austin isd recommended facility master plan

8/7/2019 Austin ISD Recommended Facility Master Plan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/austin-isd-recommended-facility-master-plan 1/317

Austin independent school district

District-WiDe FacilityMaster Plan

March 2011

EXHIBIT "B"



As a planning team we appreciate the opportunity to serve the Austin Independent School District. DeJONG-RICHTER LLC

Magellan ConsultingCuningham Group

BLGY Architecture

EXHIBIT "B"



Ac know ledgeme nts .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduc tion ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Exec utive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Facility Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 10Timeline for Facility Master Plan Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 13Estimated Budget ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Area Fac ility Op tions .......................................................................................................................................................................16

Ad ditiona l Rec om me ndations ........................................................................................................................................................ 32Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 32

Management Recommendations ...........................................................................................................................................33

Staffing Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

Energy Efficiency Recommendations......................................................................................................................................34 Maintenance Recommendations............................................................................................................................................34

Design Recommendations........................................................................................................................................................ 35 Safety and Security Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 35

Use Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................... 36Technology Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 36

Other Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................... 37

Fac ility Summa ry Rep orts w ith Fac ility Master Plan Rec om me ndatio ns ..................................................................................... 38Elementary Schools (Alpha) ............................................................................................................................................................ 39Middle Schools (Alpha) ................................................................................................................................................................. 119

High Schools (Alpha) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 138

Special Schools (Alpha) ................................................................................................................................................................. 151Support Facilities (Alpha) ............................................................................................................................................................... 154

Educational Framework ....................................................................................................................................................................... 165

Planning Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................................................... 165Programmatic Considerations .................................................................................................................................................... 166

Enrollment Projec tions ................................................................................................................................................................... 169

Historical Enrollment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 169

Birth Data ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 175Projected Enrollment .................................................................................................................................................................... 176

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 1



Capac ity Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................................... 178

Utilization ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 180

Fac ility Cond ition Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 184 Educational Adequacy Assessment ............................................................................................................................................ 186

Building Deficiencies ...................................................................................................................................................................... 187

Fac ility Op tions ..............................................................................................................................................................................189

Criteria .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 189

AppendicesAppendix A ........................................................................................................................FCI White Paper and Facility FCI Charts

Ap pend ix B ...................................................................................................................................................Facility Capacity Charts Appendix C .........................................................................................................................................Visioning Workshop SummaryAppendix D .................................................................................................................................... Community Dialogue #1 ResultsAp pend ix E .....................................................................................................................................Community Dialogue #2 ResultsAp pend ix F ...............................................................................................................................Community Meeting #3 CommentsAppendix G ............................................................................................................. Summary of Facility Options Discussed by FMPTFAppe ndix H .................................................................................................................................................................... Glossary of Terms

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 2



Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our appreciation to the Austin Independent School District Board of Trustees for its commitment

to the Facility Master Planning Process. We realize that the recommendations contained within the plan will createchallenges for the community in the months and years to come. With the support of the school district and communitymembers, the Austin Independent School District can continue its mission to provide a comprehensive educationalexperience that is high quality, challenging, and inspires all students to make a positive contribution to society.

Boa rd o f Trustee s

Mark Williams, District 5, PresidentVincent M. Torres, District 4, Vice President

Lori Moya, District 6, Secretary

Cheryl Bradley, District 1Sam Guzman, District 2

Christine Brister, District 3Robert Schneider, District 7

Annette LoVoi, At-Large Position 8Tamala Barksdale, At-Large Position 9

Austin Independent School District

Dr. Meria Carstarphen, Superintendent of SchoolsLawrence Fryer, Chief Operations Officer

Paul Turner, Executive Director of FacilitiesCurt Shaw, Director of Construction Management

Pat Rossett, Assistant Director of Bond PlanningJoe Silva, Assistant Director of Planning

Beth Wilson, Project Facilitator

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 3



Fac ility Ma ster Plan Task Forc e

We take this opportunity to acknowledge the Facility Mater Plan Task Force for its efforts in guiding the planning process.We thank the members for their dedication and commitment to this process that resulted in the development of the

facility plan for Austin Independent School District.

Co-Chairs: Richard Frazier Janet Mitchell

John AlawnehLarry AmaroAdolphus AndersonEvelyn AndrewsTony Arnold

Frederick BentleySally BrackettChris Carrillo-SpanoJacqueline ChathamTommy CoxJoey CrumleyBill De Dufour Julie DelgadoJanet DeweyElizabeth DickeyDan Diehl

Freddie B. Dixon, Sr.Martha DolmanJim Evans

Kelly EvansFrances Vicki Everett

Rene GargantaGreg GoodmanAnnette Gregory

Zoe GriffithSilas Griggs

Janis GuerreroKris HafezizadehBergeron HarrisAnne M. HeinenHeath HignightLawrence P. HuangLinda JohnsonBob King

J. Laverne Morris-Parker

Lucia MarkertCarolyn MerrittAdelina Miller Paul Mitchell

Susan MoffatChris MooreAudrea MoyersBeth OrtaMark Penniman

Elizabeth Polk Jacqueline Porter Pete PriceDouglas RhodenbaughJohn RochaMichelle Rusnak Dave SandersCurt ShawDavid W. SullivanKathie TovoLaura Tuma

Paul Turner Texanna Turner Chad Williams

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 4



Introduction

Facility Master Plan Vision Statement

All AISD schools will inspire high student achievement and support common community goals throughequitable, inviting facilities that integrate technology and are optimally used, accessible, sustainable, and

meet highest educational adequacy standards.

The Austin Independent School District is committed to

providing high quality and challenging educationalexperiences for all students who are enrolled in itsschools. To ensure this commitment, the Districtdeveloped the AISD 2010-2015 Strategic Plan . As part of

Strategy #4 of that plan, key steps 4.5 and 4.7 includeddevelopment of a long-range facility master plan asfollows.

Strategy #4 – align resources to accomplish prioritieswithin a balanced budget

4.5 Develop and implement long-range plans for facilities, transportation, libraries and technologythat align infrastructure with the district’seducational plan

4.7 Ensure efficiency and efficacy of existingfacilities before investing in new facilities

This planning process, which is data driven, takes intoconsideration enrollments, school building capacities,educational framework, educational vision, and facilityconditions for 114 school campuses and 12 supportfacilities in the District.

The facility master planning process is a proactiveapproach to explore long- and short-term academicand facility options and solutions. Among the mostimportant components contributing to the success of theplan is the involvement and input gathered from Austincommunity members.

The recommendations contained within will serve as thebasis from which Austin Independent School Districtfacilities will be transformed into a new generation ofschools that accommodates educational needs todayand in the future. The final Austin Independent SchoolDistrict Facility Master Plan will serve as a road map thatwill address facility conditions, an implementationtimeframe, and project costs.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 5



Exec utive Summ ary

District Statistics

AISD maintains approximately 87,000 permanent

classroom seats and an additional 16,000 seats inportable/temporary buildings in 11.5 million square feetof educational facilities. The enrollment for the 2010-11school year was approximately 86,000 students. Based

on the latest demographic study, enrollment is projectedto continue to increase to 98,000 by 2020.

Tota l Enrollm ent 2010-2011: 85,929

Grades Pre-K-5: 48,167Grades 6-8: 16,577

Grades 9-12: 20,662Separate and Special Campuses: 523 114 School Campuses

80 Elementary Schools19 Middle Schools12 High Schools3 Special Schools

12 Support Facilities

UtilizationBy the numbers, there is an excess of 1,000 seats in

addition to the capacity in portable buildings. The realityis that there are some areas experiencing population

growth and others experiencing decline within the

District. Combined with student migration patterns,there are significantly over- and under-utilized facilities asa result.

Facility Condition

Approximately $1.1 billion in deficiencies was identified in

the facility condition assessment, including a functionalequity and ADA/TAS analysis, completed in 2010, andthe most recent educational adequacy assessmentcompleted the summer of 2010. These deficiencies have

been categorized into the following priorities.

Priority 1: Currently Critical (Immediate)Priority 2: Potentially Critical (To be corrected within one

year)Priority 3: Necessary / Not Yet Critical (1-2 Years)

Priority 4: Recommended (3-5 Years)Priority 5: Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards/Grandfathered

Addressing Growth

The north central and southern areas of AISD continue toexperience the most enrollment growth. The following

new construction programs, funded by current andprevious bond programs, will help address overcrowdingissues.

Baldwin ES – Opened 2010 Early Childhood Center – Opens 2012 and will

relieve Linder ES New North Central ES – Currently in site selection

process New ES – Undesignated

In addition, land acquisition and funding have beenapproved for a new middle school site in the

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 6



southeastern part of the District, and a new high schoolsite in the southern region of the District. The constructionof the middle and high schools is anticipated to be apart of a future bond program.

As enrollment is projected to increase, it is estimated thatthree new elementary schools and additions at sevenelementary schools and one middle school would berequired. Currently, the District targets a 125% utilizationrate as a precipitant for potential new construction or additions.

Process

In April of 2010, a Facility Master Plan Task Force wascreated and an educational planning firm was hired byAISD in order to develop the District-wide Facility Master Plan. The Task Force, comprised of parents, communitymembers, teachers, principals, and AISD staff wascharged with the following tasks.

Monitor the process to ensure equity and fairnessacross the District

Review and confirm recommendations andresolve conflicting recommendations

Prepare information and host community

dialogues and meetings Review and analyze data Review and analyze community input Develop and recommend an Educational

Framework to the Board of Trustees Develop facility options to improve efficiency and

address student needs

Develop and recommend the district-wide FacilityMaster Plan to the Board of Trustees

The Facility Master Plan Task Force held 25 meetings over

the course of 10 months and hosted 11 communitymeetings. In addition, the Task Force Co-chairs attendedten meetings at various school campuses throughout the

District. The community meetings provided invaluableinput to the Task Force throughout the process. Resultsand comments from these meetings are available in theappendix of this report.

Challenges

During the process, the Task Force was faced withseveral challenges and complex issues associated withAISD facilities and planning for the future. The followingoutline is meant to provide an understanding and

reflection of the real issues with which the Task Force hasbeen struggling, and the resulting implications for facilitymaster planning.

Challenge #1: Acc omp lishing priorities within a shrinking

budget

In order for AISD to continue operating as it is today, anassessed budget shortfall between $94 and $100 millionfor fiscal year 2012 will have to be addressed. Canincreasing facility efficiency decrease the budget

shortfall, and how can this be balanced with the futureof neighborhood schools, their design, size, andsustainability?

Challenge #2: Student m igration

The number of students previously living within the Austin

urban core, has declined over the past 20 years, resultingin 25% of schools housing less than 85% of their permanent student capacities. Conversely, there have

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 7



been large population increases in the outer areas of theDistrict, resulting in 50% of schools housing more than105% of their permanent student capacities.

However, not all under- and over-utilization is a directresult of population and demographic shifts. Largenumbers of students that travel outside of the boundaryof their assigned school present a challenge whenmaking future facility decisions. Should long-termplanning address the number of students living within theattendance area, or should it address the number ofstudents currently attending that school, includingtransfer students? What are the principles of the currenttransfer policies and how will they be applied in thefuture?

Cha llenge #3: The role of fac ility planning in suppo rtingand c omp lementing educ ational program planning

AISD strives to maintain academic standards, programs,and performance consistently throughout the District.From a facilities perspective, what recommendationscan be made to help move the District towardincreasing graduation rates and eliminating theachievement gap? Since programs are capable of

changing faster than bricks and mortar, how canfacilities remain flexible and be retrofitted for multi-usewhere practical? How can facility decisions positivelyimpact student achievement? For example, is it morebeneficial to offer duplicate programs, such as fine artsor career technology education, or is it better to providetransportation to a single program? What are the costimplications?

Challenge #4: Bounda ry adjustment solutions

A logical solution to improve efficiencies amongovercrowded and under-utilized schools is to adjust the

attendance boundaries and assign more or fewer students as appropriate. In practice, it is not that simple.In some cases, under-utilization occurs when a largenumber of students migrate to schools outside of their geographical attendance zone. Increasing the size ofthe boundary of the under-utilized school will not fix theproblem. In addition, if the aforementioned migratingstudents decided to attend their home schools, the resultcould be an overcrowded scenario.

In other cases, there are too many overcrowded or under-enrolled schools adjacent to each other. Thisresults in a “domino effect” of moving students from onelocation to the other in order to increase or decreaseenrollment. In many instances, students would not beable to attend the school closest to their homes or in their neighborhoods. In fact, they may have to drive past aschool closer to their home in order to attend another school to achieve balanced enrollment.

Challenge #5: Balanc ing short- and long- term needs

Significant resources will be needed to address thecapital projects outlined in this facility plan. In additionto the funds needed to renovate AISD’s facility inventory,additional investment in deferred maintenance andsmall capital projects will continue as buildings age. Atthe same time, new schools will need to be constructed

to accommodate growth.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 8



Test_

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 9



Fac ility Rec omm enda tions

I. Portable Reduction

The annual cost to operate a portable building in AISDis approximately $4.00 per square foot. The District

currently has 668 portable buildings which equates toapproximately 1,336 classrooms.

The criteria used to identify portable reduction include: A utilization rate (enrollment/permanent

capacity) at the school location that fallsbelow 85%.

Age and condition of the portableswould be used to determine which

portables to take out of service unlesstheir current location would causeadditional moving costs.

There is a potential to reduce the total number ofportables in the District by 108, using the above criteriaof 85% utilization. Based on a minimum annualoperating cost of $4.00 per square foot, this wouldresult in an annual savings of $663,552.

II. Funded New Construction

The following new construction projects, funded bycurrent and previous bond programs, will help addresssome overcrowding issues.

a. Baldwin ES – Opened 2010

b. Early Childhood Center – Opens 2012 and willrelieve Linder ES

c. New North Central ES – Currently in site selectionprocess

d. New ES – The Facility Master Plan Task Force

recommends locating the 2008 Bond Program

undesignated ES to the North Central area.e. District-wide Performing Arts Center

III. Unfunded New Construction a nd Ca pital

Improvement

a. Priority 1 & 2 Needs

Priority 1 & 2 needs identified by the facility conditionassessment during 2007-2010, include currently criticaland potentially critical needs at each school campus

and support facility. The total cost to address theseneeds is approximately $319,528,000 phased over eightyears.

b. Func tiona l Equ ity

A functional equity study was completed by the Districtduring 2008-2010. This study identified core areas andsome specialized classrooms, within specific schoolcampuses that did not meet the current educational

specification standards. The cost to resolve these issues isapproximately $131,000,000, phased over eight years.

c . New Sc hools and Add itions

Land acquisition and funding has been approved for anew middle school site in the southeastern part of theDistrict, and a new high school site in south Austin. The

construction of the middle and high schools isanticipated to be a part of a future bond program.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 10



As enrollment is projected to increase, it is estimated thattwo additional elementary schools would be required.Currently, the District targets a 125% utilization rate as aprecipitant for potential new construction or additions.The unfunded new construction recommendationsinclude the following:

1. Three new elementary schools2. Seven elementary school classroom additions3. One new middle school4. One middle school classroom addition5. One new high school

IV. Closures/C onsolida tions

Although the Task Force’s recommendations include the

consideration of school closures because of the severityof the District’s budget short fall, significant concernswere expressed by some members of the Task Forceregarding the impact of school closures on communities,especially in those where recent gains in studentperformance could be jeopardized.

a. Consider consolidating/closing one middle school.

b. Consider consolidating/closing eight elementaryschools.

V. Programs Rec omm enda tions

a. Relocate Alternative Learning Center (ALC)possibly in a different quadrant of the city .

b. Identify a Pre-K-8 school (begin Pre-K-5) to relievenorth central overcrowding. Also, consider thismodel in other areas of the district.

c. Consider moving 6th grade from elementary tomiddle school to relieve overcrowding in

elementary schools and under-utilization in middleschools.

d. Explore Pre-K Centers to address overcrowding

e. Conduct intensive planning for School for Young

Men (site TBD based on community input,feasibility, and availability of funding).

f. Conduct planning for district open-enrollment

signature programs and vertical team signatureprograms, and their equitable geographicdistribution.

g. Complete analysis of changes to district programsthat generate facility needs.

h. Conduct planning for Career Tech Hubs (sites TBDbased on community input, feasibility, andavailability of funding).

i. Consider options for separating some elementaryschools into Pre-K-3 and 4-8 grade configurationsto address overcrowding.

VI. Policy

a. Seriously consider redrawing boundaries in mostcritically overcrowded regions where possible.

b. Initiate a District-wide boundary assessment andpossible realignment beginning January 2012 to

balance enrollment and improve verticalalignment.

c. Address strict application of transfer policy as itapplies to overcrowding and under-utilization.

VII. Operating Efficiency and Potential Revenue

a. Do not renew administrative leases that end in

FY’11.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 11



b. Do not renew administrative leases that end inFY’14.

c. Prepare and sell Baker Administrative Center.

d. Prepare and sell Carruth Administrative Center.

e. Expand District energy efficiency programs,including coordinated facilities summer shutdowns where feasible.

f. Identify additional energy efficiencies to

include in 2012 bond package.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 12



Timeline for Fac ility Master Plan Imp leme ntation

FY ‘12 FY ‘13 FY ‘14 FY ‘15 FY ‘16 FY ‘17 FY ‘18 FY ‘19 FY ‘20 FY ‘21

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Seriously consider redrawing boundaries inmost critically overcrowdedregions where possible

Boundary review andredraw TBD



Open classroom additionsat four elementary schools(requires future bond

funding, $4.8M each)

Open classroom additions attwo elementary schools(requires bond future

funding, $4.8M each)

Open classroom addition atone middle school (requiresfuture bond funding, $4.8M)

Open classroom addition atone elementary school(requires future bondfunding, $4.8M)

Consider consolidating/closing onemiddle school and four elementary schools

Consider consolidating/closing four elementary schools

Preliminary planning for upcoming bond proposals(every 4 yrs.)

Proposed Bond ProgramElection (>$500M*)

Proposed Bond ProgramElection (TBD*)

Proposed Bond ProgramElection (TBD*)

Open Linder EarlyChildhood Center (2008Bond funding available,$21.6M)

Open Performing ArtsCenter (2008 Bond, fundingavailable, $40M)_ __ Open North CentralElementary School (2004Bond funding available,

$28.1M)

Open new undesignated ES-recommended for NorthCentral (2008 Bond, fundingavailable, $28.1M)__ _ Open new undesignated ES(requires future bondfunding, $24.5M)_________

Open new undesignated ES(requires future bondfunding, $24.5M)

Open new undesignated ES(requires future bondfunding, $24.5M)

Open new Southeast MS(requires future bondfunding, $55.7M)

Open new South HighSchool (requires future bondfunding, $106.6M)

Relocate AlternativeLearning Center (consider possibilities in differentquadrant of the city) Identify pre-k-8 school(begin pre-k-5) to relievenorth central elementaryschool overcrowding. Also,consider this model in other areas of the district.

Consider options for separating some ES into Pk-3rd and 4th – 8th to addressovercrowding__ _ Explore 3rd Pre-k center toaddress overcrowding TBD

Consider moving 6th gradefrom elementary to middleschool to relieveovercrowding andunderutilization

Consider moving 6thgradefrom elementary to middleschool to relieveovercrowding andunderutilization

Consider moving 6th gradefrom elementary to middleschool to relieveovercrowding andunderutilization

Consider moving 6thgradefrom elementary to middleschool to relieveovercrowding andunderutilization

Analyze each school todetermine if limitations totransfers/choice options areneeded

Review application of transfer policy for efficacyand fidelity

Note: In 2015-16 projected student enrollment > 92,000In 2020-21 projected student enrollment > 98,000

*The Bond Program will focus on Priority 1 and 2 building systems renovations, functional equity improvements, and new schools as indicated by demographic projections and the recommendations of a Bond Advisory Committee that are approvedby the Board of Trustees. The specific dates and total bond election amounts must be approved by the Board of Trustees

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 13



FY ‘12 FY ‘13 FY ‘14 FY ‘15 FY ‘16 FY ‘17 FY ‘18 FY ‘19 FY ‘20 FY ‘21

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Address Priority 1 and 2renovations and functionalequity improvements(requires future bondfunding)








Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction Portable reduction

Do not renew administrative

leases that finish in FY’11__ Explore terminatingadministrative leases thatfinish in FY’14

Do not renew administrative

leases that finish in FY’14

Prepare and sell Baker

Prepare and sell CAC

Expand existing districtenergy efficiency programs,including coordinatedfacilities summer shutdownswhere feasible___________ Identify additional energyefficiency facility needs toinclude in 2012 bondpackage

Reduce energy usage to95% of baseline

Reduce energy usage to90% of baseline or lower








Programs

Intensive planning for School for Young Men (siteTBD based on communityinput, feasibility, availabilityof funding)

Open School for Young Men(if feasible and fundingavailable)

Planning for district open-enrollment signatureprograms, and vertical teamsignature programs andtheir equitable geographicdistribution_____________ Complete analysis of changes to district programsthat generate facilitiesneedsPlanning for Career TechHubs (locations and fundingsources TBD)

Open Career Tech Hubs(1 north, 1 south)

Note: In 2015-16 projected student enrollment > 92,000In 2020-21 projected student enrollment > 98,000

*The Bond Program will focus on Priority 1 and 2 building systems renovations, functional equity improvements, and new schools as indicated by demographic projections and the recommendations of a Bond Advisory Committee that are approvedby the Board of Trustees. The specific dates and total bond election amounts must be approved by the Board of Trustees.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 14



Estimated Budget

The following tables provide an estimated budget, including estimated costs or savings by year, for the facilityrecommendations. The estimated costs or savings are based on AISD budgeted operating costs and recently completedfacility evaluations.

