calculation of an FCI by calculating additional variable elements as deficiencies. o To remedy this situation, AISD Construction Management staff consulted with various other educational facilities planners and educational entities with experience in comprehensive facilities condition assessments to gain their perspective on industry best practices for developing meaningful FCIs. As a result of this consultation, AISD has elected to utilize the more conventional approach to developing an FCI rating for its permanent buildings and their sites. This approach provides for a more equitable comparison of facilities based on the actual condition of their existing building and site systems, which includes: o roofs o air-conditioning systems o site drainage systems o plumbing systems o electrical and lighting systems o paving and sidewalks o wall and floor coverings and finishes o other exterior and interior building systems The additional elements, i.e., technology needs and ADA/TAS improvements, included in the initial FCI calculations and as part of the FMP Task Force work will be utilized by AISD as secondary factors to inform decisions regarding future facility uses and the need for legitimate, beneficial, system enhancements and improvements on a facility-by-facility basis. For example, it is likely that only a portion of the various program related accessibility ADA/TAS improvement scenarios that were developed for each facility will actually have to be constructed, and only when triggered by future renovations that eventually need to be performed at a facility. Facility Condition Assessment Needs/Deficiencies DEFICIENCY PRIORITIES Deficiencies are assigned a priority that is primarily in accordance with the level of their criticality, which ranges from 1 (most critical) to 5. Priority 1: Priority 2: currently critical (immediate need; i.e., fire-alarm system upgrades, replacement of deteriorated sanitary sewer lines, other life safety system improvements). potentially critical (to be corrected within one year; i.e., the replacement of major HVAC equipment, improvements to electrical lighting systems, the replacement of plumbing fixtures, piping and trim, roofing replacement). WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 17 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework Priority 3: ATTACHMENT "1" Priority 4: Priority 5: necessary/not yet critical (1-2 years; i.e., site drainage improvements, refinishing exterior doors and frames, replacement of HVAC, plumbing and electrical equipment that is nearing the end of its useful life). recommended (3-5 years; i.e., replacement of ceiling systems that are approaching the end of their useful lives; replacement of wall and floor coverings and finishes, refinishing interior doors and frames). does not meet current code/standards/grandfathered (i.e., building and site system improvements and upgrades that are not required in the near term, and are not included in the Facility Condition Index [FCI] computations). EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY Educational Adequacy provides a reference for how well a school is equipped to deliver the District's instructional program. As part of the initial FMPTF effort, an educational adequacy assessment was conducted by the FMP consulting team during the summer of 2010, whereby each instructional space in each existing school was examined for deficiencies that when compared to District-developed standards had the potential for impairing the delivery of instruction. Eight criteria were used to perform the Educational Adequacy assessment: o o o o o o o Capacity; Support for Programs; Technology; Supervision and Security; Instructional Aids; Physical Characteristics; and Learning Environment. Educational Adequacy deficiencies noted also included: inadequate teacher storage space; lack of private toilets in elementary classrooms; inadequate marker board or bulletin board space in classrooms; insufficient numbers or the lack of overhead projectors and projection systems in classrooms. FUNCTIONAL EQUITY Functional Equity (FE) is a reference for the determination of those core areas (cafeterias, libraries, gymnasiums, and administrative space) of existing schools that are appreciably less than the requirements specified in the District's current Educational Specifications. In addition to identifying core space deficiencies, the FE assessment included the development of a physical design for eliminating these deficiencies to achieve equitable improvement through addition/renovation projects. Although complete compliance with current Educational Specifications is not always possible, meaningful improvements can often be developed to achieve the maximum equitable solution on a school-byschool basis. This effort began during the implementation of the 1996 Bond Program, and has continued throughout subsequent bond programs. Potential solutions to the most problematic FE deficiencies, identified at approximately 45 existing schools, have been developed at a preliminary building design level, as has the estimated cost to implement the construction. REVISED EDUCATION SPECIFICATIONS A separate set of AISD Educational Specifications has been developed for elementary schools, middle schools and high schools that describe the current standards for program areas, equipment needs, space requirements (square footage), and special considerations for new facilities. These documents are periodically reviewed and revised over time by the District's instructional leaders and operations staff to respond to changes in instructional programming and instructional delivery. Proposed WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 18 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" specialized programs must be evaluated relative to their reliance upon any program-specific facility needs to ensure that proper instruction can be delivered. Facilities staff input on potential costs for proposed