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 TOTAL

I. Operational Cost Savings

Portab le Reduct ions (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (6,000,000)$

Total Cost / (Savings) (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (600,000)$ (6,000,000)$

II. Funded New Construction

Early Childhood Center -$ 21,600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21,600,000$

New North Central ES -$ -$ 28,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,100,000$

P erforming Arts Cen ter -$ -$ 40,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40,000,000$

New E S (North Cen tral) -$ -$ -$ 28,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,100,000$

Total Cost / (Savings) -$ 21,600,000$ 68,100,000$ 28,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 117,800,000$

III. Un-Funded New Construction and Capital Improvements

Priority 1 & 2 Needs -$ -$ 39,941,000$ 39,941,000$ 39,941,000$ 39,941,000$ 39,941,000$ 39,941,000$ 39,941,000$ 39,941,000$ 319,528,000$

Functional Equity -$ -$ 16,350,000$ 16,350,000$ 16,350,000$ 16,350,000$ 16,350,000$ 16,350,000$ 16,350,000$ 16,350,000$ 130,800,000$

New Schools

New ES -$ -$ -$ 24,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,500,000$

New ES -$ -$ -$ 24,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,500,000$

New ES -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,500,000$

New MS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 55,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 55,700,000$

New HS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 106,600,000$ -$ -$ -$ 106,600,000$Additions

4 ES Classroom Additions -$ 19,200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19,200,000$

2 ES Classroom Additions -$ -$ 9,600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,600,000$

1 ES Classroom Addition -$ -$ -$ 4,800,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,800,000$

1 MS Classroom Addition -$ -$ -$ 4,800,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,800,000$

Total Cost / (Savings) -$ -$ 75,491,000$ 114,891,000$ 90,391,000$ 111,991,000$ 162,891,000$ 56,291,000$ 56,291,000$ 56,291,000$ 724,528,000$

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 15



Area Facility Options

The following pages describe, outline, and

summarize facility options by area in the District. The

District has been divided into the 10 following with amap provided on the following page.

Area 1: Northwest – Anderson HS, Murchison MS,

Davis ES, Doss ES, Hill ES, Summitt ES

Area 2: North Central – Lanier HS, Burnet MS, Dobie

MS, Barrington ES, Cook ES, Graham ES, Hart ES,

McBee ES, Pillow ES, Walnut Creek ES, Wooldridge

ES, Wooten ES, Read Pre-K Center

Area 3: Central West – McCallum HS, Lamar MS,

Brentwood ES, Brown ES, Bryker Woods ES, Casis ES,

Gullet ES, Highland Park ES, Lee ES, Mathews ES,

Pease ES, Pickle ES, Reilly ES, Ridgetop ES

Area 4: Northeast – LASA HS, LBJ HS, Reagan HS,

Garcia MS, Pearce MS, Webb MS, Andrews ES,

Blanton ES, Harris ES, Jordan ES, Maplewood ES,

Overton ES, Pecan Springs ES, Winn ES

Area 5: Central East – Eastside Memorial HS, Kealing

MS, Martin MS, Allan ES, Allison ES, Blackshear ES,

Brooke ES, Campbell ES, Govalle ES, Metz ES,

Norman ES, Oak Springs ES, Ortega ES, Sanchez ES,

Sims ES, Zavala ES, Garza Independence HS,

Alternative Learning Center (ALC)

Area 6: Central – Austin HS, Travis HS, Fulmore MS,

O.Henry MS, Barton Hills ES, Becker ES, Dawson ES,

Linder ES, Travis Heights ES, Zilker ES

Area 7: Southwest – Bowie HS, Bailey MS, GorzyckiMS, Small MS, Baldwin ES, Baranoff ES, Clayton ES,

Kiker ES, Mills ES, Oak Hill ES, Patton ES

Area 8: South – Crockett HS, Bedichek MS,

Covington MS, Boone ES, Cunningham ES, Galindo

ES, Joslin ES, St. Elmo ES, Sunset Valley ES, The Ann

Richards School for Young Women Leaders

Area 9: Southeast – Mendez MS, Blazier ES, Houston

ES, Langford ES, Palm ES, Perez ES, Rodriguez ES,Widen ES

Area 10: Far South – Akins HS, Paredes MS, Casey ES,

Cowan ES, Kocurek ES, Menchaca ES, Odom ES,

Pleasant Hill ES, Williams ES

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 16



EXHIBIT "B"

Page 17



AREA 1 – NORTHWEST

Anderson High School

Murchison Middle School

Davis, Doss, Hill and Summitt elementary

schoolsArea IssuesBased on the number of students living in the area for the 2010-11 school year:

The area has a slight deficiency in thenumber of seats available at the elementaryand middle school levels.

The number of students migrating into thearea is higher than the number of studentsmigrating out of the area at all levels.

Spa c e Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in the area: One elementary school, Doss, is severely

overcrowded (above 125% of permanentcapacity)

Two elementary schools, Hill and Summitt, areovercrowded (between 115% and 125% ofpermanent capacity)

One elementary school, Davis, is in thetarget range of percent of permanentcapacity (between 85% and 105%)

The middle school, Murchison, isovercrowded (between 115% and 125% of

permanent capacity) The high school, Anderson, is in the target

range of percent of permanent capacity(between 85% and 105%)

Educ ational Enhanc ement

Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

Moderate population growth is projected in thisarea in the next five years.

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI (FacilityCondition Index) slightly above the District FCI(22.8%).

Ma ster Plan Task Forc e Opt ions for 10-Year Plan

Construct an eight-classroom addition at one

elementary school. Construct an eight-classroom addition at one

middle school. Address priorities 1 & 2 and functional equity

improvements.Community Impac t

Consult with the community regarding boundaryadjustments.

Cost Saving s

NA

Exemplary

Doss ES

Hill ES

Summitt ES

Recognized

Davis ES

Murchison MS

Anderson HS

Elementary School Capacity 2,633 Elementary Migration IN - 478

Elementary School Population 2,731 Elementary Migration OUT - 166

Excess / (Deficient) Seats (98) Net Migration - 312

Middle School Capacity 1,113 Middle School Migration IN - 220

Middle School Population 1,171 Middle School Migration OUT - 110

Excess / (Deficient) Seats (58) Net Mirgation - 110

High School Capacity 2,017 High School Migrat ion IN - 391

High School Population 1,962 High School Migration OUT - 257

Excess / (Deficient) Seats 55 Net Migration - 134

Acceptable

None

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 18



AREA 2 – NORTH CENTRAL

Lanier High School

Burnet and Dobie middle schools

Barrington, Cook, Graham, Hart, McBee,

Pillow, Walnut Creek, Wooldridge, Wootenelementary schools and Read Pre-K Center

Area Issues

Based on the number of students living in the area for the 2010-11 school year:

The area has a severe deficiency in thenumber of seats available at the elementaryschool levels.

The number of students migrating out of thearea is higher than the number of students

migrating in, especially at the elementaryand high school levels.

Spa ce Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in thearea: Nine elementary schools, Barrington, Cook,

Graham, Hart, McBee, Read, Walnut Creek,Wooldridge and Wooten, are severelyovercrowded (above 125% of permanent

capacity) One elementary school, Pillow, is

overcrowded (between 115% and 125% ofpermanent capacity)

One middle school, Burnet, is in the target

range of percent of permanentcapacity(between 85% and 105%), while onemiddle school, Dobie, is under enrolled

(below 85% of permanent capacity) The high school, Lanier, is in the target range

of percent of permanent capacity (between85% and 105%)


Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

Highest population growth in district is

projected in this area in the next five years

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI slightlyless than the District FCI (22.8%), with two

Recognized

Cook ES

Hart ES

McBee ES

Wooten ES

Dobie MS

Exemplary

Graham ES

Pillow ES

Acceptable

Barrington ES

Walnut Creek ES

Wooldridge ES

Burnet MSLanier HS


Elementary School Population 8,370 Elementary Migration OUT - 1,587

Excess / (Deficient) Seats (2,802) Net Migration (946)



Excess / (Deficient) Seats 52 Net Migration (210)



Excess / (Deficient) Seats (354) Net Migration (436)

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 19



elementary schools and one middle schoolrequiring more extensive renovations.

Fac ility Ma ster Plan Task Forc e Op tions for 10-Yea r Plan

Construct two additional elementary schools. Construct eight-classroom additions at two

elementary schools. Address priorities 1 & 2 and functional equity


Consult with the community regardingmiddle school redesign.

Consult with the community regardingboundary adjustments.

Cost Saving s

NA

AREA 3 – CENTRAL WEST

McCallum High School

Lamar Middle School

Brentwood, Brown, Bryker Woods, Casis,

Gullett, Highland Park, Lee, Mathews, Pickle,Reilly and Ridgetop elementary schools

Pease Elementary School*Area Issues


The area has available seats at all schoollevels.

The number of students migrating into thearea is higher than the number of students

migrating out of the area at all levels. Attendance zone population under 300

students at three elementary schools,Matthews, Pease, and Ridgetop.

There are three elementary schools, Bryker Woods, Pease and Ridgetop that have apermanent capacity of less than 300 seats.

Permanent capacity for the middle and highschools are within target ranges.

The Fine Arts Academy at McCallum HS

results in a higher “in” migration at the highschool level. Elementary School Capacity 4,953 Elementary Migration IN - 1,253




Middle School Population 583 Middle School Migration OUT - 191



High School Population 1,316 High School Migration OUT - 296Excess / (Deficient) Seats 280 Net Migration - 499

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 20



Spa ce Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in thearea:

Two elementary schools, Bryker Woodsand Gullett, are severely overcrowded

(above 125% of permanent capacity). Two elementary schools, Casis and Pickle,

are overcrowded (between 115% and125% of permanent capacity)

Three elementary schools, Brown,Highland Park and Ridgetop, are over capacity (between 105% and 115% ofpermanent capacity)

Four elementary schools, Lee, MathewsPease, and Reilly, are within the target

range of percent of permanent capacity(between 85% and 105%)

One elementary school, Brentwood, isunder enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity)

The middle school, Lamar, is under enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity)

The high school, McCallum, is overcrowded(between 115% and 125% of permanent

capacity)Educ ational Enhanc ement Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

Moderate population growth is projected in

this area in the next five years.Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI slightly

higher than the District FCI (22.8%), with two

elementary schools requiring more extensive

renovations.


Address priorities 1 & 2 and functional equityimprovements.

Consolidate/close one elementary school.Community Impac t

Consult with community regarding the use of

closed/consolidated elementary school. Consult with community if boundary

adjustments are needed.Cost Saving s

Cost savings for closure of one elementaryschool is $700,000 in M&O savings.

Capital cost avoidance –$8.1M if oneelementary school was closed / consolidated.

*Pease Elementary School does not have an attendance boundaryand receives transfer students from all parts of the District, therefore its

capacity, enrollment, and in-migration counts are not included in thearea summaries.

Exemplary

Casis ES

Gullett ES

Highland Park ES

Lee ES

Matthews ES

Pease ES

Ridgetop ES

Recognized

Brentwood ES

Bryker Woods ES

Pickle ES

Reilly ES

Acceptable

Brown ES

Lamar MS

McCallum HS

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 21



AREA 4 – NORTHEAST

LASA, LBJ and Reagan high schools

Garcia, Pearce and Webb middle schools, Andrews, Blanton, Harris, Jordan, Maplewood,

Overton, Pecan Springs and Winn elementary

schoolsArea Issues


The area has available seats at the middle andhigh school levels, but is deficient at theelementary school level.

The number of students migrating out of thearea is higher than the number of studentsmigrating into the area at all levels, especially at

the middle and high school levels. The magnet program, LASA, located at LBJ High

School attracts students from outside the LBJattendance area.

Spa c e Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in thearea: Three elementary schools, Andrews, Harris

and Jordan, are severely overcrowded

(above 125% of permanent capacity). Three elementary schools, Maplewood,

Overton and Pecan Springs, areovercrowded (between 115% and 125% ofpermanent capacity).

Two elementary schools, Blanton and Winn,are within the target range of percent of

permanent capacity (between 85% and105%).

All three middle schools, are under enrolled

(below 85% of permanent capacity). One high school, Reagan, is under enrolled

(below 85% of permanent capacity), whileLBJ and LASA are within the target range ofpercent of permanent capacity (between85% and 105%)


New Programs for 2011-12:

Early College Prep at one middle school Early College High School / Early College

Start at two high schools

Academic Ratings:

Exemplary

Blanton ES

LASA HS

Recognized

Andrews ES

Harris ES

Jordan ES

Overton ES

Winn ES

Acceptable

Maplewood ES

Pecan Springs ES

Garcia MS

Pearce MS

Webb MS

LBJ HS

Reagan HS

NORTHEAST



Excess / (Deficient) Seats (705) Net Migration - (164)



Excess / (Deficient) Seats 825 Net Mirgation - (572)

High School Capacity 3,430 High School Migration IN - 247

High School Population 2,635 High School Migration OUT - 1,018

Excess / (Deficient) Seats 795 Net Migration - (771)

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 22



Future Growth

Significant population growth is projected inthis area in the next five years.

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI (Facility

Condition Index) lower than the District FCI(22.8%), with two elementary schools requiringmore extensive renovations

Fac ility Master Plan Task Forc e Op tions for 10-Year

Plan

Construct one elementary school. Construct an eight classroom addition at one

elementary school.

Close /consolidate one middle school.

Adjust boundaries between elementary

schools. Address priorities 1 & 2 and functional equity


Consult with community regarding plans for closure/consolidation of one middle schooland its repurposing.

Cost Savings Cost savings for closure of one middle school is

$1.8M in M&O savings. Capital cost avoidance –$7.4M if one middleschool was closed / consolidated.

AREA 5 – CENTRAL EAST

Eastside Memorial High School at the JohnstonCampus - Global Tech. , Green Tech., andInternational high schools

Kealing and Martin middle schools Allan, Allison, Blackshear, Brooke, Campbell,

Govalle, Metz, Norman, Oak Springs, Ortega,Sanchez, Sims and Zavala elementary schools

Garza Independence High School* and theAlternative Learning Center (ALC)

Area Issues


The area has available seats at all school levels. The number of students migrating out of the area is

higher than the number of students migrating intothe area at the elementary and high schools levels.The magnet program at Kealing MS results in ahigher “in” migration at the middle school level.

Attendance zone populations are under 300

students at three elementary schools, Blackshear,Oak Springs and Ortega.

Permanent capacity for all schools is within targetranges.

International High School provides programs for

limited English speaking high school students whoqualify.



Excess / (Deficient) Seats 1,466 Net Migration - (145)




High School Capacity 1,548 High School Migrat ion IN - 125High School Population 1,249 High School Migration OUT - 955


EXHIBIT "B"

Page 23



Spa ce Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in thearea: One elementary school, Allison, is over

capacity (between 105% and 115% of

permanent capacity) Three elementary schools, Brooke, Metz and

Sanchez, are within the target range ofpercent of permanent capacity (between85% and 105%)

Nine elementary schools, Allan, Blackshear,Campbell, Govalle, Norman, Oak Springs,Ortega, Sims and Zavala are under enrolled(below 85% of permanent capacity)

One middle school, Kealing, is within the

target range of permanent capacity(between 85% and 105%), while Martin isunder enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity).

The high school, Eastside Memorial, is under enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity).

Educ ational Enhanc eme nt Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

No significant population growth is projectedin this area in the next five years.

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI abovethe District FCI (22.8%), with three elementaryschools and one secondary schools requiringmore extensive renovations.

There are significant structural issues at theAlternative Learning Center (ALC).

Fac ility Ma ster Plan Task Forc e fo r 10-Year Plan

Consolidate / close four elementary schools. Construct one replacement elementary

school. Address priorities 1 & 2 and functional equity


Consult with community to discuss use /repurposing of elementary schools to beclosed and the relocation of ALC.

Cost Saving s

M & O savings ($5.1M) could be realized iffour elementary schools were closed /consolidated.

Capital cost avoidance - $25.2M if four

elementary schools were closed /consolidated; however, it would cost $28M toconstruct a replacement elementary school.

*Garza Independence High School and the AlternativeLearning Center do not have attendance boundaries andreceive transfer students from all parts of the District, thereforetheir capacity, enrollment, and in-migration counts are notincluded in the area summaries.

Exemplary

Metz ES

Oak Springs ES

Ortega ES

Sims ES

Recognized

Brooke ES

Norman ES

Sanchez ES

Zavala ES

Acceptable

Allan ES

Allison ES

Blackshear ES

Campbell ES

Govalle ES

Kealing MS

Martin MS

Eastside Global HS

Garza Independence HS

Unacceptable

Eastside Green HS

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 24



AREA 6 – CENTRAL

Austin and Travis high schools

Fulmore and O. Henry middle schools Barton Hills, Becker, Dawson, Linder, Travis

Heights and Zilker elementary schoolsArea Issues

Based on the number of students living in the area for

the 2010-11 school year: The area has available seats at all school levels.

The number of students migrating into the area ishigher than the number of students migratingout of the area at the elementary and middle

school levels. There are slightly more studentsmigrating out of the area at the high school

level. Attendance zone populations are under 300

students at three elementary schools, Barton Hills,

Becker and Dawson. One elementary school, Barton Hills, has a

permanent capacity of less than 300 seats.

Spa ce Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in thearea: Two elementary schools, Barton Hills and

Linder, are severely overcrowded (above

125% of permanent capacity) Two elementary schools, Travis Heights and

Zilker, are over capacity (between 105% and115% of permanent capacity).

Two elementary school, Becker and Dawson,are under enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity)

One middle school, O.Henry, is overcrowded(above 125% of permanent capacity), whileFulmore is within the target range of

permanent capacity (between 85% and105%).

One high school, Austin, is overcrowded(above 125% of permanent capacity), whileTravis is under enrolled (below 85% ofpermanent capacity).


Academic Ratings:

Exemplary

Barton Hills ES

Becker ES

Dawson ES

Zilker ES

Recognized

Linder ES

Travis Heights ES

Austin HS

Acceptable

Fulmore MS

O.Henry MS

Travis HS








High School Population 3,860 High School Migration OUT - 1,126


EXHIBIT "B"

Page 25



Future Growth

Moderate population growth is projected inthis area, specifically within the Linder andTravis Heights attendance zones.

Facility Condition

With the exception of one elementary with ahigh FCI, on average, the facilities have anFCI above the the district average (22.8),with three elementary schools and onemiddle school requiring more extensiverenovations.


Consolidate/close two elementary schools.

Address priorities 1& 2 and functional equityimprovements.

Community Impac t Consult with the community regarding the

use closed/consolidated elementaryschool(s).

Cost Saving s

• M&O savings for two elementary schools -$2.2M.

• Capital cost avoidance for three elementaryschools- $17.5M.

AREA 7 – SOUTHWEST

Bowie High School Bailey, Gorzycki and Small middle schools

Baldwin, Baranoff, Clayton, Kiker, Mills, Oak Hill andPatton elementary schools

Area IssuesBased on the number of students living in the area for

the 2010-11 school year: The area has available seats at the middle school

level, and is slightly deficient at the elementaryand high schools levels.

The number of students migrating into the area is

higher than the number of students migrating out

of the area at all levels.

Spa ce Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in the area: Three elementary schools, Kiker, Mills and Patton,

are overcrowded (between 115% and 125% of

permanent capacity) One elementary school, Baranoff, is over capacity

(between 105% and 115% of permanentcapacity).



Excess / (Deficient) Seats (335) Net Migration - 88





High School Population 2,606 High School Migration OUT - 231Excess / (Deficient) Seats (71) Net Migration - 274

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 26



Two elementary schools, Clayton and Oak Hill, arewithin the target range of percent of permanentcapacity (between 85% and 105%)

One elementary school, Baldwin, is under enrolled(below 85% of permanent capacity)

One middle school, Bailey, is within the targetrange of percent of permanent capacity(between 85% and 105%).

Two middle schools, Gorzycki and Small are under enrolled (below 85% of permanent capacity)

One high school, Bowie, is over capacity(between 105% and 115% of permanentcapacity).

Educ ational Enhanc eme nt Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

Moderate population growth is projected inthis area at the elementary and middleschool levels.

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI wellbelow the District FCI (22.8%).

Fac ility Master Plan Task Forc e Op tions for 10-YearPlan

Construct an eight-classroom addition at oneelementary school.

Adjust boundaries among elementaryschools.

Address priorities 1 & 2 and functional equityimprovements.

Community Impac t Consult with community regarding boundary

adjustments.Cost Saving s

NA

Recognized

Bailey MS

Bowie HS

Gorzycki MS

Small MS

No Rating

Baldwin ES

Exemplary

Baranoff ES

Clayton ES

Kiker ES

Mills ES

Oak Hill ES

Patton ES

Acceptable

None

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 27



AREA 8 - SOUTH

Crockett High School,

Bedichek and Covington middle schools, Boone, Cunningham, Galindo, Joslin, St. Elmo

and Sunset Valley elementary schools The Ann Richards School for Young Women

Leaders*Area Issues


• The area has available seats at theelementary and high school levels, and isslightly deficient at the middle schools level.

The number of students migrating out of thearea is higher than the number of students

migrating into the area, especially at themiddle and high school levels.

Spa ce Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in the area: Two elementary schools, Galindo and Joslin,

are within the target range of permanentcapacity (between 85% and 105%).

Four elementary schools, Boone,Cunningham, St. Elmo and Sunset Valley, are

under enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity).

One middle school, Bedichek, is over capacity (between 105% and 115% ofpermanent capacity) while Covington is

under enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity.

The high school, Crockett, is under enrolled(below 85% of permanent capacity).

Educ ational Enhanc eme nts

Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

Moderate population growth projected inthe area.

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI above

the District FCI (22.8%) with four elementaryschools and one middle school requiringmore extensive renovations.

Fac ility Master Plan Task Forc e Op tions for 10-YearPlan

Consolidate/close one elementary school. Adjust boundaries between high schools

(Akins and Crockett).

Address Priorities 1 & 2 and functional equityimprovements.

Exemplary

Joslin ES

Sunset Valley ES

The Ann RichardSchool for Young

Women Leaders

Recognized

Boone ES

Galindo ES

St. Elmo ES

Acceptable

Cunningham ES

Bedichek MS

Covington MSCrockett HS










EXHIBIT "B"

Page 28



Community Impac t

Consult with the community regardingclosure and repurposing of elementaryschool.

Cost Sav ings Cost savings for closure of elementary school

is $1.26M in M&O savings. Capital cost avoidance –$8.4M.

*The Ann Richards School does not have an attendance boundaryand receives transfer students from all parts of the District, therefore itscapacity, population, and in-migration counts are not included in thearea summaries.

AREA 9 – SOUTHEAST

Mendez Middle School,

Blazier, Houston, Langford, Palm, Perez,Rodriguez and Widen elementary schools

Area IssuesBased on the number of students living in the area for the 2010-11 school year:

The area is severely deficient in the number of seats at the elementary level, and is slightlydeficient at the middle school level.

The number of students migrating out of thearea is higher than the number of studentsmigrating into the area.

Spa ce Utilization

Based on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in the area: Four elementary schools, Blazier, Houston, Perez

and Rodriguez, are severely overcrowded (over 125% of permanent capacity).

Two elementary schools, Langford and Widen, areovercrowded (between 115% and 125% ofpermanent capacity).

One elementary school, Palm, is within the targetrange of percent of permanent capacity(between 85% and 105%).

The middle school, Mendez, is under enrolled(below 85% of permanent capacity).

There is no high school in this area.



Excess / (Deficient) Seats (1,472) Net Migration - (362)




EXHIBIT "B"

Page 29



Educ ation Enhanc eme nt Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

Moderate population growth is projected inthis area.

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI that isbelow the District FCI (22.8%), with one

elementary school requiring more extensiverenovations.


Plan

Evaluate reduction of portables at middleschool.

Construct eight-classroom additions at two

elementary schools. Adjust boundaries among area elementary

schools to reduce overcrowding. Adjust boundaries among area middleschools.

Address priority 1& 2 and functional equityimprovements

Community Impac t

Consult with the community regardingelementary and middle school boundaryadjustments.

Cost Sav ings

NA

AREA 10 – FAR SOUTH

Akins High School

Paredes Middle School Casey, Cowan, Kocurek, Menchaca, Odom,

Pleasant Hill and Williams elementary schools

Area IssuesBased on the number of students living in the area for the 2010-11 school year:

The area is deficient is the number of seats atthe elementary and high school levels.

The number of students migrating out of thearea is higher than the number of studentsmigrating into the area, especially at themiddle and high school levels.

Spa ce UtilizationBased on the 2010-11 enrollment of schools in the area:

Three elementary schools, Cowan, Odom andPleasant Hill, are overcrowded (between 115% and125% of permanent capacity).

Two elementary schools, Menchaca and Williams,are over capacity (between 105% and 115%permanent capacity).

Two elementary schools, Casey andKocurek, are within the target range of

Recognized

Houston ES

Palm ES

Perez ES

Acceptable

Blazier ES

Langford ES

Rodriguez ES

Mendez MS

Widen ES










Exemplary

None

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 30



percent of permanent capacity (between85% and 105%).

The middle school, Paredes, is under enrolled (below 85% of permanentcapacity).

The high school, Akins, is over capacity(between 105% and 115% of permanentcapacity).

Educ ational Enhanc eme nt

Academic Ratings:

Future Growth

No significant population growth is projected inthe area for the elementary and middle schoollevels; however, continued moderate growth isprojected at the high school level.

Facility Condition

On average, the facilities have an FCI belowthe District FCI (22.8%), with two elementaryschools requiring more extensive renovations.


Plan Priority 1& 2 and functional equity

improvements.

Adjust boundaries between high schools(Akins and Crockett to reduceovercrowding).

Community Impac t

Consult with community regarding highschool boundary adjustments and possibleelementary boundary adjustments.

Cost Saving s NA

Exemplary

Cowan ES

Recognized

Akins HS

Paredes MS

Acceptable

Casey ES

Kocurek ES

Menchaca ES

Odom ESPleasant Hill ES

Williams ES

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 31



Add itional Rec omm enda tions

The Facilities Master Plan Task Force recommends the

following District-wide initiatives and policy

recommendations. Some recommendations mayrequire additional planning and research from other AISD

departments and outside entities. The Task Force does

not want to lose sight of these very important ideas and

recognizes that the Facility Master Plan is a dynamic

document and should be updated periodically toincorporate building improvements, updates in

community demographics, and changes in educational

programming.

I. Policy Rec omm enda tions

1. Consider school closures only after all other

alternatives and options, both programmatic and

facilities use, have been thoroughly examined

and discussed with the affected communities.

2. Create a community engagement process, led

by the Superintendent and the Senior LeadershipTeam, to work directly with the local community

as part of the implementation planning process.

3. Establish a standing committee of parents,

teachers, district staff, and other stakeholders(e.g., City, Chamber of Commerce, realtors) to

track and maintain the Facility Master Plan over

time.

4. Conduct campus assessments for future bond

work in consultation with each school's Campus

Advisory Council to ensure accurate, first-hand

knowledge of campus conditions and priorities.For continuity, each campus will maintain a

Facilities Improvement Plan documenting prior

campus evaluations, including a Principal's Log,

in which the principal or his/her designee will

record relevant discussions regarding how thecampus facilities are functioning and note any

concerns for future administrators and CACs.

5. When new schools or consolidations are being

considered, first evaluate existing District sites(both presently undeveloped or in use) anddetermine if any are candidates for new

construction, renovation, or re-construction. Thismay assist the District in locating schools in better

locations than can be achieved with the

purchase of new land.

6. Continue to identify ways to improve

collaborative planning with the City of Austin.The Austin ISD, City of Austin, and Travis County

have adopted a joint resolution that specifically

commits these entities to collaborative planningefforts including the AISD Facility Master Plan and

the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

7. Initiate a District-wide boundary assessment and

possible realignment beginning January 2012 to

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 32

EXHIBIT "B"



balance enrollment and improve vertical

alignment.

8. District Departments/staff should be moved into

available spaces at under-utilized schools so thatthe District may sell valuable property, avoid

leasing buildings and allow for all schools toremain open.

9. Aggressively pursue joint-use opportunities for existing underutilized campuses, as well as new

facilities; potential partners include the City of

Austin, Central Health/CommUnityCare, and artsorganizations and other nonprofit organizations.

10. Closed schools should be reused by the District or another governmental entity for office/

administrative use, or by another educationaluser, and then returned to use as AISD

instructional space when student population

growth makes it prudent.

11. Review current District transfer policies and

implementation, in particular using campus’“permanent capacity”, as opposed to

“functional capacity” when evaluating availablespace.

12. Analyze current “out migration” trends from

campus/zones to understand the underlying

issues, AND then address those issues in order to

support the return of students to their neighborhood schools.

13. Conduct a complete review of the day-to-day

application of the district's transfer policy,

regardless of overcrowding or underutilization.

Include the impact that “out migration” can haveon under-utilized schools as much as “in migration

can impact overcrowded schools.

14. Support the neighborhood school model.

II. Manag ement Reco mmenda tions

15. Institute a well-defined system for handling

maintenance requests that is communicated in

writing to all staff at the start of each school year including:

how and to whom to report amaintenance issue, and how to receive

the estimated time for a response, how to track a maintenance request

electronically in real time,

who to contact if the contractor or maintenance person fails to arrive,

what to do if work is poorly completed or isincomplete, and

who is responsible for signing off on

completed work.

III. Staffing Rec omm enda tions

16. Develop a plan to supervise custodians centrally

to allow more flexibility in the use of resources,

reduce overtime costs through flexible

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 33

EXHIBIT "B"



scheduling, improved supervision and quality

control, and improved facility scheduling andenergy management.

17. Consolidate maintenance functions, including

field maintenance for athletic fields, under theMaintenance Department to provide more

efficient and flexible use of available resources.

IV. Energy Efficienc y Rec omm endations

18. Implement a centrally supervised summer custodial program to achieve cost reductions by

returning some custodians on each campus,through attrition, to a 10-month employment

year.

19. Continue the current District focus on energy

usage reduction through more efficient

equipment, technology applications to managethe operation of buildings more effectively, and

engagement of campus and facility occupants

to assist working toward the goal of reducedusage.

20. Continue efforts toward a coordinated shutdown

of facilities in the summer months as is feasible.

21. As soon as feasible, fund energy coordinator

position to implement and monitor energysavings initiatives at campuses. Savings

generated from funding this position would more

than offset the cost.

22. Implement an educational campaign to raise or

lower thermostats in schools four degrees.(Estimates based on examples project savings of

between 5% and 20%.)

23. Continue to upgrade and improve data and

systems to measure utility usage by campus.

V. Maintenance Reco mmenda tions

24. Institute bond counsel-approved strategies to

designate funds for building system renovations in

future bond programs to protect the District’scapital investments.

25. Include furniture and equipment replacementschedule in the next bond program scope of

work; invest in high quality equipment that will not

require frequent maintenance or replacement.

26. Institute industry-standard performance measures

for bond programs, per the 2009 MGT EfficiencyStudy, to maintain and publish the following types

of data: cost per foot of construction projectscompared to peer districts and regional and

national averages, final estimate compared to

final bid, change-order rate, completionschedules, consultant ratings.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 34

EXHIBIT "B"



VI. Design Rec omm enda tions

27. Engage in public/private partnerships in the siting,engineering, and design of “healthy” schools and

neighborhood environments that supportincreased outdoor physical activities for childrenand their families.

28. Explore flexible design for future school facilities toaccommodate population fluctuations. Some

strategies include implementing consistent

building designs with modular components that

may expand or contract with student population

changes, or using a Mobile Technology unit thatallows specialized equipment to be shared by

two or more campuses for a portion of a year.

29. Create flexible learning spaces, where students

can work in groups utilizing the wireless network

with portable devices.

30. Design large-scale facilities to provide suitable

space for multiple uses such as conferences,

meetings, and professional development (ideallyin conjunction with other local governmental

partners to share costs and maintenance).

31. Design, construct and operate high-performance

schools and other facilities that are sensitive tonatural resource use, conserve energy and

water, reduce pollution and waste, promote and

attract active transportation by healthy outdoor design that includes, but is not limited to, bicycle

racks for students within a two-mile radius of a

campus and outdoor space designed for multi-purpose neighborhood and community use.

32. The site selection process for high-performanceschools and other faculties should include a

matrix that rewards the availability of masstransportation options that include, but are not

limited to, Capital Metro buses, commuter rail,

and metro rail to reduce transportation costs and

the carbon footprint of a facility.

33. To avoid the costs of building and maintaining

additional high schools, pursue options such as 7

a.m. to 8 p.m. schedules that offer challenging

curriculums, distance learning, and advancedplacement courses. Online courses could also be

more widely implemented and available to all

students.

VII. Safety a nd Sec urity Rec omm enda tions

34. Make safe walkable routes a priority whenconstructing or repurposing school facilities.

35. Assess nighttime security and add securitycameras and lighting in high need areas.

36. Work with appropriate entities to encourage

construction of fences and barriers at railroad

crossings.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 35

EXHIBIT "B"



37. Ensure the installation of adequate public address

and alarm systems in all schools, including allportables.

38. Address campus traffic issues as identified by thecampus.

VIII. Use Rec omm enda tions

39. Increase building rental rates to increase cost-

recovery for community use of schools.

40. Appropriately consolidate students in underutilized

campuses to make available as much classroomspace as possible, and issue Requests for Proposals

to identify educational groups or childcare

providers interested in leasing excess space and

assuming or sharing maintenance and operation

costs.

41. Implement an aggressive marketing campaign to

rent the Burger Activity and Delco Activity centersto interested parties for conferences, athletic

events, and other activities.

IX. Tec hnology Rec omm enda tions

42. Design “Twenty-first Century Classrooms,” media

rich classrooms with projectors, audio system,

document cameras, and interactive tools.

43. Expand the staff use of online meeting software(live video/audio/screen sharing) to facilitate

communication and allow people in different

spaces to be in the same space virtually. “Green”meetings reduce employee travel time and have

a smaller carbon footprint.

44. Institute cloud computing with anytime/anywhere

access that works with all computer types and

devices.

45. Use Web 2.0 tools to communicate, collaborate,

and create.

46. Use tools such as video “chat” to expand beyond

the classroom (i.e., virtual field trips, interactions

with other students from across town, or across theglobe).

47. Create a single web entry point (portal) with single

sign-on for all student and teacher resources inone place.

48. Increase use of online assessment tools to receive

results more quickly and reduce paper usage, i.e.,

dashboards.

49. Improve access to meaningful student data to

guide instructional decisions.

50. Create online courses for students and teacher

professional development which would beconducted entirely online and blended with face-

to-face and online contact.

EXHIBIT "B"

Page 36

EXHIBIT "B"



51. Increase use of mobile computing (including

personal devices such as smart phones) andmobile devices (netbooks). Fewer desktop

computers (use less energy, smaller foot print,), less

need for dedicated traditional computer lab.

X. Other Rec omm enda tions

52. Assess administrative fees for general, sibling, or

tracking school transfers, with no fee for students

qualified for free and reduced lunch, and withprovisions for hardship waivers.

53. Consider the feasibility of sharing administrative

staff or resources and services among small

campuses.

54. Determine cost effectiveness of duplicatingspecial programs in different areas of the Districtversus providing transportation to a single

program.

EXHIBIT B

Page 37

EXHIBIT "B"



Fac ility Summ ary Data Reports with Fac ility Master Plan Rec om me nda tions

The following pages include a summary of each facility with the information listed below, in alphabetical order by school

type (ES, MS, HS). Support facilities are included subsequent to the school summaries.

School ID number, name, and address

Grades served

Permanent and portable/temporary square

footage Number of classrooms

Permanent Capacity

2010-11 Enrollment

2010-11 Attendance Zone Population

2015-16 Projected Attendance Zone Population

2010-11 In Migration

2010-11 Out Migration

Site size and number of parking spaces

Individual building data

Facility condition data

Deficiency costs by building system and priority

Facility master plan recommendations

EXHIBIT B

Page 38



School Summ ary Report2010 Educational Suitability Assessment

142 Allan Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)

2010-11 Ut ilizat ion (by populat ion) 53%

2010-11 Attendance Zone Population 354 319

Excess/DeficitSeats

2010-11 Out Migration 031

2010-11 In Migration 057

2015-16 Proj'd At tendance Zone Populat ion 364 309

Utilization (by enrollment) 56% Percent of Capacity

Area (GSF) per student 297 0 297

Gross Area 112,608 112,608

Perm Temp Total

2010-11 Campus Enrollment 379

Permanent Capacity 673

Number of Classrooms 42 0 42

Parking Spaces 72

Gross Sit e Area (Acres) 19.5

Sit e Data

School Data

Mechanical 1 1957 1,092 27.6%

Building B 1 1958 10,577 35.3%

Building A 1 1957 100,939 30.3%

Per m Buildings 112,608

Floor s Yr . Built GSF FCI

Building Data

30.3%

Austin, Texas 78702 1957 AA No

4900 Gonzales Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $457 357 $323 054 $780 411

Site - - $156,255 $85,341 - $241,597

Exterior - $3,333 $2,797,431 $36,448 - $2,837,212

Structural - - - - - $0

Roofing - - - - - $0

Facility Condit ion - System by Prior it y

Priority

System 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Facilit y Master PlanRecommendations

Repair priorities 1 & 2 - $2,943,565*

EXHIBIT "B"




101 Allison Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-6 (ES)


2010-11 Attendance Zone Population 585 -99

Excess/DeficitSeats



2015-16 Proj'd Attendance Zone Populat ion 590 -104



Gross Area 61,426 7,680 69,106

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 61


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1955 61,426 21.6%

Perm Buildings 61,426


Building Data

20.4%


515 Vargas Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $133 897 $256 139 $115 111 $505 146

Site - $2,222 $67,896 - - $70,119

Exterior - $435 $49,328 - - $49,763


Roofing - - $7,992 - - $7,992


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




102 Andrews Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)


2010-11 Att endance Zone Populat ion 692 -206

Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 58,376 12,288 70,664

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 39

Gross Site Area (Acr es) 7.7

Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1986 4,422 8.1%

Building A 1 1962 53,954 38.8%



Building Data

32.1%

Austin, Texas 78723 1962 RC No

6801 Nor theast Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $128 866 $530 543 $44 545 $703 954

Site - $54,271 $150,146 - - $204,417

Exterior - $619,584 $13,720 - - $633,304


Roofing - $20,585 - - - $20,585


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




187 Baldwin Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 86,751 86,751

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces

Gross Site Area (Acres) .0

Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 2 2010 86,751



Building Data

0.0%

, Texas 0 No

Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $0

Site - - - - - $0

Exterior - - - - - $0


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority



Repair priorit ies 1 & 2 - $000*

EXHIBIT "B"

EXHIBIT "B"




182 Baranoff Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats



2015-16 Proj'd At tendance Zone Populat ion 874 -80



Gross Area 80,088 6,144 86,232

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 84


Sit e Data

School Data

Classroom 1 2008 10,996 5.8%

Building A 1 1999 69,092 13.2%



Building Data

11.0%

Austin, Texas 78748 1999 EX No

12009 Buckingham Gate Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $926 $42 710 $270 307 $9 202 $323 145

Site - - $9,548 - - $9,548

Exterior - - $5,556 - - $5,556


Roofing - $4,702 $521,184 - - $525,885


Priority



Repair priorit ies 1 & 2 - $729,123*

EXHIBIT "B"

EXHIBIT "B"




149 Barr ington Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats



2015-16 Proj'd Attendance Zone Population 1,098 -444



Gross Area 78,971 21,504 100,475

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 68


Sit e Data

School Data

Building D 1 2010 12,794 0.0%

Building C 1 2010 100

Building B 1 1999 15,285 4.9%

Building A 1 1969 50,792 39.6%



Building Data

21.2%


400 Cooper Dr ive Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $11 761 $447 963 $46 058 $505 782

Site - $7,043 $71,576 $54,752 - $133,371

Exterior - - $19,209 - - $19,209


Roofing - $7,091 - - - $7,091


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"

EXHIBIT "B"




103 Bar ton Hills Elementary School Gr ades Served K-6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 38,291 10,752 49,043

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 43


Sit e Data

School Data

Band 1 2007 3,205 0.5%

Building B 1 1964 2,985 20.7%

Building A 1 1964 32,101 33.1%



Building Data

29.8%


2108 Barton Hills Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $347 145 $9 067 $356 211

Site - $4,606 $90,727 - - $95,333

Exterior - - $82,715 $383,049 - $465,764

Structural $15,245 - $769 - - $16,014

Roofing $1,970 - $17,708 - - $19,678


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"

EXHIBIT "B"




104 Becker Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 59,670 3,072 62,742

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 0


Sit e Data

School Data

Building D 1 1936 1,099 23.9%

Building C 1 1936 1,237 21.4%

Mechanical 1 1939 499 26.9%

Building A 1 1936 56,835 39.2%



Building Data

38.1%

Austin, Texas 78704 1936 EX Yes

906 Milton St. West Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $44 583 $185 934 $80 564 $311 082

Site - $4,927 $342,183 $2,225 - $349,335

Exterior - - $8,103 $19,303 - $27,407

Structural - $7,792 - - - $7,792

Roofing - $608,432 $37,370 $28,130 - $673,931


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"

EXHIBIT "B"




105 Blackshear Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 70,726 70,726

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 52


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1937 70,726 34.3%



Building Data

35.0%

Austin, Texas 78702 1937 AA Yes

1712 East 11th St. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $4 532 $387 531 $3 206 $395 269

Site - - $170,707 $95,689 - $266,396

Exterior - $3,785 $452,580 $575,423 - $1,031,789

Structural $4,394 - - - - $4,394

Roofing - $1,423 $632,834 - - $634,256


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"

EXHIBIT "B"