changes provides a systems check and informs the future design and construction process. TECHNOLOGY When the Facility Master Plan Framework was being initially developed, AISD's Technology Department projected the management information system and network system needs that the District could expect over the long term. These needs included: o o o o o o o o o Creation of an integrated enterprise resource management system for the Human Resources Department, Finance and ancillary departments; Completion of the roll-out of Innovation Station assemblies for the remaining 3,784 classrooms; Installation of a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) in the District to replace the existing Nortel System; Upgrades to wireless and network infrastructure for approximately 45 campuses; Upgrades to approximately 117 public address (PA) systems; Upgrades to instructional and assessment systems (e.g., Learning Platform, Data Warehouse, Student Information System [SIS] and Gradebook); Upgrades to outside data cable plant and installation of a wireless solution for portable classroom buildings; Upgrades to/replacement of projection systems in approximately 6,000 classrooms; and Replacement of: o Existing Nortel voice mail system; o Approximately 7,000 teacher laptop computers; o Approximately 20,000 desktop computers; o Approximately 3,000 printers; and o Electrical generators at six GAATN (Greater Austin Area Technology Network)Supernodes SITE FCI VERIFICATION In addition to FCI assessments, an individual Site Verification Process has been adopted. On an annual basis, campus and building administrators will be furnished a list of currently identified site and building system deficiencies for their school or facility. The noted deficiencies will be those relative to the existing site and building systems of the permanent structures at each site location. It should be noted that a one-page summary sheet that the administrators receive is formatted to group the deficiencies by site and building system level, and by priority. Priority 1 deficiencies are those that are regarded as currently critical, and constitute an immediate need; Priority 2 deficiencies are those that are potentially critical, and should be corrected within one year; Priority 3 deficiencies are those that are not yet critical, but should be corrected within 1 to 2 years; and, Priority 4 deficiencies are those representing systems that are approaching the end of their useful life, and should be replaced within three to five years. The deficiencies are organized by site and by subdivided wings or areas of a facility. For the administrator's orientation and information, a diagram of each campus/facility building is included with the deficiencies reports, which display the referenced subdivision of wings, areas, or separate buildings (identified as building subdivision "A", "B", "C", etc.). In the one-page summary document, an aerial photograph of each facility is provided, the subdivided building areas are numbered and titled, and their gross square footage is noted. Not included in this list of deficiencies, but captured in other databases, are improvements or features that need to be added to a facility (i.e., additional marker boards and tack boards, overhead WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 19 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" projectors, computers and technological equipment, the creation of additional computer labs, or the construction of a classroom or other building addition necessary to accommodate new programs or an increase in the student population). The school or facility administrator, who at their discretion may be joined by a Campus Advisory Committee member or head custodian, will be asked to review the validity of the facility condition deficiency report to the best of their ability, and to provide the District with any confirming or dissenting comments that they might have about the information. INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL-GENERATED FACILITIES PLANNING INPUT Facilities information that has been collected from individual school-generated campus planning efforts is, and will continue to be, incorporated into the District's facilities database. Staff reviews these plans, critiques them, and provides general concurrence or alternate suggestions regarding the campus's proposed facilities improvements. The process is similar to that which is used by staff in the identification of Functional Equity facilities needs, which includes the development of high-level schematic designs and probable cost estimates. The AISD Construction Management Department contact information is provided if additional assistance is needed. While some schools have initiated their own facilities planning efforts at their campus, many of the District's schools do not have adequate experience and resources to do so. To ensure equity for all schools in the consideration of their future facility needs, including building expansions or other improvements necessitated by program changes or student population growth, a standardized template or format is being developed to assist the campuses with their planning. This effort will be supported through AISD Construction Management assistance to ensure the consistent application of good planning practices, and will be provided to groups of schools as they are gathered as a Vertical Team, or individually to campuses with specialized facilities needs. The objective is to have all campus facility planning information developed, collected and available for consideration by a Citizens' Bond Advisory Committee (CBAC), or similar advisory group, for possible inclusion in the scope of projects in a future bond program. The facilities information generated by individual campuses will be utilized during the Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations (AAFRs) process, as a reference point to ensure that future facility plans support and do not conflict with academic programs that are being proposed as AAFRs. As previously stated, the greatest use of the facilities data collected through the individual campus facility planning process will occur at the time a future bond advisory committee is formed. The committee will be asked to review all of the school district's facilities data, categorize, prioritize and justify it, and form a recommendation for consideration by the Board of Trustees on the legitimate and supportable facilities needs that should be addressed through a proposed bond program. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Included in each of the proposed educational options, located in the AAFR section, is a Financial Implications statement. This statement presents the financial implications of the proposed educational program and design. It also includes estimated revenue and savings from possible budgetary reallocations that could be made to support individual new initiatives. Estimated program costs were based on prototypical designs and historical spending. Actual program costs will not be available until final decisions are made regarding program design, scope and site. In some cases, a range will be presented as the actual costs could vary depending upon the aforementioned variables. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 20 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework SITE SELECTION PROCESS FOR NEW SCHOOLS ATTACHMENT "1" In cases where it is decided that a new school is needed, the specific location begins with site selection to meet capacity needs. The steps outlined below explain the sequence of activities that are followed when determining the areas for school site acquisition. The steps in the process will include the following for areas that need large relief: For large relief areas the following site selection process will be used: 1. Identify large relief areas within which to search for sites using the population projections for the school attendance areas for the appropriate level (i.e., elementary, middle school or high school). 2. Present the proposed relief areas to the Board of Trustees for its feedback. 3. Vet the proposed relief areas with district-wide committees, such as the District Advisory Council and the Community Bond Oversight Committee. 4. Hold a public hearing to receive community feedback. 5. Modify the proposed relief areas by incorporating the community feedback. 6. Present the modified relief areas to the Board of Trustees for approval. While it may be necessary at times to utilize the aforementioned steps, the Board will make the determination if the site selection process should be limited only to the steps outlined below. 7. Identify the need for a site after reviewing programmatic or demographic data. 8. Search for sites in a specified geographic area. 9. Rate and rank-order using the district's site evaluation criteria. 10. Recommend the highest ranked site to Board in executive session. 11. Request direction from the Board to acquire a right of entry. 12. Board approves right of entry. 13. Initiate the site feasibility evaluation period, if the Board approves the right of entry, if not, return to the step above, "Search for sites in a specified geographic area," and begin again with the steps that follow. 14. Acquire the results of the site feasibility evaluation, requests direction from the Board of Trustees to acquire the site in executive session. 15. Board directs staff to negotiate a purchase contract. 16. Negotiate a contract and place on the Board agenda for approval, if the Board approves. If the Board does not approve, return to the step above "Search for sites in a specified geographic area," and begin again with the steps that follow. 17. Board approves an agenda item for the contract for the site. Once a site is acquired, staff moves forward with design and construction. As with final site approval, both the design and construction require Board approval. This process may be adjusted through Board direction and at the discretion of the Board. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 21 II. The FMP Framework Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" CONCLUSION The Facility Master Plan Framework is not complete without using detailed information regarding district utilization, district assessment, facility condition index results, and individual facility assessments to inform the process annually. (See Annual Information) The outcomes of the FMP Framework provide a long-term plan for a community engaged process to provide for academically-driven, ongoing facility utilization and improvements. The Framework is deliberately designed to be flexible enough to respond to necessary changes in academic and operational needs so that adjustments to the allocation of resources can be incorporated accordingly each school year. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 22 III. Annual Information Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" III. ANNUAL INFORMATION AUSTIN ISD November 21, 2011 WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 III. Annual Information Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" PAGE # 1. DISTRICT UTILIZATION Historical Enrollment and Projected Student Population Historical Enrollment Historical Enrollment - By Grade Level Historical Enrollment by Grade Level Historical Enrollment by School Birth Data Projected Student Population Projected Student Population - By Grade Level Projected Student Population- By Grade Level Capacity Analysis Permanent Capacity Elementary School Permanent Capacity Secondary School Permanent Capacity Core Capacity Functional Capacity Enrollment vs. Population Utilization Percent of Permanent Capacity Elementary School - 2010-11 Percent of Permanent Capacity Middle School - 2010-11 Percent of Permanent Capacity High School - 2010-11 Percent of Permanent Capacity 2. DISTRICT ASSESSMENT Facility Assessment Criteria Facility Assessment Matrix 2010-11 School Year Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Facility Inventory Status 2010-11 School Year Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities 3. FACILITY CONDITION INDEX (FCI) FCI Explanation WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 2 III. Annual Information Facility Master Plan Framework FCI Comparison Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Campuses, Athletic Facilities, Support Facilities FCI Comparison - All Facilities FCI Matrix Site Verification Document 4. INDIVIDUAL FACILITY ASSESSMENTS Facility Summary Data Reports ATTACHMENT "1" WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 3 ATTACHMENT "1" IV. Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations Facility Master Plan Framework IV. ANNUAL ACADEMIC AND FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS AUSTIN ISD November 21, 2011 WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 ATTACHMENT "1" IV. Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations Facility Master Plan Framework Page # ANNUAL FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Alignment to Strategic Plan and Board Priorities Instructional Initiatives Additional Considerations for Recommendations WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 V. Facility Master Plan Draft Implementation Timeline Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" V. FACILITY MASTER PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AUSTIN ISD November 21, 2011 WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 V. Facility Master Plan Draft Implementation Timeline Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" FACILITY MASTER PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE The purpose of the Facility Master Plan Draft Implementation Timeline is to identify the actions that are proposed to implement the enhanced portfolio of options and additional considerations for facilities over a designated period of time. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 VI. Glossary Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" VI. GLOSSARY AUSTIN ISD November 21, 2011 WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 VI. Glossary Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" GLOSSARY OF TERMS The following is a list of definitions of known abbreviations and terms used throughout the District-wide Facility Master Plan Framework. ADA -Americans with Disabilities Act; addresses modifications of facilities to ensure access for persons with disabilities. Attendance Zone - The geographical area from which students are assigned a school to attend. Attendance Zone Population -The number of AISD students living within the attendance zone of a school. Bond Program - The capital improvement efforts associated with funding generated from a local voterapproved tax levy for capital spending. CAC -Carruth Administration Center; AISD's administrative headquarters complex. CAC - Campus Advisory Council; a campus level advisory council, required by state law, that addresses the concerns of school communities. Campus -A campus is a site where one or more schools/buildings is/are located. For example, an elementary school can share a site with a middle school; therefore, it is considered a campus. Capital Cost Avoidance - Strategy that allows the deferral or elimination of projected capital expenditures, to improve a permanent structure or aspect of a property. Capital Improvement - The addition or restoration of a permanent structure or some aspect of a property that will either enhance the property's overall value or increase its useful life. Closure: (Accountability) - Cessation of all instructional activity on the campus in each grade level served in the school year immediately preceding the closure of the campus. An order of closure does not preclude the district from reusing the facility for another purpose such as administration, storage, or instruction in other grades not served during the school year immediately preceding the closure of the campus. Closure (Operations) - A school that is no longer open to students. Cohort -A specific group of students established for monitoring purposes, particularly over time. Consolidation -When a school is closed, its student population will be combined with another student population in another facility. Core Spaces -Large areas within a building that are utilized by most students throughout the school day, i.e., cafeteria, gymnasium, library. Deficiency -A construction deficiency is an item or condition that is considered sub-standard or does not meet current standards or building codes. Educational Adequacy -An assessment of a facility to evaluate how well the campus is equipped to deliver the instructional program. For example, does the facility have the standard types of technology within the classroom that a teacher requires for the current curriculum? Is there the proper amount of white board space in the classroom? Is there the correct number of lab stations in a science room and do they have the proper equipment? WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 2 VI. Glossary Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" Educational Specifications - Document that describes the current standards for program areas, equipment needs, technology needs, square footage, and other considerations for a new school. Enrollment -The number of students attending a school. Facility - A structure or building or a physically related group of structures utilized for a single purpose. Facility Condition Assessment -An evaluation of a school facility that identifies current building and building system deficiencies. FCI -Facility Condition Index; an indicator of a facilities condition obtained by dividing the repair costs by the replacement cost of the same building. FF&E -Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment; the moveable equipment that is used by the occupants