106 Blanton Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 71,817 10,752 82,569

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 75


Sit e Data

School Data

Greenhouse 1 2004 317 35.8%

Building C 1 2000 11,424 6.9%

Building B 1 1964 3,546 26.8%

Building A 1 1964 56,530 22.1%



Building Data

19.6%


5408 Westminster Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $200 675 $46 975 $354 425

Site - - $288,274 - - $288,274

Exterior - - $2,793 - - $2,793


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




185 Blazier Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 82,897 10,752 93,649

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 95


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 2008 82,897 4.6%



Building Data

5.1%


8601 Vertex Blvd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $64 065 $88 567 $12 027 $164 658

Site - - $508 $40,134 - $40,642

Exterior - - - - - $0


Roofing - - $21,733 - - $21,733


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




170 Boone Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 73,690 73,690

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 82


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1998 10,017 7.9%

Building A 1 1986 63,673 18.5%



Building Data

17.5%


8101 Croftwood Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $186 467 $50 972 $237 439

Site - - - $125,012 - $125,012

Exterior - $9,899 - - - $9,899

Structural - - $9,058 - - $9,058

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




107 Brentwood Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 62,891 3,072 65,963

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 68


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1951 572

Building A 1 1951 62,319 23.7%



Building Data

23.2%


6700 Arroyo Seco Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $868 $682 430 $45 770 $729 067

Site $12,102 - $60,185 - - $72,287

Exterior - - $134,776 - - $134,776

Structural - - $7,945 - - $7,945

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




108 Brooke Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 52,282 3,858 56,140

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 43


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1954 52,282 25.6%



Building Data

24.9%


3100 East 4th St. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $129 374 $149 501 $321 585

Site - - $35,849 - - $35,849

Exterior - - $89,580 $13,732 - $103,312

Structural - - $1,461 - - $1,461

Roofing - $23,223 - - - $23,223


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




109 Brown Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 53,853 9,216 63,069

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 58


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1957 53,853 32.0%



Building Data

28.1%


505 W. Anderson Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $47 418 $499 529 $653 722

Site - - $25,359 $40,134 - $65,492

Exterior - - $61,590 - - $61,590


Roofing $954,050 - $20,585 - - $974,635


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




110 Bryker W oods Elementary School Gr ades Served K-6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 37,517 9,216 46,733

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 33


Sit e Data

School Data

Multi-Use 1 1949 1,202

Multi-Use 1 1949 451 14.8%

Building B 1 1999 4,874 10.9%

Building A 1 1939 30,990 42.3%



Building Data

33.4%


3309 Kerbey Lane Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $85 420 $186 592 $86 382 $358 394

Site $11,503 $2,135 - $64,475 - $78,114

Exterior - $3,842 $594,025 - - $597,867

Structural - - $585 - - $585

Roofing - - $49,869 - - $49,869


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




111 Campbell Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 61,793 1,536 63,329

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 71


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1992 61,793 20.6%



Building Data

20.8%


2613 Rogers Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $141 699 $44 826 $207 880

Site $2,209 - $194,564 $19,758 - $216,531

Exterior - - $1,436 - - $1,436

Structural - - $3,992 - - $3,992

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




173 Casey Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 81,506 1,536 83,042

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 90


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1998 81,506 17.1%



Building Data

16.7%


9400 Texas Oaks Drive Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $103 475 $259 333 $384 163

Site - - $11,274 - - $11,274

Exterior - - - - - $0


Roofing - - - $1,823,016 - $1,823,016


Priority




EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT "B"




112 Casis Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 77,911 13,824 91,735

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 74


Sit e Data

School Data

Storage 1 1977 201

Building A 1 1951 77,710 17.8%



Building Data

17.4%


2710 Exposition Blvd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $158 014 $91 098 $192 609 $441 722

Site - - $110,394 $128,950 - $239,343

Exterior - - $125,554 - - $125,554

Structural $3,372 - - - - $3,372

Roofing - $24,163 - - - $24,163


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




184 Clayton Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 99,921 6,144 106,065

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 80


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 2006 99,921 6.0%



Building Data

5.9%


7525 La Crosse Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $110 324 $11 953 $122 276

Site - - $104,860 - - $104,860

Exterior - - - - - $0


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




161 Cook Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)


2010-11 At tendance Zone Populat ion 1,252 -691

Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 67,344 18,432 85,776

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 102


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1998 9,101 7.2%

Building A 1 1974 58,243 37.0%



Building Data

27.5%


1511 Cripple Creek Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $24 947 $292 679 $56 423 $374 049

Site $5,447 $368,828 $71,282 $99,999 - $545,557

Exterior - $5,057 $13,275 - - $18,332

Structural - $27,464 $124,896 - - $152,360

Roofing - $23,862 - - - $23,862


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




183 Cowan Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 70,234 9,216 79,450

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 84


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1999 70,234 8.1%



Building Data

9.1%


2817 Kentish Drive Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $195 024 $48 518 $264 897

Site - $4,606 $18,655 $75,046 - $98,307

Exterior - - - $770 - $770


Roofing - - $57,513 - - $57,513


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




113 Cunningham Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 71,600 21,504 93,104

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 62


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1990 9,722 33.0%

Building A 1 1963 61,878 43.2%



Building Data

34.3%


2200 Berkeley Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $2 068 $210 570 $46 250 $258 889

Site - - $779,622 $272,621 - $1,052,243

Exterior $483 - $26,308 - - $26,791

Structural - $1,685 - - - $1,685

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




179 Davis Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 72,149 4,608 76,757

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 104


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1999 9,981 4.9%

Building A 1 1993 62,168 28.5%



Building Data

23.3%


5214 Duval Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $1 219 $21 355 $1 112 754 $53 085 $1 188 414

Site - - $1,852 $40,134 - $41,985

Exterior - - - - - $0

Structural - - $3,372 - - $3,372

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




154 Doss Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 60,228 12,288 72,516

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 73


Sit e Data

School Data

Bldg B 1 2009 4,646 0.6%

Building A 1 1970 55,582 34.4%



Building Data

26.2%


7005 Northledge Dr Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $401 625 $50 410 $452 035

Site - $4,606 $68,518 $40,134 - $113,258

Exterior - - $731 - - $731

Structural - $5,493 $68,609 - - $74,102

Roofing - - $464,424 - - $464,424


Priority




EXHIBIT "B"




114 Dawson Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 55,301 5,394 60,695

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 56


Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 1991 9,965 10.7%

Building B 1 1986 299 3.5%

Building A 1 1954 45,037 28.2%



Building Data

27.2%


3001 South 1st Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $27 673 $85 420 $121 022 $10 149 $244 264

Site - $236,494 $42,588 - - $279,082

Exterior - - $58,409 - - $58,409

Structural - - $27,004 - - $27,004

Roofing - $1,297 $32,523 - - $33,821


Priority




2010 Ed i l S i bili A

EXHIBIT "B"




176 Galindo Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 85,482 7,680 93,162

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 98


Sit e Data

School Data

Mechanical 1 2001 900 91.0%

Building A 1 1989 84,582 10.0%



Building Data

11.4%


3800 S. 2nd St. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $87 858 $147 364 $46 940 $282 163

Site - $4,218 $5,085 - - $9,303

Exterior - - $3,160 - - $3,160


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




2010 Ed ti l S it bilit A t

EXHIBIT "B"




116 Govalle Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 77,638 77,638

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 71


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1940 501 172.8%

Building A 1 1940 77,137 30.5%



Building Data

30.9%


3601 Govalle Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $11 544 $114 440 $804 011 $929 995

Site - $4,606 $43,809 - - $48,415

Exterior - $17,361 $1,182,064 - - $1,199,425

Structural - $5,349 $10,309 - - $15,658

Roofing - - $33,366 - - $33,366


Priority




2010 Ed ti l S it bilit A t

EXHIBIT "B"




159 Graham Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 70,589 10,752 81,341

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 77


Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 2008 11,232 4.7%

Building B 1 1993 14,411 14.5%

Building A 1 1972 44,946 45.0%



Building Data

30.4%


11211 Tom Adams Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $46 368 $177 156 $252 277 $475 801

Site $1,180 $91,328 $230,407 $86,383 - $409,299

Exterior - $1,716 $3,157 - - $4,874

Structural - $16,429 $76,531 $296 - $93,256

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority




S S2010 Educational Suitability Assessment

EXHIBIT "B"




117 Gullet t Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 39,827 11,525 51,352

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 30


Sit e Data

School Data

Mechanical 1 1972 179 11.7%

Building A 1 1956 39,648 35.0%



Building Data

29.2%


6310 Treadwell Blvd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $102 541 $45 619 $190 871

Site - $10,933 $96,959 $40,134 - $148,025

Exterior - $917 $51,820 - - $52,737

Structural - - - - - $0Roofing - $7,113 $92,238 - - $99,351


Priority




S h l S R t2010 Educational Suitability Assessment

EXHIBIT "B"




118 Harr is Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 56,066 15,360 71,426

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 33


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1998 14,112 11.3%

Building A 1 1955 41,954 32.2%



Building Data

21.5%


1711 Wheless Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $110 532 $8 601 $119 133

Site - - - $174,752 - $174,752

Exterior - $2,099 $333,669 - - $335,768

Structural - $2,401 - - - $2,401Roofing $16,363 $232,231 $16,363 - - $264,958


Priority




S h l S R t2010 Educational Suitability Assessment

EXHIBIT "B"




163 Hart Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 81,042 13,824 94,866

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 62


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 2010 11,175 4.0%

Building A 1 1998 69,867 12.6%



Building Data

10.3%


8301 Furness Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $16 366 $27 849 $54 049 $41 169 $139 433

Site $85,478 - $37,799 $29,425 - $152,702

Exterior $2,221 $388 $202 - - $2,811

Structural $824 $3,296 $1,169 - - $5,289Roofing - $7,887 - - - $7,887


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"




119 Highland Park Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 58,550 9,216 67,766

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 60


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1952 58,550 34.0%



Building Data

31.1%


4900 Fairview Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $127 305 $59 113 $229 128

Site - - $230,132 $40,134 - $270,265

Exterior - - $25,788 - - $25,788



Priority





EXHIBIT "B"




155 Hill Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 69,626 9,216 78,842

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 74


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1990 7,616 17.3%

Building A 1 1970 62,010 32.1%



Building Data

26.8%


8601 Tallwood Drive Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $102 128 $47 029 $255 933

Site - - $8,269 $40,134 - $48,403

Exterior - - $292 - - $292

Structural - - - - - $0Roofing - - $1,982,976 - - $1,982,976


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"




162 Houston Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 81,360 15,360 96,720

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 93


Sit e Data

School Data

Building D 1 2006 11,380 10.8%

Building C 1 1991 5,303 25.9%

Building B 1 1991 8,863 32.5%

Building A 1 1976 55,814 54.5%



Building Data

36.5%


5409 Ponciana Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $54 696 $540 337 $62 669 $657 703

Site - $5,847 $9,453 $40,134 - $55,433

Exterior - - $3,658 $8,855 - $12,514

Structural - - $8,788 - - $8,788Roofing - - $899,896 - - $899,896


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"




178 Jordan Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 74,460 12,288 86,748

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 114


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 2008 12,205 4.8%

Building A 1 1992 62,255 27.2%



Building Data

22.0%


6711 Johnny Mor ris Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $249 307 $55 637 $326 299

Site - $5,980 $153,950 $40,134 - $200,064

Exterior - - $32,022 - - $32,022

Structural - - $6,370 - - $6,370Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



School Summ ary Reporty

120 Joslin Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 44,826 7,680 52,506

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 56

Gross Site Area (Acr es) 5.1Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 1986 3,250 5.0%

Building B 1 1957 10,642 41.4%

Building A 1 1954 30,934 55.6%



Building Data

40.6%


4500 Manchaca Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $41 905 $212 692 $254 597

Site - $165,935 $4,802 - - $170,737

Exterior - - $1,232,954 - - $1,232,954

Structural - $4,719 $1,537 - - $6,256Roofing - $606,704 $219,611 - - $826,316


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"




180 Kiker Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 76,332 15,360 91,692

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 90

Gross Sit e Area (Acres) 12.4Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 2007 12,783 4.5%

Building A 1 1992 63,549 21.1%



Building Data

16.4%


5913 La Crosse Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $128 130 $344 258 $41 886 $514 274

Site - - $10,547 $87,037 - $97,584

Exterior $62,649 - $590 - - $63,239

Structural - $3,302 - - - $3,302Roofing - $20,585 - - - $20,585


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"




172 Kocurek Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 78,528 1,536 80,064

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 70


School Data

Building B 1 1998 10,499 8.3%

Building A 1 1986 68,029 28.6%



Building Data

25.5%


9800 Curlew Dr . Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $121 380 $45 109 $166 489

Site - $20,597 $118,823 $73,933 - $213,354

Exterior - $258 $21,688 $7,965 - $29,911

Structural - - $3,472 $23,558 - $27,030Roofing - $7,927 - - - $7,927


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



Sc oo Su a y epo t

168 Langford Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 78,250 16,896 95,146

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 83


School Data

Building C 1 2010 11,831 3.8%

Building B 1 1996 8,753 16.9%

Building A 1 1980 57,666 51.7%



Building Data

33.6%


2206 Blue Meadow Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $24 894 $437 101 $47 124 $509 120

Site - $45,535 $75,331 $42,669 - $163,535

Exterior - $79,485 $202 - - $79,688



Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



y p

121 Lee Elementary School Gr ades Served K-6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 46,265 768 47,033

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 35


School Data

Building D 1 1939 1,310 24.2%Library 1 1998 5,679 8.4%

Mechanical 1 1939 460 13.7%

Building A 1 1939 38,816 44.8%



Building Data

41.1%


3308 Hampton Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $3 267 $289 684 $48 675 $341 626

Site - $6,267 $78,354 - - $84,621

Exterior - $137,099 $17,506 - - $154,605

Structural - $32,808 - - - $32,808Roofing - $78,378 $7,013 - - $85,391


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



y p

160 Linder Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 69,250 16,896 86,146

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 86


School Data

Building A 1 1972 69,250 23.7%



Building Data

19.9%


2800 Metcalfe Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $85 420 $188 004 $156 894 $430 318

Site - - $194,636 $40,134 - $234,770

Exterior - - $397 - - $397



Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



122 Maplewood Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 45,390 9,216 54,606

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 42


School Data

Storage 1 1952 572 6.0%

Building A 1 1951 44,818 41.9%



Building Data

37.4%


3808 Maplewood Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $1 159 $296 359 $36 200 $333 719

Site - $8,593 $528,568 - - $537,161

Exterior - - $98,285 - - $98,285

Structural - - $2,844 - - $2,844Roofing - $107,641 - - - $107,641


Priority







EXHIBIT "B"



165 McBee Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 69,717 9,216 78,933

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 90


School Data

Building A 1 1999 69,717 7.8%



Building Data

7.9%


1001 West Braker Lane Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $89 744 $84 538 $124 936 $299 218

Site $58,760 $1,308 $1,112 - - $61,180

Exterior - - $1,716 - - $1,716

Structural - - - - - $0Roofing - - $4,268 - - $4,268


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



147 Menchaca Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 59,978 10,752 70,730

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 83


School Data

Building A 1 1975 59,978 43.5%



Building Data

36.9%


12120 Manchaca Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $128 130 $257 782 $462 745 $848 657

Site - $42,176 $111,016 $73,933 - $227,126

Exterior - - $4,712 - - $4,712

Structural - - $877 - - $877Roofing - $32,373 $28,907 - - $61,280


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



124 Metz Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 61,905 3,072 64,977

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 45


School Data

Building A 1 1993 61,905 32.3%



Building Data

30.6%


84 Robert T. Martinez, Jr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $68 165 $52 813 $163 688

Site $1,481 $654 $14,812 $2,225 - $19,172

Exterior - $2,221 - - - $2,221

Structural - - - - - $0Roofing - $1,686,580 $373 - - $1,686,953


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



181 Mills Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 81,368 12,288 93,656

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 104


School Data

Building A 1 1998 81,368 13.7%



Building Data

12.7%


6201 Davis Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $85 420 $238 434 $12 904 $336 758

Site - - $4,271 $140,421 - $144,692

Exterior - - $12,051 - - $12,051



Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



150 Norman Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 58,519 1,536 60,055

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 74


School Data

Classroom 1 2007 13,827 4.7%

Building A 1 1970 44,692 41.8%



Building Data

32.6%


4001 Tannehill Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $499 495 $43 010 $542 505

Site - - $87,439 $114,067 - $201,506

Exterior - - - - - $0

Structural - $1,873 - - - $1,873Roofing - - $453,578 - - $453,578


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



125 Oak Springs Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 47,102 6,144 53,246

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 47


School Data

Building B 1 1984 3,971 15.9%

Building A 1 1958 43,131 28.1%



Building Data

26.0%


3601 Webberville Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $85 420 $163 853 $75 624 $324 898

Site - - $65,735 - - $65,735

Exterior - - $160,769 - - $160,769



Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



156 Odom Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 61,009 13,824 74,833

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 72


School Data

Building A 1 1970 61,009 21.8%



Building Data

19.2%


1010 Turtle Creek Blvd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $158 316 $115 216 $380 308

Site - $47,393 $18,972 - - $66,364

Exterior - - $202 - - $202

Structural - $5,518 - - - $5,518Roofing - - $41,171 - - $41,171


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



148 Oak Hill Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 75,784 10,752 86,536

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 97


School Data

Building B 1 1984 16,210 20.7%

Building A 1 1974 59,574 43.2%



Building Data

33.6%


6101 Patton Ranch Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $1 072 603 $180 232 $1 295 545

Site - $8,459 $125,527 $73,933 - $207,920

Exterior - - $38,383 - - $38,383



Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



126 Or tega Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 47,302 3,072 50,374

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 36


School Data

Administration 1 1968 2,143 4.7%Building C 1 1959 5,146 62.8%

Building B 1 1966 20,907 33.7%

Building A 1 1959 19,106 51.8%



Building Data

40.0%


1135 Garland Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $33 243 $49 806 $104 404

Site - - $40,487 $12,624 - $53,112

Exterior - - $1,040 - - $1,040

Structural - - $101,906 - - $101,906Roofing - $1,515,309 $25,714 - - $1,541,023


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



189 Over ton Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 91,163 12,288 103,451

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 175


School Data

Building A 1 2007 91,163 4.2%



Building Data

4.7%


7201 Colony Loop Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $95 057 $48 506 $164 918

Site - - $5,287 $114,067 - $119,354

Exterior - - - - - $0

Structural - - - - - $0Roofing - - $14,805 - - $14,805


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



171 Palm Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 79,082 3,072 82,154

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 90


School Data

Building B 1 2005 10,963 7.4%

Building A 1 1987 68,119 10.9%



Building Data

11.1%


7601 Dixie Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $23 156 $115 259 $69 249 $207 664

Site - $18,391 $37,763 $40,134 - $96,287

Exterior $242 - $8,918 $38,694 - $47,854


Roofing - $6,899 - - - $6,899


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



143 Pat ton Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 76,687 10,752 87,439

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 109


School Data

Building A 1 1986 76,687 19.6%



Building Data

18.1%


6001 Westcreek Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $741 $149 485 $75 569 $40 077 $265 872

Site - $13,373 $4,610 - - $17,982

Exterior - $2,114 $1,121 - - $3,234


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



128 Pease Elementary School Gr ades Served K-6 (ES)

2010-11 Ut ilizat ion (by populat ion) n/a

2010-11 Attendance Zone Population 293

Excess/DeficitSeats



2015-16 Proj'd At tendance Zone Population 293



Gross Area 35,624 35,624

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 45


School Data

Building B 1 1998 4,870 17.0%

Building A 1 1876 30,754 82.3%



Building Data

75.8%

Austin, Texas 78701 1876 EX Yes

1106 Rio Grande Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $661 149 $8 135 $669 284

Site - $172,907 $664,245 $191,141 - $1,028,292

Exterior - $14,064 $451,081 - - $465,145

Structural - - $35,507 - - $35,507

Roofing - $287,386 - - - $287,386


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



129 Pecan Springs Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 56,992 9,216 66,208

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 63


School Data

Building B 1 1990 10,783 26.8%

Building A 1 1957 46,209 44.0%



Building Data

37.2%


3100 Rogge Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $230 050 $99 850 $329 899

Site - - $11,743 $298,033 - $309,776

Exterior - - $882,228 - - $882,228


Roofing - $20,585 $20,585 $984,274 - $1,025,445


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



190 Perez Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 82,223 15,360 97,583

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 106


School Data

Building A 1 2006 82,223 10.0%



Building Data

9.0%


7500 S. Pleasant Valley Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $89 644 $11 718 $144 072

Site - - $7,999 - - $7,999

Exterior - - $11,450 - - $11,450


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



164 Pickle Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 120,862 6,144 127,006

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 132


School Data

Building A 1 2001 120,862 5.3%



Building Data

5.7%


1101 Wheatley Avenue Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $64 065 $92 964 $43 330 $200 359

Site - - $31,650 $193,425 - $225,074

Exterior - - $12,894 - - $12,894

Structural - - $3,616 - - $3,616

Roofing - - $2,429 - - $2,429


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



151 Pillow Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 54,247 10,752 64,999

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 53


School Data

Building A 1 1969 54,247 52.3%



Building Data

42.9%


3025 Crosscreek Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $293 433 $44 466 $380 609

Site - $97,541 $62,869 $15,011 - $175,421

Exterior - - $30,260 - - $30,260


Roofing - - $2,131,311 - - $2,131,311


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



130 Pleasant Hill Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 65,729 7,680 73,409

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 71


School Data

Building A 1 1985 65,729 21.5%



Building Data

19.6%


6405 Circle S Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $74 494 $11 393 $192 662

Site - $1,550 $82,599 - - $84,149

Exterior - - $14,892 - - $14,892


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



131 Lucy Read Pre-K School Grades Served PK (Pre-K)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 64,644 9,216 73,860

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 98


School Data

Building B 1 1961 3,069 6.2%

Building A 1 1961 61,575 11.3%



Building Data

11.0%

Austin, Texas 78757 1961 No

2608 RichCreek Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $118 391 $10 593 $128 985

Site - - - $40,134 - $40,134

Exterior - - $51,949 - - $51,949

Structural - - $1,365 - - $1,365

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



132 Reilly Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 41,646 6,144 47,790

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 45


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1954 41,646 32.0%



Building Data

28.5%


405 Denson Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $32 360 $97 077 $48 191 $177 628

Site - $4,606 $54,280 $40,134 - $99,019

Exterior - - $369,460 - - $369,460

Structural - $77,800 - - - $77,800

Roofing - $81,281 - - - $81,281


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



133 Ridgetop Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 35,585 4,608 40,193

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 32


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1939 400 8.6%

Building A 1 1939 35,185 32.0%



Building Data

31.4%


5005 Caswell Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $29 297 $451 012 $523 019

Site - $267,544 $75,461 - - $343,005

Exterior - - $21,397 - - $21,397

Structural - - $4,502 - - $4,502

Roofing - - $3,940 - - $3,940


Priority





EXHIBIT "B"



174 Rodriguez Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 79,918 16,932 96,850

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 114


Sit e Data

School Data

Classroom 1 2006 10,004 8.3%

Building A 1 1999 69,914 7.7%



Building Data

8.0%


4400 Franklin Park Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $132 079 $110 219 $11 709 $254 006

Site - $7,621 $141,062 $42,669 - $191,353

Exterior - - $534 - - $534

Structural - $238 - - - $238

Roofing - - $985 - - $985


Priority





G S S

EXHIBIT "B"



127 Sanchez Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 78,131 6,144 84,275

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 70


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1976 78,131 28.7%



Building Data

26.5%


73 San Marcos Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $628 109 $114 615 $742 724

Site $1,177 - $71,710 $40,134 - $113,020

Exterior - $387 $1,716 - - $2,103


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





S El El S h l G d S d PK 5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



136 St . Elmo Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 48,212 3,072 51,284

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 60


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1960 48,212 40.6%



Building Data

41.2%


600 W. St. Elmo Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $168 428 $14 646 $204 429

Site - $797 $48,045 $82,803 - $131,645

Exterior - - $1,484,314 - - $1,484,314


Roofing - $42,906 - - - $42,906


Priority





139 Si El t S h l G d S d PK 5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



139 Sims Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 44,337 6,144 50,481

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 66


Sit e Data

School Data

Building F 1 1956 292 81.0%

Building E 1 1956 7,503 32.4%

Building D 1 1956 4,570 57.8%Building C 1 1956 2,482 36.3%

Building B 1 1961 17,056 35.3%

Building A 1 1956 12,434 55.6%



Building Data

39.4%


1203 Springdale Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Site - $31,481 $130,753 $129,820 - $292,054

Structural - $7,498 - - - $7,498

Roofing - $216,011 $10,801 - - $226,812


Priority





138 S itt El t S h l G d S d PK 5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



138 Summ itt Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 75,902 10,752 86,654

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 107


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1989 9,966 24.2%

Building A 1 1986 65,936 28.9%



Building Data

25.2%


12207 Brigadoon Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $7 415 $302 725 $108 624 $418 765

Site - - $131,854 - - $131,854

Exterior - - - - - $0


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





158 S t V ll El t S h l Gr ades Served PK 5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



158 Sunset Valley Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 66,467 3,072 69,539

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 86


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1996 9,169 11.6%

Building A 1 1971 57,298 50.9%



Building Data

42.3%


3000 Jones Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $230 079 $81 622 $354 411

Site - $23,148 $223,578 - - $246,726

Exterior - - $22,439 - - $22,439


Roofing - - $2,043,970 - - $2,043,970


Priority





140 Tr avis Heights Elementary School Gr ades Served PK 5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



140 Tr avis Heights Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 59,589 4,608 64,197

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 44


Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 1994 14,021 20.4%

Building B 1 1985 4,992 35.5%

Building A 1 1938 40,576 39.7%



Building Data

36.6%


2010 Alameda Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $64 065 $158 357 $67 889 $290 311

Site $223,178 $188,278 $2,109 $1,112 - $414,676

Exterior - - $2,778 $321,483 - $324,261


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





141 W alnut Creek Elementary School Gr ades Served K 6 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



141 W alnut Creek Elementary School Gr ades Served K-6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 79,536 16,896 96,432

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 94


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1999 34,499 5.6%

Building A 1 1961 45,037 27.3%



Building Data

15.3%


401 W. Braker Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $610 $3 560 $53 758 $57 599 $115 526

Site - $4,606 $67,837 - - $72,444

Exterior $2,925 - $837,033 - - $839,957


Roofing $1,499 $141,304 - - - $142,803


Priority





175 W iden Elementary School Gr ades Served PK 5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



175 W iden Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 74,523 15,360 89,883

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 92


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1989 10,857 7.4%

Building A 1 1986 63,666 15.5%



Building Data

12.9%


5605 Nuckols Crossing Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $133 079 $87 980 $327 835

Site - - $121,427 $4,049 - $125,476

Exterior - $2,640 $13,732 - - $16,372

Structural $1,801 - $1,474 $2,648 - $5,923

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





166 W illiams Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



166 W illiams Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 64,846 9,216 74,062

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 107


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1976 64,846 40.0%



Building Data

36.9%


500 Mairo Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $464 627 $11 930 $583 332

Site - - $132,390 $129,820 - $262,210

Exterior - - $37,251 $223,445 - $260,696


Roofing - - $20,585 - - $20,585


Priority





157 W inn Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



157 W inn Elementary School Gr ades Served PK 5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 62,087 4,608 66,695

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 66


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1990 9,970 21.1%

Building A 1 1970 52,117 21.7%



Building Data

22.5%


3500 Susquehanna Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 710 $212 677 $189 878 $445 265

Site $1,255 - $107,297 $40,134 - $148,686

Exterior - - $10,312 - - $10,312

Structural - $2,248 - - - $2,248

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





152 W ooldr idge Elementary School Gr ades Served K-5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



152 W ooldr idge Elementary School Gr ades Served K 5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 68,543 19,968 88,511

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 60


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1998 9,738 13.4%

Building A 1 1969 58,805 32.1%



Building Data

23.0%


1412 Norseman Terrace Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $111 004 $148 224 $259 227

Site - $4,606 $31,668 $64,475 - $100,749

Exterior - - $56,049 - - $56,049


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





144 W ooten Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-5 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



144 W ooten Elementary School Gr ades Served PK 5 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 53,689 18,432 72,121

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 37


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1955 53,689 63.2%



Building Data

51.2%


1406 Dale Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $206 992 $235 337 $44 338 $486 667

Site - $1,112 $629,572 $322,375 - $953,059

Exterior $1,537 $5,198 $776,990 - - $783,726


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





145 Zavala Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-6 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



145 Zavala Elementary School Gr ades Served PK 6 (ES)



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 69,333 69,333

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 12


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1937 69,333 32.5%



Building Data

32.8%


310 Robert Martinez, Jr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $260 945 $236 385 $497 329

Site - $1,196 $285,274 - - $286,470

Exterior - - $38,935 $14,187 - $53,122


Roofing - $798 - - - $798


Priority





146 Zilker Elementary School Gr ades Served PK-6 (ES)

EXHIBIT "B"



146 Zilker Elementary School ( )



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 50,941 10,752 61,693

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 54


Sit e Data

School Data

Vocational 1 1950 597 53.3%

Library 1 1990 5,488 24.8%

Gymnasium 1 1961 2,827 49.5%

Building A 1 1950 42,029 69.2%



Building Data

56.4%


1900 Bluebonnet Lane Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $22 794 $233 891 $434 142 $690 827

Site - - $720,410 $210,344 - $930,754

Exterior $28,203 - $338,242 - - $366,445


Roofing - $1,307,652 $59,313 - - $1,366,966


Priority





059 Bailey Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"



059 Bailey Middle School ( )



Excess/DeficitSeats



2015-16 Proj'd Attendance Zone Populat ion 1,048 128



Gross Area 148,143 10,752 158,895

Perm Temp Total

2010-11 Campus Enrollment 1,041

Permanent Capacity 1,176


Parking Spaces 138


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1993 148,143 15.1%



Building Data

16.4%


4020 Lost Oasis Hollow Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $149 485 $94 214 $72 955 $316 654

Site - $16,193 $27,289 $824,676 - $868,157

Exterior - - $220,269 $192,392 - $412,661


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





054 Bedichek Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"



054 Bedichek Middle School ( )



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 130,600 27,018 157,618

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 140


Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 1997 9,909 5.8%

Gymnasium 1 1972 28,847 55.2%

Building A 1 1972 91,844 32.0%



Building Data

30.6%


6800 Bill Hughes Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $224 $192 195 $807 140 $331 731 $1 331 290

Site - - $192,275 $824,676 - $1,016,951

Exterior - - $2,951 - - $2,951

Structural - $11,113 - - - $11,113

Roofing - $849,916 - - - $849,916


Priority





046 Burnet Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 137,768 18,432 156,200

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 50


Sit e Data

School Data

Mechanical 1 1969 1,025 0.4%

Building A 1 1961 136,743 37.5%



Building Data

34.5%


8401 Hathaway Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $219 280 $300 419 $20 695 $540 393

Site - $106,911 - $1,052,251 - $1,159,162

Exterior - $127,204 $7,663 - - $134,868

Structural - $3,472 $868 - - $4,340

Roofing - - $2,095,309 - - $2,095,309


Priority





057 Covington Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"



g



Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 173,636 4,608 178,244

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 122


Sit e Data

School Data

Vocational 1 1986 18,307 18.9%

Auditorium 1 1986 20,672 20.3%

Building A 1 1986 134,657 18.9%



Building Data

18.7%


3700 Convict Hill Rd Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $126 060 $187 566 $334 981

Site - $243 $220,213 $79,540 - $299,996

Exterior - $6,006 $31,080 - - $37,086

Structural - - $1,775 - - $1,775

Roofing - $165,465 $1,050 - - $166,514


Priority





055 Dobie Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 134,563 6,144 140,707

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 120


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 2006 10,564 8.3%

Building A 1 1973 123,999 14.0%



Building Data

15.2%


1200 E. Rundberg Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $42 171 $6 076 $648 770 $22 550 $719 567

Site - - $229,980 $779,468 - $1,009,448

Exterior $15,417 - - - - $15,417


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





043 Fulmore Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 159,699 7,680 167,379

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 85


Sit e Data

School Data

Building D 1 2002 13,392 8.0%

Vocational 1 1980 18,500 56.1%

Cafeteria 1 1980 55,143 40.8%

Building A 1 1911 72,664 46.9%



Building Data

40.6%


201 East Mary Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $55 906 $611 384 $484 733 $1 152 023

Site $3,001 $4,218 $435,203 $16,796 - $459,218

Exterior - $2,011 $115,027 - - $117,038

Structural - $3,151 $33,724 - - $36,876

Roofing $4,239 - $30,865 - - $35,104


Priority





056 Garcia Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 160,764 160,764

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 160


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 2008 160,764 4.8%



Building Data

4.7%


7414 Johnny Mor ris Rd. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $105 789 $65 660 $171 449

Site - - - - - $0

Exterior - - - - - $0


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





062 Gorzycki Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 175,543 175,543

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 160


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 2009 175,543 4.7%



Building Data

4.6%


7412 West Slaughter Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $108 064 $73 924 $181 987

Site - - - $40,134 - $40,134

Exterior - - - - - $0


Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





044 Kealing Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"




2010-11 Att endance Zone Populat ion 541 1,027

Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 192,181 192,181

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 160


Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 2007 34,819 3.8%

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1986 55,783 24.8%

Building A 1 1986 101,579 20.4%



Building Data

18.6%


1607 Pennsylvania Ave. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $30 226 $364 771 $127 864 $522 860

Site - - $82,009 $322,375 - $404,383

Exterior - - $129,828 - - $129,828


Roofing - $3,999,808 - - - $3,999,808


Priority





045 Lamar Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 121,371 4,608 125,979

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 106


Sit e Data

School Data

Mechanical 1 2000 2,004 0.1%

Building C 1 2000 5,354 8.3%

Band 1 2000 9,032 6.0%

Building A 1 1955 104,981 20.2%



Building Data

19.3%


6201 Wynona Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $85 501 $243 886 $24 393 $353 780

Site $5,195 - $29,823 $869,155 - $904,172

Exterior $898 $433,743 - - - $434,641

Structural $9,432 - $39,783 - - $49,215

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





051 Mart in Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 107,983 10,752 118,735

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 94


Sit e Data

School Data

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1966 52,693 26.2%

Building A 1 1966 55,290 36.4%



Building Data

28.8%


1601 Haskell Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $109 213 $899 675 $43 981 $1 052 869

Site - $775 $85,474 $86,678 - $172,927

Exterior - $435 $50,001 $112,643 - $163,079

Structural - - $1,395 $8,681 - $10,075

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





058 Mendez Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"




2010-11 Att endance Zone Populat ion 1,266 -51

Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 173,382 13,824 187,206

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 139


Sit e Data

School Data

Vocational 1 1987 17,552 20.4%

Auditorium 1 1987 20,672 15.0%

Building A 1 1987 135,158 13.4%



Building Data

15.0%


5106 Village Square Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $60 254 $235 743 $17 936 $313 933

Site - $3,144 $30,858 $482,213 - $516,215

Exterior - $193 $3,653 $25,747 - $29,594


Roofing - $5,877 - - - $5,877


Priority





052 Murchison Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"




2010-11 Att endance Zone Populat ion 1,171 -58

Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 123,348 16,256 139,604

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 124


Sit e Data

School Data

Greenhouse 1 1979 896 11.5%

Storage 1 1987 367

Building B 1 1998 16,628 6.1%

Building A 1 1967 105,457 25.8%



Building Data

19.9%


3700 North Hills Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $170 840 $149 672 $724 559 $1 045 070

Site - - $17,512 - - $17,512

Exterior - $5,383 $337 - - $5,720


Roofing - $928,708 - - - $928,708


Priority





047 O. Henry Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 124,320 6,144 130,464

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 103


Sit e Data

School Data

Building A 1 1953 124,320 12.3%



Building Data

13.3%


2610 West 10th St. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $85 420 $158 448 $37 802 $281 670

Site - - $532,421 $5,561 - $537,983

Exterior - $725 $49,612 - - $50,337

Structural - - $33,856 - - $33,856

Roofing - - $70,588 - - $70,588


Priority





061 Paredes Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

EXHIBIT "B"




2010-11 Attendance Zone Population 1,165 -9

Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 148,695 6,144 154,839

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 108


Sit e Data

School Data

Gymnasium 1 2000 34,358 5.4%

Band 1 2000 9,072 9.4%

Cafeteria 1 2000 15,854 4.6%

Building C 1 2000 4,035 29.8%

Administration 1 2000 6,002 8.6%

Building A 1 2000 79,374 10.5%



Building Data

11.0%


10100 S. Mary Moore Searight Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Site - $99,871 $121,562 $208,564 - $429,998


Roofing - $36,100 - - - $36,100


Priority





048 Pearce Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

6401 N H D

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 132,596 1,536 134,132

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 82


Sit e Data

School Data

Auditorium 1 1958 8,637 4.4%

Building A 1 1958 123,959 15.7%



Building Data

15.0%


6401 N. Hampton Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $28 343 $236 543 $120 791 $385 677

Site - $144,156 $120,754 $79,542 - $344,451

Exterior - - $277,949 - - $277,949


Roofing - $438,273 - - - $438,273


Priority





028 Ann Richards School Gr ades Served 6-9 (MS)

2206 P th L

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 130,240 7,424 137,664

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 90


Sit e Data

School Data

Building D 1 2010 7,000 4.9%

Band 1 1998 3,471 12.6%

Mechanical 1 1958 1,114 3.4%

Building A 1 1958 118,655 39.9%



Building Data

34.3%


2206 Prather Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $212 810 $181 719 $394 529

Site - $2,658 $92,455 $322,375 - $417,487

Exterior - - $32,701 - - $32,701

Structural $7,066 $10,864 $6,455 - - $24,385

Roofing - $2,660 $1,640,134 - - $1,642,794


Priority







053 W ebb Middle School Gr ades Served 6-8 (MS)

601 E St Johns O

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 120,987 9,216 130,203

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 93


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 2008 10,854 0.2%

Building A 1 1961 110,133 21.1%



Building Data

19.8%


601 E. St. Johns Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $106 775 $134 051 $258 925 $499 751

Site - $31,426 $67,218 $824,676 - $923,320

Exterior - - $42,118 - - $42,118


Roofing - $1,036,854 - - - $1,036,854


Priority







009 Anderson High School Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

8403 Mesa Drive Y O R ti Hi t i

EXHIBIT "B"




2010-11 Att endance Zone Populat ion 1,962 411

Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 309,329 1,536 310,865

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 760


Sit e Data

School Data

Library 1 2000 17,078 2.8%

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1973 121,018 36.1%

Building A 1 1973 171,233 24.2%



Building Data

27.6%


8403 Mesa Drive Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $22 177 $3 519 578 $944 064 $4 485 819

Site - - $134,285 $51,280 - $185,565

Exterior $2,067 - $204,242 - - $206,309

Structural - - $62,479 - - $62,479

Roofing - $96,476 - - - $96,476


Priority





002 Aust in High School Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

1715 W Cesar Chavez Yr Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 307,089 7,680 314,769

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 544


Sit e Data

School Data

Theatre 1 2000 23,571 3.2%

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1975 283,518 33.1%



Building Data

31.1%


1715 W. Cesar Chavez Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $21 355 $4 141 426 $2 540 593 $6 703 375

Site - - $557,354 $811,547 - $1,368,901

Exterior $20,833 $539 $36,126 $112,707 - $170,205

Structural - $35,970 - - - $35,970

Roofing - $1,609,284 - - - $1,609,284


Priority



Repair priorities 1 & 2 -$10,420,955*


013 Bowie High School Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

4103 Slaughter Ln Yr Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 417,702 19,968 437,670

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 678


Sit e Data

School Data

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1988 107,282 19.2%

Mechanical 1 1988 5,462 49.0%

Vocational 1 1988 27,588 51.6%

Greenhouse 1 1988 913 11.4%

Greenhouse 1 1988 634 16.2%

Building B 1 1988 261,135 24.8%

Administ rat ion 1 1988 14,688 16.4%



Building Data

31.4%


4103 Slaughter Ln. Yr. Open Rating Historic

Site - $36,278 $13,022 - - $49,300

Roofing - $4,399 - $483 - $4,882


Priority





008 Crocket t High School Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

5601 Manchaca Road Yr Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 335,087 10,752 345,839

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 666


Sit e Data

School Data

Theatre 1 1988 12,929 50.5%

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1969 322,158 30.3%



Building Data

31.2%


5601 Manchaca Road Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $105 620 $2 134 141 $90 119 $2 329 881

Site $4,218 $9,966 $999,378 $199,650 - $1,213,212

Exterior - $3,931 $460,633 - - $464,564

Structural - $5,402 - - - $5,402

Roofing - - $240,940 $1,431,074 - $1,672,014


Priority





019 Eastside Memor ial High Schools (EMHSJC) Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

1012 Arthur Stiles Yr Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 267,140 2,976 270,116

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 228


Sit e Data

School Data

Green Tech 1 1998 25,816 1.6%

Mechanical 1 1998 248

Classroom 1 1986 24,940 7.6%

Theatre 1 1986 10,851 35.4%

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1960 205,285 32.6%



Building Data

27.0%

Austin, Te 78721 0 NR No

1012 Arthur Stiles Yr. Open Rating Historic

Site $608 - $291,746 - - $292,354

Exterior - $3,456,001 $301,327 $4,120 - $3,761,448

Structural - - - $1,946 - $1,946

Roofing - $70,262 $3,372,487 - - $3,442,749


Priority





015 Garza Independence High School Grades Served 11-12 (HS)

1600 Chicon Street Yr Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 44,754 9,480 54,234

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 36


Sit e Data

School Data

Building E 1 1939 248

Building D 1 1939 48

Mechanical 1 1939 493 183.5%

Building B 1 1965 11,435 11.5%

Building A 1 1939 32,530 21.1%



Building Data

21.5%


Yr. Open Rating Historic

Site - $33,221 $33,788 $40,134 - $107,143

Exterior - - $252,129 - - $252,129

Structural - - $942 - - $942

Roofing - - - - - $0


Priority





014 Johnson (LBJ) High School Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

7309 Lazy Creek Dr. Yr Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 291,406 13,824 305,230

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 598


Sit e Data

School Data

Theatre 1 2006 16,140 9.9%

Gym/Café/Aud 1 1974 275,266 14.9%



Building Data

14.4%


y Yr. Open Rating Historic

Interior $128 130 $266 097 $1 143 379 $1 537 606

Site - $51,493 $104,860 - - $156,353

Exterior - - $14,049 $110,561 - $124,610

Structural - - $122,523 - - $122,523

Roofing - $2,932 $57,987 - - $60,919


Priority







Other $175,164 - $324,594 - $176,389 $676,147

* I l d l ti d i lt t f t f d th d i i t ti t

Total $1,328,937 $4,526,958 $12,659,556 $1,639,563 $176,389 $20,331,402

EXHIBIT "B"



* Includes escalation, design consultant fees, program management fees, and other administrative costs.