inside a facility. Generally includes furniture and computers. Functional Capacity - The functional capacity of a school is based on the total number of permanent and portable classrooms on a site, as well as the use of each classroom. Classrooms used for Districtwide administration purposes and those used for special education classes are not calculated into the functional capacity for the school. The functional capacity of a school changes as portables are added or removed and decisions regarding the location of District-wide administration staff can increase or decrease the number of classrooms available for students. As these types of decisions can be implemented quickly, the functional capacity of a school may change during the course of a school year. Functional capacity is used in annual facilities decisions such as identifying schools to open or freeze to transfers. Functional Equity -Comparison of identified core areas and other specialized classroom space and the level at which they meet the AISD educational specification standards. GIS -Geographic Information System; an automated system for referencing geocoded data, e.g., a database of addresses for students enrolled in a school system. HVAC -Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning. Impervious Cover -Any type of surface that will not allow rainfall or runoff to soak into the ground (e.g. pavement or buildings). Local ordinance may limit impervious cover in developments for environmental protection or runoff control purposes. In Migration - Students attending a school that live outside of that school's attendance zone. Lease Space - Space in a building owned by another party which is contracted by the District for a specified term and rate. M&O - Maintenance and Operations; school funding that pays for day-to-day administrative and operational costs. Operating Cost -Costs associated with operating a school facility including administration, custodial and maintenance supplies and staffing, and food service. Out Migration -Students leaving their attendance zones to attend another school in the district. Over-capacity -A school enrollment that is greater than 115% of permanent capacity. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 3 VI. Glossary Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" Permanent Capacity -The number of students a school can accommodate within its permanent building(s). Portable/Temporary Building -A building designed and built to be movable rather than as a permanent structure. A typical portable building in AISD contains two classrooms. Priority Facility Condition Deficiency -A categorization of building deficiencies, defined as follows. Priority 1: currently critical (immediate need, i.e., fire safety systems) Priority 2: potentially critical (to be corrected within one year, i.e., major HVAC equipment, security systems) Priority 3: necessary/not yet critical (1-2 years, i.e., site lighting, sanitation sewer, educational adequacy) Priority 4: recommended (3-5 years, i.e., finishes, educational adequacy) Priority 5: does not meet current code/standards/grandfathered (i.e., functional equity, 3rd tier ADA) Reconstitution (Accountability) - Removal or reassignment of some or all campus personnel and the implementation of a campus redesign plan that provides a rigorous and relevant academic program and addresses comprehensive school-wide improvements that cover all aspects of a school's operations. Repurposing (Accountability) - Accountability rules allow the commissioner to approve the repurposing of a campus facility after an order of closure. A repurposed campus must house a completely different instructional program, bear a new name, and be assigned a new campus identification number. Repurposing (Operations) - Changing how a facility is used to better utilize facility resources. School Choice - Refers to a policy or practice that allows parents and students to attend schools outside their assigned attendance zones for specific program offerings or for reasons permitted in the District's transfer policy or for choice options authorized by District policy and state and/or federal accountability standards. Signature Program - A specialized curriculum/program option implemented in a vertical team to enhance the vertical team's instructional program. Site -Geographical location of a school's building[s]. Soft Costs -Generally refers to a collection of costs added to the construction costs and may include items like professional fees, construction testing and permitting, contingencies, or administrative costs. Swing Space - Surplus space available in a District facility that is used to temporarily house students or staff from another facility that is undergoing renovations or construction. TAS - Texas Accessibility Standards; standards set by the TDLR (Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation) for accessibility to public buildings and facilities, places of public accommodation, and commercial facilities, by individuals with disabilities. Teaching Space -A room or designated area where classes or instruction are held. TBD -To be determined. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 4 VI. Glossary Facility Master Plan Framework ATTACHMENT "1" Title 1 -Funding provided by the federal government for schools with high percentages of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. The funding must supplement existing funding provided by the school district for curriculum, instruction, and related services. Under-capacity -A school enrollment that is less than 75% of permanent capacity. Utilization Factor - The attendance zone population or the enrollment of a school divided by its permanent or functional capacity, also known as percent of permanent or functional capacity. Vertical Team -A group of campuses consisting of a high school and its feeder middle and elementary schools. WORKING DRAFT AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 5