005 McCallum High School Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

5600 Sunshine Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 242,667 16,896 259,563

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 301


Sit e Data

School Data

Building H 1 2010 3,000 5.1%

Storage 1 1978 464

Storage 1 1993 3,732 0.0%

Mechanical 1 1953 1,139

Gymnasium 1 1987 18,939 15.3%

Theatre 1 1987 28,997 10.0%

Mechanical 1 1953 2,364 11.1%

Building A 1 1953 184,032 25.1%



Building Data

20.4%


p g

Site - - - - - $0


Priority





006 Reagan High School Gr ades Served 9-12 (HS)

7104 Berkman Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 249,609 3,072 252,681

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 447


Sit e Data

School Data

Vocational 1 1987 42,262 25.2%

Classroom 1 1967 42,718 10.7%

Building G 1 1965 24,939 14.4%

Mechanical 1 1965 4,549 8.7%

Vocational 1 1965 17,949 15.9%

Band 1 1965 2,982 10.0%

Gymnasium 1 1965 47,562 16.9%

Building B 1 1965 60,797 22.2%

Administ rat ion 1 1965 5,851 19.2%



Building Data

22.2%


p g


Priority






852 Clifton Center Grades Served A lt . Ed. (Al t . Ed.)

1519 Coronado Hills Dr. Yr. Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats

2010-11 Out Migration

2010-11 In Migration


Utilization (by enrollment) n/a Percent of Capacity

Area (GSF) per student #Error n/a n/a

Gross Area 39,039 1,536 40,575

Perm Temp Total

2010-11 Campus Enrollment n/a



Parking Spaces 71


Sit e Data

School Data

Building B 1 1977 3,840 2.7%

Building A 1 1977 35,199 41.0%



Building Data

40.8%

Austin, Texas 78752 1977 NR No

Interior $21 355 $127 350 $116 858 $265 563

Site - $79,594 $88,237 $381,866 - $549,698

Exterior - $8,004 $5,265 - - $13,269


Roofing - $20,585 - - - $20,585


Priority





012 Ridgeview ALC Grades Served 6-12 (Alt. Ed.)

901 Neal Yr. Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 88,677 9,216 97,893

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 120


Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 1968 3,201 49.7%

Building B 1 1970 1,167 24.2%

Building A 1 1953 84,309 36.6%



Building Data

34.4%

Austin, Texas 78702 1953 NR Yes

Interior $318 518 $315 973 $634 491

Site - - $57,810 $40,134 - $97,944

Exterior - - $132,297 $1,000,183 - $1,132,480

Structural - $21,088 $7,827 - - $28,915

Roofing - - $183,006 - - $183,006


Priority





251 Rosedale School Grades Served A lt . Ed. (Al t . Ed.)

2117 W. 49th St. Yr. Open Rating Historic

EXHIBIT "B"





Excess/DeficitSeats






Gross Area 37,112 7,680 44,792

Perm Temp Total




Parking Spaces 43


Sit e Data

School Data

Building C 1 1940 658 15.8%

Building B 1 1939 460 8.8%

Building A 1 1939 35,994 33.4%



Building Data

32.5%

Austin, Texas 78756 1939 NR No

Interior $242 847 $73 485 $316 333

Site - - $364,134 $40,134 - $404,267

Exterior $7,439 $3,845 $539,718 $5,265 - $556,266


Roofing - - $20,585 - - $20,585


Priority




Austin Independent School District Monday, 21 February 2011

2010 Facility Master Plan

252 Baker Center

EXHIBIT "B"



3908 Avenue B, Austin Texas 78751

Current Use:

Past Use:

Campus Overview Perm Temp Total

Total Building Area (GSF) 65,868 - 65,868

Site Area (Acres) 4.8

Parking Spaces 60

Buildings Floors Date GSF FCI

Building A 1 1911 63,810 16.7%

Building B 1 1952 1,600 0.0%

Building C 1 1911 458 110.2%

Administration and Professional Development Center

Elementary School



951 Burger Athletic Complex

EXHIBIT "B"



g p

3200 Jones Road, Austin Texas 78745

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 2 1977 70 39.7%

Building B Restroom 1 1977 5,832 9.7%

Building C Concession 1 1977 4,927 0.9%

Building D Restroom 1 1977 5,839 1.4%

Building E Ticket 1 1977 142 23.4%

Buildin F Restroom 1 1977 5,839 2.4%

Athletic complex

N/A

Building G Concession 1 1977 4,927 0.9%

Building H Restroom 1 1977 5,832 1.1%

Building I Ticket 1 1977 142 23.4%

Building J Ticket 1 1977 59 0.0%

Building K Press Box 2 1977 12,255 2.2%

Building L Ticket 1 1977 59 77.8%

Building M 1 1977 31,119 0.6%



EXHIBIT "B"



941 Carruth Admin Center

1111 W. 6th Street, Austin Texas 78703

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 4 1991 61,310 15.6%

Building B 4 1991 21,687 19.3%

Building C 1 3 11,821 21.6%Building D 3 1991 15,948 22.1%

Central Administration

Carruth was retail space prior to conversion to AISD administration

u ng , .

Building P Parking 2 1991 6,007 32.0%



922 Central Warehouse

EXHIBIT "B"



3701 Woodbury Drive, Austin Texas 78704

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 1 1983 96,303 5.1%

AISD Warehouse

N/A



949 Delco Activity Center

EXHIBIT "B"



4601 Pecan Brook Drive, Austin Texas 78724

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 3 2003 60,294 3.4%

Athletic faciltiies and Athletic administration

N/A



948 House Park

EXHIBIT "B"



1301 Shoal Creek Blvd, Austin Texas 78701

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 1 1940 3,325 0.0%

Building B 1 1986 2,106 0.0%

Building C 1 1940 213 0.0%

Building D 1 1940 294 0.0%

Building E 1 1963 358 0.0%

Buildin F 1 1940 96 17.9%

Athletic complex

N/A

Building G 1 2000 64 0.0%

Building H 1 1963 240 94.4%

Building I 1 1940 215 0.0%

Building J 1 1940 248 0.0%

Building K 1 1939 12,473 1.0%

Building L 1 1936 11,331 0.8%

Building M 2 1938 573 11.2%



281 Nelson Field

EXHIBIT "B"



7400 Berkman Drive, Austin Texas 78752

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 1 1963 2,880 43.1%

Building B 1 1963 374 59.6%

Building C 1 1963 796 93.5%

Building D 1 1963 320 48.2%

Building E 1 1963 320 58.7%

Buildin F 1 1963 374 59.2%

Athletic complex

N/A

Building G 1 1963 796 7.5%

Building H 1 1963 320 51.8%

Building I 1 1963 320 56.7%

Building J 1 1963 800 19.9%

Building K 1 1963 64 0.0%

Building L 1 1963 80 29.8%

Building M 1 1963 64 0.0%



959 Nelson Field Bus Terminal

EXHIBIT "B"



7400 Berkman Drive, Austin Texas 78752

Current Use:

Past Use:


Total Building Area (GSF) 13,093 1,536 14,629


Parking Spaces


Building A 1 1995 13,093 4.9%

Portable P097 1 1969 1,536 68.3%

Bus Terminal

N/A



950 Noack Sports Complex

EXHIBIT "B"



5300 Crainway Drive, Austin Texas 78724

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 1 2004 1,242 0.4%

Building B 1 2004 1,520 4.1%

Building C 1 2004 101 0.0%

Building D 1 2004 101 0.0%

Building E 1 2004 76 0.0%

Buildin F 1 2004 96 0.0%

Athletic complex

N/A

Building G 1 2004 96 0.0%



960 Saegert Transportation

EXHIBIT "B"



3300 Jones Road, Austin Texas 78745

Current Use:

Past Use:


Total Building Area (GSF) 26,916 1,536 28,452


Parking Spaces


Building A 1 2004 1,242 0.0%

Building B 1 2004 1,520 0.0%

Building C 1 2004 101 0.0%

Building D 1 2004 101 0.0%

Bus Terminal

N/A



962 Service Center

EXHIBIT "B"



5101 E. 51st Street, Austin Texas 78723

Current Use:

Past Use:




Parking Spaces


Building A 3 1991 27,435 15.3%

Building B 1 1991 11,219 7.0%

Building C 2 2000 6,602 4.8%

Building D 1 1995 848 0.0%

Building E 1 2007 8,203 0.0%

Maintenance and Administration

N/A

Educ ationa l Frame work

The following Educational Framework was used as a

planning tool to aid in decision making by the Facility

i. Campus layout and organization

j. Neighborhood accessibilityk F d tt i t

EXHIBIT "B"



Master Plan Task Force. It was not a mandate, but a set

of guidelines, and was intended to be flexible in order toalign resources that will provide optimal learning

environments for all AISD students. The guiding principle

for teaching and learning, as set by the Board of Trustees,

is performance-based empowerment and earnedautonomy.

1. Planning Guidelines

A. Priorities for Decision Making and Optimal

Lea rning Environme nts

1) Safety and Sec urity

2) Equitable Learning Opportunities for AllStudents - Ensure that all facilities offer

Alternative Learning Education programs

and are in full compliance with theAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

3) Quality Fac ility Co nditions

a. Physical condition and safety

b. Support for academic programsc . Indoor-air quality – e.g. proper ventilation, monitoring of indoor pollutants

d. Natural lightinge. Environmental condition

f. Green Building concepts – e.g. energy,

water and materials efficiencyg. Application of current and emerging

technology – e.g. wireless networksh. Site acreage

k. Feeder pattern impact4) School Performance - The Board may

consider a campus intervention, including

closure or repurposing, for schools that havenot met academic criteria established by

the District, state or federal accountabilitysystems.

5) Facility Utilizationa. Facility condition

b. Capacityc . Enrollmentd. Economic efficiency

e.

Intensity of use

Page 165

B. Fac ility Utilization Alternatives

1) Portab le/ Tem po rary Classroom s – TheFacility Master Plan seeks to reduce the

2. Programm atic Considerations

A. School Size

1) The following school-size targets are

EXHIBIT "B"



number of portable/temporary classrooms.

When additional classrooms are neededand are anticipated to be needed over

time, the Facility Master Plan will includeplans to replace portable/temporary

buildings with permanent buildings. 2) Shared Use of Facilities – The AISD Facility

Master Plan will, wherever possible, provide

access to school facilities for outside

programs in order to create and promote

successful community-school partnerships.

C. School Closure, Consolidation and Boundaries –

The AISD Facility Master Plan Task Force willconsider recommending options for adjustingboundaries and the consolidation or repurposing

of schools to balance enrollment with capacity,to ensure an optimal learning environment for all

students, and to realize necessary economic

efficiencies. The AISD Facility Master Plan Task Force will continue to consider criteria and

options for schools that are not successful in

providing adequate and/or equitable learning

environments.1) Transfer Pol ic y – When possible, reduce thenumber of transfers to align with the efficient

use of facilities.

guidelines based on community input that,fiscally, may be achievable only through

creative design concepts, such as multiple

schools sharing the same campus. It isunlikely that every large school will reduce its

enrollment to match these specifications.Therefore, it is necessary to exercise flexibility

with these general guideline, which should

also be applied to site-specific and/or program-specific facilities. The utilization

target is 85% - 105%.

Elementary Schools 300-500 students

Middle Sc hools 600-800 studentsHigh Schoo ls 1,500-2,000 students

2) The following school size standards have

been utilized by AISD for construction of new

school facilities since the 1996 Bond Program.

Elementary Schools 720-800 studentsMiddle Sc hools 1,100 students

High Schoo ls 2,200-2,400 students

B. Grade Configuration – The current AISD grade

configuration for each facility will remain.Recommendations may be developed for

schools in which flexibility in configuration might

better meet student and neighborhood needs.

Page 166

C. Student Assignment – When developing facilityoptions, student assignment would optimally be

based on the following:

provided by the District [e.g. International

Baccalaureate, Global Studies, Early College

High School, Early College Start, etc.].

G M t S h l (O E ll t Si t

EXHIBIT "B"



Elementary Schools - Neighborhood Schools /

Vertical AlignmentMiddle Scho ols - Neighborhood Schools/ Vertical

Alignment and Choice(depending upon which option provides the

best level of consistency for students).High Schools - Vertical Alignment and Choice

D. Transportation o f Choic e Students –

Transportation should not be provided to

students attending schools outside of their

attendance area by choice, with the exceptionof those opting for choice due to No Child Left

Behind or for those students whose applicationshave been approved for enrollment in aMagnet School (Open Enrollment Signature

Program).

E. Fine Arts - The AISD Facility Master Plan Task

Force will seek opportunities to supportincreasing and enhancing the availability and

quality of Fine Arts programs.

F. Vertica l Tea m Signa ture Programs – The AISDFacility Master Plan Task Force will seek opportunities to support increasing and

enhancing the availability and quality of

Signature Programs, which are offered in eachschool and/or vertical team. These programs are

interest-based, and transportation is not

G. Magne t Sc hoo ls (Open Enrollment Signa ture

Programs) - The AISD Facility Master Plan Task

Force will seek opportunities to support

increasing and enhancing the availability andquality of Magnet Schools that offer a

specialized curriculum that draws students

across boundaries, requires an application, and

transportation is provided [e.g., LASA, Kealing,Fulmore, Ann Richards]. The Facility Master Plan

Task Force will utilize community input to assist

the District in developing other categories, if

needed, for programs that do not fit existingdefinitions and criteria.

H. Athletic Programs - The AISD Facility Master Plan

Task Force will seek opportunities to supportincreasing and enhancing the availability and

quality of athletic programs and facilities. The

plan will also address the facilities that receivemore frequent and intensive use.

I. Career and Tec hnica l Programs - The AISDFacility Master Plan Task Force will seek

opportunities to support increasing andenhancing the availability and quality of Career

and Technical Programs [e.g., Cosmetology,

Culinary Arts, etc.].

J. Pre-Kindergarten/ Early Childho od Programs –

Pre-K and early childhood services should be

Page 167

expanded to the greatest extent that iseconomically feasible to serve all children of the

community.

K S d S i Th AISD F ilit M t Pl

EXHIBIT "B"



K. Student Services – The AISD Facility Master Plan

Task Force will seek opportunities to providespace for student services based on the

demographic and economic needs of thestudent population.

L. Adm inistrative Spa ce s - Administrative buildingsand spaces will be reviewed and

recommendations developed as part of the

comprehensive Facility Master Plan.

Page 168

Enrollment Projections

Historical Enrollment

The Austin Independent School District has

i d i ifi t i i ll t

Historica l Enrollment – By Grad e Leve l

The Austin Independent School District experienced

f i

EXHIBIT "B"



experienced a significant increase in enrollment, over

7,500 students, during the past nine years. Since 2002-03, student enrollment has increased by an average

of approximately 835 students, or 11% each year. The

current school year, 2010-11, had a notable increase

of an additional 933 students. Specifically, enrollmentincreased by 610 elementary, 246 middle, and 54

high school students.

The graph below illustrates the progression of

enrollment changes by year.

growth from 2002-03 to 2010-11 in all grade levels.

Enrollment in grades Pre-K - 5 increased by a total of

7,233 students. Enrollment in grades 6 - 8 increased by atotal of 88 students. Enrollment in grades 9-12 increased

by a total of 199 students. The graph below and the

chart on the following page indicate enrollment by

grade over the past nine years.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

AISD Historic Enrollmentby Grade Level

2002-03 to 2010-11

PK-5

6-8

"9-12"

Source: A ISD Office of Facilities

0

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

100,000

AISD Historic Enrollment2002-03 to 2010-2011

Source: AISD Office of Facilities

Page 169

Historica l Enrollment – By Grad e Leve l

The following chart depicts the progression of increasing enrollment throughout the previous nine years.

A i I d d S h l Di i

EXHIBIT "B"



Grade 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

EC & PreK 4,421 4,704 5,125 4,943 4,933 5,053 5,044 5,406 5,564

Kindergarten 6,431 6,728 6,849 7,462 7,309 7,391 7,589 7,668 7,660

1 6,405 6,512 6,898 7,055 7,493 7,297 7,498 7,543 7,644

2 6,115 6,235 6,373 6,669 6,898 7,107 7,027 7,354 7,225

3 6,104 6,013 6,174 6,278 6,571 6,617 6,856 6,796 7,102

4 5,866 5,912 5,897 6,073 6,136 6,254 6,477 6,595 6,679

5 5,592 5,754 5,676 5,823 5,870 5,847 6,028 6,195 6,293

Subtotal PK-5 40,934 41,858 42,992 44,303 45,210 45,566 46,519 47,557 48,167

6 5,582 5,390 5,517 5,379 5,511 5,506 5,519 5,568 5,740

7 5,655 5,517 5,278 5,443 5,344 5,300 5,421 5,425 5,513

8 5,252 5,507 5,423 5,258 5,337 5,278 5,229 5,338 5,324

Subtotal 6-8 16,489 16,414 16,218 16,080 16,192 16,084 16,169 16,331 16,577

9 6,764 6,371 6,512 6,332 6,313 6,371 6,366 6,252 6,127

10 5,093 5,321 4,962 5,337 5,183 5,043 5,084 5,148 5,212

11 4,427 4,389 4,694 4,423 4,576 4,588 4,569 4,644 4,724

12 4,179 4,048 4,126 4,368 4,118 4,590 4,511 4,564 4,599

Subtotal 9-12 20,463 20,129 20,294 20,460 20,190 20,592 20,530 20,608 20,662

Separate Campuses 318 239 271 339 350 329 337 311 332

Special Campuses 207 119 121 113 121 168 175 189 191

Subtotal Sep & Spec 525 358 392 452 471 497 512 500 523

Total 78,411 78,759 79,896 81,295 82,063 82,739 83,730 84,996 85,929

Source: AISD Office of Facilities

Historical Enrollment

2002-03 to 2010-2011


Page 170

Historical Enrollment by School

Elementa ry Schoo ls

EXHIBIT "B"



Page 171

Elementa ry Schoo ls cont.

EXHIBIT "B"



Page 172

Middle Scho ols

SCHOOL NAME 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004 -05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008 -09 2009- 10 2010- 11

Bailey MS 1 529 1 217 1 173 1 144 1 099 1 074 1 134 1 175 1 147 1 206 959 1 041

Austin Independent School District Historic Enrollment 1999/2000 - 2010/2011

EXHIBIT "B"



Bailey MS 1,529 1,217 1,173 1,144 1,099 1,074 1,134 1,175 1,147 1,206 959 1,041Bedichek MS 1,136 1,004 998 889 904 908 912 1,039 1,150 1,119 1,018 1,054Burnet MS 1,126 1,065 1,063 1,008 1,084 1,045 970 1,005 988 912 969 998Covington MS 752 855 939 945 911 889 862 910 1,014 954 950 805

Dobie MS 874 913 921 763 746 739 808 849 517 566 603 630Fulmore MS 764 749 872 957 992 1,054 1,037 1,029 1,045 1,036 1,007 995Garcia MS - - - - - - - - 605 649 689 658Gorzycki MS - - - - - - - - - - 835 963Kealing MS 958 1,058 978 948 1,029 1,277 1,190 1,251 1,215 1,279 1,242 1,233Lamar MS 915 855 798 779 791 701 675 671 741 780 668 604Martin MS 495 622 632 648 736 738 676 702 760 744 691 639Mendez MS 1,313 874 857 828 840 776 840 1,108 1,029 903 871 890Murchison MS 1,236 1,232 1,240 1,213 1,210 1,227 1,257 1,216 1,156 1,156 1,254 1,281O. Henry MS 681 743 866 887 885 801 747 789 881 982 1,005 1,026Paredes MS - 959 1,060 1,208 1,227 1,292 1,330 1,067 989 957 899 930Pearce MS 958 849 859 852 847 801 810 809 580 516 452 329Richards ( 6-8) MS - - - - - - - - 224 334 362 378Small MS 929 1,054 1,080 1,108 1,129 1,088 1,114 1,140 1,167 1,188 944 959

Webb MS 805 777 779 789 767 748 663 658 495 522 573 591

Middle School Total 1 4, 471 14,826 15,115 14,966 15,197 15,158 15,025 15,418 15,703 15,803 15,991 16,004

Page 173

High Schoo ls

SCHOOL NAME 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003 -04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11Akins HS - 1 076 1 544 2 053 2 219 2 257 2 389 2 359 2 507 2 663 2 710 2 720

Austin Independent School District Historic Enrollment 1999/2000 - 2010/2011

EXHIBIT "B"



Akins HS - 1,076 1,544 2,053 2,219 2,257 2,389 2,359 2,507 2,663 2,710 2,720Anderson HS 1,804 1,742 1,763 1,959 1,959 1,997 2,121 2,013 2,093 2,096 2,000 2,089Austin HS 2,167 2,014 2,136 2,149 2,158 2,245 2,207 2,124 2,240 2,343 2,390 2,337Bowie HS 3,045 2,608 2,435 2,370 2,485 2,613 2,699 2,821 2,778 2,768 2,828 2,876Crockett HS 2,529 2,414 2,174 2,099 1,999 1,962 2,038 1,992 1,907 1,857 1,763 1,686E astside HS 1,826 1,479 1,359 1,008 975 1,068 775 760 691 556 679 718Garza HS 318 339 384 347 307 266 280 308 315 301 258 260International HS - - - - - - 258 264 185 202 230 176LASA HS - - - - - - - - 858 860 874 881LBJ HS 1,619 1,654 1,812 1,811 1,717 1,671 1,676 1,703 1,001 1,046 1,018 1,000Lanier HS 1,855 1,762 1,666 1,915 1,794 1,793 1,674 1,619 1,693 1,608 1,594 1,624McCallum HS 1,666 1,652 1,676 1,705 1,709 1,686 1,724 1,706 1,717 1,733 1,793 1,824Reagan HS 1,405 1,394 1,276 1,304 1,169 1,064 1,029 989 973 988 958 901Richards 9th and 10th - - - - - - - - - - 79 150Travis HS 1,709 1,691 1,665 1,718 1,638 1,672 1,590 1,532 1,634 1,509 1,434 1,420

High School Total 19,943 19,825 19,890 20,438 20,129 20,294 20,460 20,190 20,592 20,530 20,608 20,662

Separate Campuses 102 44 311 318 239 271 339 350 329 337 311 332Special Campuses 159 145 155 207 119 121 113 121 168 175 189 191

District Total 77,117 76,755 77,088 77,720 78,114 79,268 80,666 81,705 82,739 83,730 84,996 85,929

Page 174

Birth Da ta Historical birth data for the 31 zip codes comprising the

District was collected. The total number of live births for

this area has steadily increased from 1994 to 2008 InAustin Indep endent School Distri ct

h

EXHIBIT "B"



this area has steadily increased from 1994 to 2008. In

1994, there were 9,175 births compared to 12,733 in 2008.A slight decline of 45 births followed in 2009. The increase

in births points to continued growth at the elementaryschool level. Live birth data is commonly used to predict

future kindergarten enrollment.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Live Births by Yearin Zip Codes within AISD Boundaries

Source: Texas Department of State Health Services & the

Dennis D. Harner and Associates Demographic Analysis &

Enrollment Projections, 2010

Year Births1994 9,175

1995 9,417

1996 9,650

1997 9,822

1998 10,329

1999 10,829

2000 11,426

2001 11,346

2002 11,1602003 11,270

2004 11,492

2005 11,383

2006 12,539

2007 12,744

2008 12,733

2009 12,688

Live Births

1994-2009

Source: Texas Department of State Health Services & the

Dennis D. Harner and Associates Demographic Analysis &

Enrollment Projections, 2010

Page 175

Projected EnrollmentIn 2010, AISD commissioned Dennis D. Harner and Associatesto develop enrollment projections. According to this report,

the total projected enrollment for AISD is expected to

increase by 12 356 students or 14 4% from the 2010-11

Projected Enrollment – By Grade Level

Projected enrollment for the 2011-12 through 2020-21 school

years shows a steady increase in enrollment in all grade

levels. At the elementary level, which reflects Pre-K throughGrade 5 the projected enrollment shows an increase of

EXHIBIT "B"



increase by 12,356 students, or 14.4%, from the 2010-11

school year to the 2020-21 school year.

The enrollment forecasts were calculated using a “cohort

survival” method. Each grade (cohort) is advanced from

one year to the next based upon historical trends. Live birth

data is also collected and used to compare the relationship

between kindergarten and enrollment five years later. Acohort (grade) is advanced from one grade to the next

based upon historical trends. The number of live births, and

subsequently, the number of children, enrolled in

kindergarten, has steadily increased since 2002.

Grade 5, the projected enrollment shows an increase of

5,225 students from the 2010-11 school year to the 2020-21

school year.

Similarly, the middle school enrollment, which reflects

Grades 6 through 8, shows an increase of 3,334 students. Thehigh school level, reflecting Grades 9 through 12, shows an

increase of 4,166 students during this same timeframe. Thetable below shows projected enrollment by year and grade

level.

Source: Dennis D. Harner & A ssociates Demographic A nalysis and E nrollment Projections, 2010

020,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Mid-Range Total ProjectedEnrollment

2011-12 to 2020-2021

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

AISD Projected Enrollmentby Grade Level

2011-12 to 2020-21

PK-5

6-8

9-12

Page 176

Projected Enrollment – By Grade Level The following chart depicts the progression of increasing enrollment throughout the next ten years.


EXHIBIT "B"



Grade 201 1- 12 201 2- 13 201 3-1 4 201 4-1 5 201 5- 16 201 6- 17 201 7-1 8 201 8- 19 201 9- 20 2020-21

E C & PreK 5,368 5,419 5,471 5,524 5,575 5,628 5,679 5,731 5,782 5,834

Kindergarten 7,773 7,848 7,923 7,998 8,073 8,148 8,223 8,298 8,373 8,448

1 7,757 7,832 7,907 7,982 8,057 8,132 8,207 8,282 8,357 8,432

2 7,426 7,532 7,607 7,682 7,757 7,832 7,907 7,982 8,057 8,132

3 6,988 7,176 7,282 7,357 7,432 7,507 7,582 7,657 7,732 7,807

4 6,926 6,788 6,976 7,082 7,157 7,232 7,307 7,382 7,457 7,532

5 6,423 6,676 6,538 6,726 6,832 6,907 6,982 7,057 7,132 7,207Subtotal PK-5 48,661 49,271 49,704 50,351 50,883 51 ,386 5 1,887 52,389 52,890 5 3,392

6 5,952 6,073 6,326 6,188 6,376 6,482 6,557 6,632 6,707 6,782

7 5,677 5,877 5,998 6,251 6,113 6,301 6,407 6,482 6,557 6,632

8 5,471 5,617 5,817 5,938 6,191 6,053 6,241 6,347 6,422 6,497

Subtotal 6-8 17,100 17,567 18,141 18,377 18,680 18,836 19,205 19,461 19,686 19,911

9 6,497 6,621 6,767 6,967 7,088 7,341 7,203 7,391 7,497 7,572

10 4,882 5,197 5,321 5,467 5,667 5,788 6,041 5,903 6,091 6,197

11 4,623 4,382 4,697 4,821 4,967 5,167 5,288 5,541 5,403 5,59112 4,761 4,648 4,407 4,722 4,846 4,992 5,192 5,313 5,566 5,428

Subtotal 9-12 20,763 20,848 21,1 92 21 ,977 22,568 23,288 23,724 24,1 48 24,557 24,788

Total 86,524 87,686 89,037 90,705 92,131 93,510 94,816 95,998 97,133 98,091

Source: Dennis D. Harner & Associates Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Projections, 2010

Mid-Range Projected Enrollment

2010-11 to 2019-20

Page 177

Capa c ity Analysis

How many students can a building accommodate? This

question often arises, and in the development of a

facility master plan, can be one of the most debated

In AISD, functional capacity is reviewed on an annualbasis. Functional capacity is a more realistic analysis of

what a building can accommodate and takes into

EXHIBIT "B"



facility master plan, can be one of the most debated

issues. It is not uncommon to review an evaluation of anexisting building only to find that the capacity which was

once assigned to the building is considerably more thanwhat the building can reasonably accommodate today.

The main reason for this is that the programs in a public

school system and the manner in which they are

delivered have changed significantly since the building

was originally built. More than half the square footage in

AISD was built before 1985. Twenty-five years ago,computer labs were just beginning to be incorporated

into schools, and severely handicapped students,

previously assigned to specialized facilities, were not yetmainstreamed into public schools. In addition, statelegislation has mandated smaller student/teacher ratios.

In facility planning, the term design capacity is used to

describe simply counting the number of classrooms in a

building and multiplying by an average class size. Eventhough at first glance this seems only to be common

sense, this methodology does not take into account the

programmatic implications of school facilities.

what a building can accommodate and takes intoaccount all special programs available at the school

that year, in addition to any portable buildings located

on site, to determine how many students can beassigned to a particular school campus each school

year.

For master planning purposes, an updated methodology

to the former AISD permanent capacity methodologywas developed and applied. The formula for long-range

planning should reflect District programs, but should be

kept simple and equitable since programs change from

year to year while classroom square footages remain, for

the most part, the same. Permanent capacity does notincorporate temporary or portable classrooms, but only

permanent space.

Elementa ry School Permanent Cap ac ity

The elementary program is usually delivered based onstudents being assigned to a home room and attending

special programs such as art, music, and physical

education in a specialized classroom. The number ofspecial classrooms required is reflective of the total

number of students enrolled and is subtracted from thetotal number of classrooms since the vacated home

room cannot be utilized by other students.Age of AISD Permanent Buildings

Page 178

A 95% efficiency factor is applied since students do notalways arrive in perfect sets of 22 students. Additionally,

due to reduced class size and increased support spaceneeds for Title 1 schools, an 85% efficiency factor is

applied to compute permanent capacity at these

movement to block scheduling, an efficiency factor of

75% is applied.

The following describes the permanent capacity

methodology for secondary schools.

EXHIBIT "B"



pp p p p y

facilities.

The following describes the permanent capacitymethodology for elementary schools.

Count permanent classrooms.

Subtract special areas for music, art, etc. (3-7classrooms based on staffing ratios).

Multiply by 22 (average class size).

Apply 95% efficiency factor; 85% efficiency factor for Title 1 schools.

Sec onda ry Scho ol Permanent Capa city

Unlike elementary schools, at the secondary levelstudents are not in self-contained environments but aretraveling from one location to another each period. All

classrooms are counted including the specializedspaces. Since it is difficult to schedule every teaching

space every period of the day, in addition to the

Count permanent classrooms.

Multiply by 28 (average class size).

Apply 75% efficiency factor; 70% efficiency factor for Title 1 schools.

Core Capac ity

Core capacity is defined as those spaces that large

groups of students utilize at some point during the schoolday, including the cafeteria, gymnasium, and library. As

part of the new methodology, consideration was given

to lower permanent capacity if the cafeteria or gymnasium was less than 85% of permanent capacity,

based on the number of classrooms.

The chart below shows the AISD standard for core space

sizes based on the current approved educationalstandards.

Grade Level

School Size

(# of students)

Total

Square Feet SF/Student

Total


Total


Elementary 880 4,200 4.77 3,000 3.41 3,500 3.98

Middle 1,100 4,500 4.10 13,400 12.18 4,800 4.36

High 2,400 9,000 3.75 20,720 8.63 8,400 3.50

Source: AISD, Office of Facilities

Cafeteria Gym LibraryCore Space Standards

Page 179

Utilization

Utilization, or efficiency, of a school facility, is calculated

by dividing the enrollment of the school by its permanent

capacity. The target range as determined by the Facility

EXHIBIT "B"



p y g g y y

Master Plan Task Force for the purposes of long-range

planning is 85%-105%. Schools below 85% may be able to

provide relief for overcrowded schools or may beconsidered as potential candidates for closure or

consolidation. Schools above 105% should be monitored

for additional growth, and schools that exceed 125% are

considered for additions or for relief through theconstruction of new schools.

The chart below indicates that district-wide, AISD is within

the 85%-105% target range; however, by grade level, theelementary schools are above the target and the middle

schools are below. In other words, the District is short3,833 seats at the elementary level, but has 4,263 too

many at the middle school level.

On an individual basis, there are 29 schools, or 25% of allschool campuses, that fall below 85% of permanent

capacity. Fifty-three schools, or 46% of all schoolcampuses, operate at above 105%. The map to the right

and the ones on the following pages illustrate the 2010-11

school year enrollment utilization.

Grade Level

2010

Enrollment

Permanent

Capacity

Utilization

Rate

Elementary 48,738 44,905 109%

Middle 16,154 20,417 79%

High 20,512 21,698 95%

Districtwide 85,404 87,020 98%Source: AISD, Office of Facilities

Page 180

EXHIBIT "B"



Page 181

Enrollment versus Population

The population (number of students that live within an

attendance zone) is not always equal to the enrollment(number of students that attend) of a school. No Child

EXHIBIT "B"



Left Behind, transfer policies, and open enrollmentsignature programs are some of the reasons students

migrate in and out of their assigned attendance zones.

In a few cases in AISD, students migrating into a school

comprise more than 40% of its enrollment. When largenumbers of students travel outside of the boundary of

their assigned school, to attend a different school, it

presents a challenge when planning for long-term facilityneeds.

Because the number of students migrating in and out of

an attendance zone may vary year to year, it isimportant to also look at the attendance zonepopulation. Population projections, which are derived

from birth data, census data, and housing stock analysis

are used in long-range planning efforts to identify trendsin growth and decline. Population projections are more

reliable than anticipating the rates of in and outmigration.

The following maps provide the 2010-11 population as apercent of permanent capacity by school. This provides

a different picture than the enrollment utilization maps onthe preceding pages. For example, a school that falls

below the target utilization of 85% based on enrollment

may in fact be above 85% based on population.

Page 182

EXHIBIT "B"



Page 183

Fac ility Co ndition Ana lysis

Facility condition is the state of repair of the buildinginfrastructure. Facility condition takes into considerationall of the building systems from roofs and windows to

Of course, FCI is not the only factor used to identifybuildings that need renovation, replacement or even

closure. Historical significance, enrollment trends,community sentiment, and the availability of capital areadditional factors that are analyzed when making school

EXHIBIT "B"



= Facility Condition Index (FCI)

electrical and mechanical systems. Although there is a

cost associated with renovating every building

according to current codes and standards, this does notmean that all schools need massive and immediaterepairs and renovations. Rather, this provides anunderstanding of the effort it would take to bring all

facilities up to the same standard.

The facility condition information does provide thefollowing.

Comparative analysis of building conditions

Approximate cost to address the facility conditions

of all buildings in the District Understanding of which buildings are in the worse

conditions and that might be slated for moreimmediate focus

Since 1991, the facility management industry has used anindex called the Facility Condition Index (FCI) to

benchmark the relative condition of a group of schools.This index simply divides the identified repair costs in afacility by the total cost to replace the facility. For

example, take a 100,000 square foot building that mighttheoretically cost $10 million to construct new and now

has $1 million in identified repairs. Dividing $1 million by$10 million results in an FCI of 10 percent. Industrystandards and financial modeling dictate that FCInumbers above 65% or greater are more cost-effectiveto replace than to repair. This is due to efficiency gainswith more modern facilities and the value of the buildingat the end of the analysis period.

facility decisions.

The chart below indicates the distribution of campusesby ranges of FCI in AISD. Please note that the supportfacilities are included. Only one facility, Pease ES, fallsinto the replace category; however, two schools, Zilker ESand Wooten ES are between 50-59% and should be

considered for major renovation or replacement.

Cost of RepairsCost of Replacement

FCI Campuses

<10% 18

10-19% 35

20-29% 30

30-39% 31

40-49% 9

50-59% 2

60-69%

- 70-79% 1

80-89% -

90-100% -

>100% -

Total 126

Repair

Renovate

Replace

Page 184

FCI: The Denom inator

The denominator is the bottom part of the equation andpossibly the easiest with which to start. The denominator is the theoretical cost to replace the facility. It isimportant to recognize that this cost is based on the

l f b ildi i h h f ili h i h

engineering assessors to identify deficient conditions inthe buildings.

EXHIBIT "B"



replacement of a building with another facility that is thesame size and is fully code compliant. If, for example,

you are comparing the FCI on a 3,450 square footgymnasium building at a campus, the replacement costis the theoretical cost to replace that same 3,450 squarefoot building. Since the replacement cost comparison isprimarily driven by the type of facility (elementary school,middle school, high school, administration, etc.), a set ofcost models have been developed that estimate thecost per square foot for new construction and areindicated in the chart to the right. The cost models takeinto account national industry averages from a

recognized industry data source called RSMeans®,adjusted to Austin, Texas, as well as the District’s recentexperience in the Austin construction market. The costsper square foot are then multiplied by the size of theschool or building under consideration. Thismethodology is used for both permanent and portablebuildings.

FCI: The Numera tor

The numerator is the estimated cost to complete therepairs on the building in its current condition. This repair cost is generally considered to be like-for-like repairs.Within reason, the deficient conditions would be repairedor systems replaced to put the building into fullyserviceable condition to meet current codes.

At AISD, the District retained a firm in 2007 to assess all ofthe facilities in the district and develop cost estimates tomake needed repairs. That effort included anassessment of all facilities using architectural and

This survey focused, for the most part, on the condition ofthe existing buildings and did not initially include

educational adequacy or functional equity needs. All ofthe identified needs were grouped into building systems,and a Uniformat® cost structure supported by RSMeans®

nationally-based cost data adjusted to the Austin, Texasarea, was employed to develop consistent costestimates across all schools. These cost estimates, usingthe industry-standard, line- item costs, comprise themajority of the costs in the AISD facility assessment

database and are included in the numerator of the FCIcalculation.

In addition, ADA (American with Disabilities Act)/TAS(Texas Accessibility Standards) reports were developedto address ADA issues against current guidelines during2008-09. A functional equity study identified core areasand specialized classroom areas, within specific school

campuses that did not meet AISD educationalspecifications. The cost to resolve these issues has beenincluded in the deficiencies and numerator of thecurrent FCI numbers.

Page 185

Educ ational Adequacy Assessment

As part of this master planning effort, AISD conducted aneducational adequacy assessment of all schools. Aneducational adequacy assessment evaluates how wellthe campus is equipped to deliver the instructional

• Relationship of Spaces: Proximity of instructionalspaces to support areas such as libraries, labs, andlecture halls.

Th h t b l id tifi th d ti l d

EXHIBIT "B"



program.

During the summer of 2010, a team of assessors went toeach school and collected an inventory of each spaceat the classroom level. This data was then compared tothe District developed standards to identify when anindividual space did not meet a specific level ofcompliance. When an item did not meet the standard,the condition was noted and a line item was added tothe assessment database with a budget to correct thatcondition.

This applied a standards-based approach to determinethe overall educational adequacy by evaluating eightoverall criteria as follows.

Capacity: Ability of the facility to meet the needs ofthe student population.

Support for Programs: Provision of special spaces or classrooms to support the instructional program.

Tec hnology : Presence of infrastructure, datadistribution, and equipment.

Supervision & Sec urity: Extent to which physical

configurations help or hinder building operation.

Instructional Aids: Presence of necessary equipmentwithin teaching spaces.

Physical Characteristics: Sizes and shapes ofteaching spaces.Learning Environment: Degree to which learningareas are comfortable, well-lit, odor-free,controllable and quiet.

The chart below identifies the educational adequacydeficiency costs by the eight overall criteria.

Technology, instructional aids, and security andsupervision make up the greatest need in terms ofeducational adequacy.

Page 186

Building Deficienc ies

The combination of the building condition and the educational adequacy items currently represents over 41,000 lineitems district-wide. Deficiencies are categorized by the following priorities.

Priority 1: currently critical (immediate need, i.e., fire safety systems)P i it 2 t ti ll iti l (t b t d ithi i j HVAC i t it t )

EXHIBIT "B"



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/TAS)

The chart below lists the facility type and the costs associated with correcting priorities 1 through 5. Logically, the greatestneed is at the elementary schools since this makes up the largest number of schools and the most square footage in theDistrict.

Renovation Costs by Priority, by Campus

Type Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Total

Schools

PreK Centers 191,332$ 843,430$ 1,221,125$ 154,414$ 9,470$ 2,419,771$

Elementary Schools 36,765,169$ 101,426,669$ 259,226,302$ 30,846,706$ 78,109,545$ 506,374,392$

Middle Schools 19,163,034$ 56,423,338$ 88,591,082$ 17,785,740$ 42,995,421$ 224,958,615$

High Schools 16,483,563$ 69,061,730$ 141,365,127$ 36,842,162$ 22,301,333$ 286,053,916$

Alternative Education 1,342,426$ 3,305,106$ 13,807,291$ 2,473,156$ 136,888$ 21,064,868$

Total Schools 73,945,525$ 231,060,273$ 504,210,927$ 88,102,178$ 143,552,658$ 1,040,871,561$

Other District Facilities

Support Facilities 2,135,310$ 7,374,941$ 6,094,116$ 45,901$ 291,467$ 15,941,735$

Administrative 732,481$ 2,760,465$ 9,054,486$ 363,873$ 202,910$ 13,114,216$

Maintenance and Transp. 637,830$ 880,329$ 3,343,222$ 277,590$ 199,746$ 5,338,716$

Total Other District Facil 3,505,621$ 11,015,735$ 18,491,824$ 687,363$ 694,123$ 34,394,666$

Grand Total 77,451,146$ 242,076,008$ 522,702,751$ 88,789,541$ 144,246,781$ 1,075,266,227$

Page 187

The chart below provides a crosstab by building system. The greatest building system deficiency, as is typically the case,is in the area of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC). Please note that the “Other” building system categoryincludes functional equity and ADA/TAS compliance.

EXHIBIT "B"



A summary of building system by priority by individua l scho ol c amp us is ava ilable in the Fac ility Summa ry Reports with

Fac ility Master Plan Rec om me nda tions sec tion of this repo rt, pa ge s 38-164.

Districtwide Crosstab by Priority by System

Building System 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Site 498,041$ 3,002,131$ 20,459,959$ 15,715,200$ -$ 39,675,332$

Roofing 1,016,327$ 20,921,438$ 22,268,609$ 4,912,452$ -$ 49,118,826$

Exterior 195,604$ 5,079,548$ 20,391,721$ 3,620,156$ -$ 29,287,028$

Structure 191,655$ 392,439$ 997,978$ 63,077$ -$ 1,645,149$

Interior 126,632$ 6,550,035$ 44,089,416$ 20,438,059$ -$ 71,204,142$

HVAC 12,732,977$ 147,968,144$ 149,987,307$ 1,725,368$ -$ 312,413,796$

Plumbing 16,072,172$ 7,908,635$ 66,458,213$ 3,840,468$ 1,568$ 94,281,056$

Electrical 575,073$ 23,329,696$ 68,672,377$ 5,273,377$ -$ 97,850,523$

Technology -$ 9,936,855$ 77,335,604$ -$ -$ 87,272,458$

Fire and Safety 19,377,531$ 11,607,150$ 1,133,648$ 567,724$ -$ 32,686,053$

Conveyances 223,695$ 5,132,182$ 8,858$ -$ -$ 5,364,736$

Specialties 37,115$ 247,755$ 19,236,791$ 32,633,662$ -$ 52,155,323$

Other 26,404,324$ -$ 31,662,269$ -$ 144,245,213$ 202,311,806$

Total 77,451,146$ 242,076,008$ 522,702,751$ 88,789,541$ 144,246,781$ 1,075,266,227$

Facility Condition Assessment Priority

Page 188

Fac ility Op tions

Using the Educational Framework as guiding principles,the Facility Master Plan Task Force began thecomplicated task of developing facility options and

i i d t t th i h f d l i

Future growth – account for future populationgrowth/decreases

Facility condition – facility condition index rating

EXHIBIT "B"



scenarios in order to meet their charge of developing

recommendations to improve facility efficiencies through

objective data analysis and community input.

The information and data considered included thefollowing.

Current condition of buildings (FCI) Educational adequacy of schools Current and proposed instructional programs Current and projected population growth and

decline

Lease obligations, current and possible use ofbuildings, and administrative facilities

The following criteria were used for decision making.

Educational enhancement – meet theeducational needs of all students

Efficient space utilization – optimum utilizationrange was between 85%-105% of permanentcapacity

Cost savings – decrease M&O expenses or capitalcost avoidance of correcting building

deficiencies and building operating costs per student

Community Impact – impact of change versus thegains

Over the course of seven months, 108 options that weredeveloped by the Task Force, consultants, and staff,were reviewed and evaluated by the Task Force.

An outline of the 108 options is provided in App endix G o fthis rep ort.

Page 189

AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

District-Wide Facility Master Plan

EXHIBIT "B"



Appendix AFCI White Paper and Facility FCI Charts

Page 190

White Paper:

Facility Condition Index (FCI) at Austin ISD

EXHIBIT "B"



Facility Condition Index (FCI) at Austin ISD

The assessment of school facilities and the development of long-range master plans, is MagellanConsulting’s core business. District-wide master plans, by their very nature, recommend changes acrossa district. In nearly every district in which we work, there are building condition and student capacitychallenges. Often, there exists enough capacity across the district when compared to total studentenrollment; however, that capacity is rarely in the right place. In the last five years, every large urban

district we have worked with has faced considerable loss of enrollment district-wide which eventuallynecessitates reducing overall footprint and closing schools. We typically see changes in educationalprograms that make the alignment of facilities a challenge, as curriculum and delivery methods are ever-

evolving. Nearly 90 percent of our country’s 21st century schools were designed and constructed in the20th century, most in the mid 20th century, under an industrial age factory model with a long row of classrooms down a double-loaded corridor. The condition of schools, with the exception of verywealthy districts, is declining across the country. The recent economic climate is exacerbates thisproblem as maintenance funds are decreasing. Texas the new education funding system in Texas isplacing greater emphasis on the use of Maintenance and Operations (M&O) funds. Unfortunately,deferred maintenance does not go away with reduced funding, and the unmet need continues to builduntil the cost to repair eventually exceeds the cost to replace the facility.

Commonly, communities have a widespread perception that school districts shape, hide, or manipulatebuilding condition data to obtain a desired result. This perception may even result in a law suit, whichcreates the necessity to engage in projects that are driven by legal requirements. While years ago theremay have been school districts that were guilty of these charges, particularly in the era of racialsegregation and the court-ordered desegregation that followed, the fact is that we have not seen datamanipulation at any of the districts in which we have worked for over a decade.

School district administrators and facility staffs continually request that we simplify the data and planningparameters. The process of engaging the community offers a broad spectrum of individuals who want toparticipate These diverse groups of individuals may speak different languages have different educational

Since 1991, the facility management industry has used an index called the FCI to benchmark the relativecondition of a group of schools This index simply divides the identified repair costs in a facility by the

EXHIBIT "B"



FCI Campuses

<10%

10-19%

20-29%

30-39%

40-49%

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-89%

90-100%

>100%

Repair

Renovate

Replace

condition of a group of schools. This index simply divides the identified repair costs in a facility by thetotal cost to replace the facility. For example, take a 100,000 square foot building that might

theoretically cost $10 million to construct new and now has $1 millionin identified repairs. Dividing $1 million by $10 million results in anFCI of 10 percent. The National Association of College and University

Business Officers has suggested for college planning that an FCI of lessthan 5 percent is good, an FCI between 5 and 10 percent is fair, and anFCI greater than 10 percent is poor. In K-12 public school planning,the gulf between 10 percent and 100 percent is just not stratified

enough. For several years, Magellan Consulting has used the chart

displayed to the right, with clients to provide a little more gradation.

We often find district-wide FCI averages in the 20 to 30 percent range.Schools in the 30 to 60 percent range are probably the most difficultto plan for long-term. Financial modeling has shown that over a 30-year period, schools that fall in the 65 percent or greater range aremore cost-effective to replace than to repair. This is due to efficiencygains with more modern facilities and the value of the building at theend of the analysis period. Of course, FCI is not the only factor used

to identify buildings that need renovation, replacement or evenclosure. Historical significance, enrollment trends, communitysentiment, and the availability of capital are additional factors that are

analyzed when making school facility decision.

The FCI calculation, while seemingly simple, yields a consistent result that can commonly be comparedacross districts, as the same factors are almost always considered in deriving the numerator and thedenominator. It should also be noted that there are nuances regarding the process for calculating FCI

that must be understood.

the district’s recent experience in the Austin construction market. The costs per square foot are thenmultiplied by the size of the school or building under consideration.

EXHIBIT "B"



multiplied by the size of the school or building under consideration.

“Construction Cost” is a term that may mean different things to different people. To contractors,construction cost generally means the amount they are paid to construct the building, and that figuregenerally does not include a contingency for unforeseen conditions. To the school district facilities staff,

construction cost typically refers to the planning budget to construct the building plus a smallcontingency for unforeseen conditions and may also include the cost to bring utilities to a site. To theschool board, construction cost often means the total costs spent on the project which includes thearchitects’ fees and the cost to manage the overall construction program. Therefore, it is important to

be careful which costs to include in the replacement cost denominator calculation. For FCI purposes,

we include all of the costs associated with completing the project for the amount of funding that isrequired in total. That includes the base construction cost (often referred to as “hard costs”); plus

inflation; plus professional fees; plus administrative costs for testing, surveys, and advertising; plusmanagement costs; plus contingencies; plus escalation to an estimated mid-point of construction (oftenreferred to as “soft costs”). These total costs are significantly more than the base construction costpaid to the contractor. The following table shows the average costs used in determining thereplacement cost for AISD, based on the building type and the buildings’ gross square footage measuredto the outside of exterior walls.

ES MS HS Admin PortableSquare Feet 82,500 170,000 330,000 20,000 1,536 Cost / SqFt 185.54$ 204.20$ 201.53$ 176.65$ 85.97$

Construction Cost 15,306,924.11$ 34,714,158.47$ 66,504,421.68$ 3,532,981.28$ 132,047.22$

A/E Services 1,224,553.93$ 2,777,132.68$ 5,320,353.73$ 317,968.32$ 11,884.25$Site/Survey 30,613.85$ 69,428.32$ 133,008.84$ 7,065.96$ 264.09$Permits/Fees 68,881.16$ 156,213.71$ 299,269.90$ 15,898.42$ 198.07$Testing 114,801.93$ 260,356.19$ 498,783.16$ 26,497.36$ 660.24$Furn/Fixt/Equip (FF&E) 918,415.45$ 2,082,849.51$ 3,990,265.30$ 141,319.25$ 7,262.60$Other 612,276.96$ 1,388,566.34$ 2,660,176.87$ 137,654.34$ 6,602.36$

Project Budget 18,276,467$ 41,448,705$ 79,406,279$ 4,179,385$ 158,919$

Program-level contg @ 10% 1,827,647 4,144,871 7,940,628 417,938 15,892

state to that of what would be replaced today. Generally, studies or hazardous material costs that mightbe encountered even under a demolition scenario would not be included.

EXHIBIT "B"



be encountered even under a demolition scenario would not be included.

At AISD, the district retained a firm in 2006 to assess all of the facilities in the district and develop costestimates to make needed repairs. That effort included a walkthrough of all facilities using architects andengineers to identify deficient conditions in the buildings. This survey focused, for the most part, on the

condition of the existing buildings and did not include educational adequacy or functional equity typeneeds (more on that later). All of the identified needs were grouped into building systems, and aUniformat® cost structure supported by RSMeans® nationally-based cost data adjusted to the Austin,Texas area was employed to develop consistent cost estimates across all schools. These cost estimates,

using the industry standard line item costs, comprise the majority of the costs in the AISD facility

assessment database and are included in the numerator of the FCI calculation. The construction costvalue of all of these deficient conditions, prior to adding soft costs for professional fees, contingency, and

escalation total approximately $444.9 million.

However, the facility condition assessment did not focus on what the assessment industry calls“educational adequacy” items. Where a building assessment focuses on the condition of the building andwhat is broken, an educational adequacy assessment focuses on how well the school supports theinstructional mission and looks objectively at what is missing . As part of this master planning effort,AISD conducted an educational adequacy assessment of all schools. This assessment made use of the

district’s educational specifications, supplemented with information collected during a three-dayworkshop that involved numerous staff, principals, and teachers. A set of standards was developed foreach school type, the buildings typically found on the campus, and for each instructional space. These

standards identified in detail the size of the teaching spaces, the number of students in each space,physical conditions, plumbing requirements, the number of computer outlets and electrical plugs, andthe type of instructional support for each space, in addition to safety and supervision considerations.During the summer of 2010, a team of assessors went to each school and collected an inventory of eachspace at the classroom level. This data was then compared to the previously developed standards to

identify when an individual space did not meet a specific standard. When an item did not meet thestandard, the condition was noted and a line item was added to the assessment database with a budget

own soft cost model. The following chart shows the percentage factors that are applied to every $100of estimated repair cost to derive the total repair cost figure used in calculating the FCI.

EXHIBIT "B"



p p g g

The total facility condition cost totals approximately $963.1 million after adding soft costs to the costsfor correcting deficient building and ADA conditions and the educational adequacy costs. During theAugust work sessions, the need was approximated at $875 million, but at that time it was believed thatthe need would eventually be lowered as data was reviewed. The $875 million figure really represented

the total construction cost (hard cost) required to correct current deficiencies. Indeed the comparablecost has decreased to about $558.4 million; however, the overall total need is now about $1.1 billion,including functional equity needs at 44 campuses (discussed in more detail below). Since the Augustworksession:

1 Deficiencies have been reviewed and, in some cases, modified by AISD facilities staff (part of ongoing AISD facility management procedures) – decreased cost.

2 Overlapping cost between ADA studies and building condition deficiencies have been addressed– decreased cost.

3 Overlapping cost between functional equity deficiencies, ADA deficiencies, and buildingcondition deficiencies have been addressed decreased cost

Default HVAC Life Safety ADA EquityCost Basis 100.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$

Construction Cost 138.46$ 138.46$ 103.46$ 196.37$ 196.37$

A/E Services 20.77$ 20.77$ 4.14$ 29.46$ 29.46$

Permits/Fees 0.62$ 0.62$ 0.47$ 0.88$ 0.88$

Testing 0.42$ 0.42$ -$ 0.59$ 0.59$

Other 23.26$ 28.11$ 1.34$ 32.99$ 32.99$

Project Budget 184$ 188$ 109$ 260$ 260$

Program-level contg @ 10% 18 19 11 26 26

Program Management 10$ 10$ 6$ 14$ 14$

Escalation - 3 yrs. @ 5% 34$ 35$ 21$ 49$ 49$

Total Program Cost 246$ 253$ 147$ 350$ 350$

Soft Cost Factor (%) 78% 83% 42% 78% 78%

Functional Equity Additions / Renovations

EXHIBIT "B"



School Number and Name Library Gym Cafeteria Admin Classroom Total

009 Anderson HS - 7,558,381 - - 737,651 8,296,032

002 Austin HS 93,707 1,000,768 - 341,590 6,583,925 8,019,990

005 McCallum HS 1,056,715 974,456 - - - 2,031,171

007 Travis HS - 497,614 - - - 497,614

054 Bedichek MS 1,226,494 1,200,183 - 279,273 10,809,492 13,515,442

046 Burnet MS - - 1,121,709 - - 1,121,709

057 Covington MS - - - - 1,256,499 1,256,499

055 Dobie MS - 4,791,499 778,272 - 290,814 5,860,584

051 Martin MS 830,896 1,996,919 - - - 2,827,815

058 Mendez MS - - - - 1,323,155 1,323,155

052 Murchison MS 382,212 - 791,197 252,361 6,564,076 7,989,847

047 O. Henry MS - - 702,568 - 2,492,687 3,195,256

048 Pearce MS - - - - 751,499 751,499

053 Webb MS - - - 703,953 - 703,953

142 Allan ES 756,946 - - - - 756,946

102 Andrews ES 1,197,967 110,786 - - - 1,308,753

149 Barrington ES - 2,377,285 119,095 - - 2,496,380 107 Brentwood ES - 720,110 718,725 - - 1,438,834

109 Brown ES 101,554 2,561,928 - - - 2,663,482

161 Cook ES - 2,949,680 115,402 - - 3,065,082

113 Cunningham ES - 2,543,464 115,402 812,893 - 3,471,759

114 Dawson ES - 913,985 - 284,351 - 1,198,336

154 Doss ES - - - 486,074 - 486,074

116 Govalle ES 847,514 2,460,375 - 177,258 - 3,485,146

117 Gullett ES 1,154,714 482,843 1,442,527 698,414 1,307,276 5,085,774

119 Highland Park ES - 886,289 796,275 - 517,002 2,199,566

155 Hill ES - 2,404,981 135,713 - - 2,540,694

FCI ResultsFor AISD, the FCI calculations include the building condition assessment results, the educational

EXHIBIT "B"



, g ,adequacy assessment results, and the type one and two ADA compliance considerations and then

compare them to the cost of replacing the same facility. These FCI figures provide a benchmark that canbe used to consistently compare AISD facilities district-wide. The planning team refers to the FCI to aidin decision making when a school or building is subject to renovation, when a change in educational

program is contemplated, or when the school is targeted for replacement, consolidation, or closure forefficiency reasons. It is not the principle driver, but rather a supporting consideration to guide thedistrict and hopefully prohibit the district from making additional investment into a building that is closeto or has reached the end of its serviceable life. The following chart is a summary of all of the district’s

facilities by FCI. The one school that falls in the 70-79 percent range is Pease Elementary, a historic

location celebrated as the longest operating public school in the state.

FCI Campuses

<10% 18

10-19% 35

20-29% 30

30-39% 31

40-49% 9

50-59% 2

60-69% -

70-79% 1

Repair

Renovate

Replace

AISD School/Facility FCI Summary Total minus NC

Priorities 1-5 and Some ADA

No. Campus Name

Grades

Served Age Site Priority 1 Priority 2

Total Priority

1 a nd 2 P ri or it y 3 P rio rit y 4 P ri or it y 5

Total Facility

Condition

Cost

FCI Related

Facility Cost

Total

Replacement

Cost FCI

Functional

Equity

Educational

Adequacy

Elementary Schools

142 Allan Element ary Schoo l PK-5 1957 19.5 1,254,683$ 1,688,882$ 2,943,565$ 6,645,881$ 558,919$ 1,074,557$ 11,222,922$ 10,148,366$ 33,497,560$ 30.3% 1,030,588$ 1,511,428$

101 Allison Element ary School PK-6 1955 10.7 173,617$ 1,354,132$ 1,527,749$ 2,450,503$ 210,014$ 10,288$ 4,198,553$ 4,188,265$ 20,556,998$ 20.4% -$ 907,125$

102 Andrews Elem entar y S cho ol PK-5 1962 7.7 573,941$ 2,633,109$ 3,207,050$ 3,502,631$ 190,659$ 1,517,264$ 8,417,604$ 6,737,774$ 21,020,456$ 32.1% 1,453,514$ 1,030,292$

187 Baldwin Elementary School PK-5 2010 0.0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$

182 Bara noff Elem enta ry S chool K-5 1999 15.6 197,873$ 531,250$ 729,123$ 1,814,399$ 277,997$ 121,554$ 2,943,072$ 2,821,518$ 25,651,479$ 11.0% -$ 1,069,123$

149 B arr ingt on Elem enta ry S chool PK-6 1969 12.1 329,948$ 476,461$ 806,409$ 5,220,479$ 311,342$ 2,708,483$ 9,046,714$ 6,338,231$ 29,888,351$ 21.2% 2,688,134$ 1,146,187$

1 03 B ar to n H il ls E le me nt ar y S ch oo l K -6 1 964 9 .9 1 ,0 22 ,2 69$ 236,671$ 1,258,939$ 2,637,192$ 447,186$ 2,391$ 4,345,708$ 4,343,317$ 14,588,847$ 29.8% -$ 439,914$

104 B k El t S h l PK 5 1936 3 7 1 114 902$ 2 117 554$ 3 232 456$ 3 621 985$ 252 949$ 118 363$ 7 225 752$ 7 107 389$ 18 663 896$ 38 1% $ 977 746$

EXHIBIT "B"



104 Becker Element ary School PK-5 1936 3.7 1,114,902$ 2,117,554$ 3,232,456$ 3,621,985$ 252,949$ 118,363$ 7,225,752$ 7,107,389$ 18,663,896$ 38.1% -$ 977,746$

105 B lackshear Element ar y S cho ol PK-5 1937 5.3 188,148$ 2,178,265$ 2,366,412$ 4,202,512$ 796,536$ 58,019$ 7,423,480$ 7,365,461$ 21,038,900$ 35.0% -$ 705,474$

106 Blanton Elementary School PK-5 1964 8.0 642,778$ 1,082,233$ 1,725,011$ 2,850,419$ 230,709$ 59,146$ 4,865,285$ 4,806,139$ 24,561,843$ 19.6% -$ 1,313,917$

185 Blazier Elementa ry School PK-5 2008 15.4 136,781$ 177,879$ 314,660$ 897,555$ 205,711$ -$ 1,417,926$ 1,417,926$ 27,857,817$ 5.1% -$ 978,883$

170 Boone Elementary School PK-5 1986 12.5 489,966$ 135,370$ 625,336$ 2,854,265$ 348,141$ 318,391$ 4,146,133$ 3,827,742$ 21,920,602$ 17.5% -$ 991,368$

107 B rent woo d Elem entar y S chool PK-5 1951 16.7 286,613$ 693,809$ 980,422$ 3,381,304$ 190,212$ 1,625,875$ 6,177,813$ 4,551,938$ 19,622,049$ 23.2% 1,622,094$ 973,002$

108 Brooke Elementary School PK-5 1954 5.9 466,533$ 728,683$ 1,195,217$ 2,708,300$ 262,136$ 37,886$ 4,203,538$ 4,165,652$ 16,699,995$ 24.9% -$ 888,465$

109 Brown Elementa ry School PK-6 1957 10.1 1,580,199$ 1,153,153$ 2,733,352$ 1,909,309$ 635,293$ 2,665,997$ 7,943,951$ 5,277,954$ 18,761,168$ 28.1% 2,663,484$ 801,611$

1 10 B ry ke r W oo ds E le me nt ar y S ch oo l K -6 1 939 6 .3 1 89 ,4 11$ 1,119,527$ 1,308,938$ 2,979,081$ 348,606$ 44,654$ 4,681,279$ 4,636,625$ 13,901,689$ 33.4% -$ 863,756$

111 Cam pbell Elem entar y S chool PK-5 1992 9.7 311,592$ 379,698$ 691,291$ 3,030,703$ 197,160$ 377,355$ 4,296,509$ 3,919,154$ 18,838,511$ 20.8% -$ 766,024$

173 Casey Elementary School PK-5 1998 17.9 332,832$ 218,621$ 551,453$ 1,280,715$ 2,281,070$ 78,748$ 4,191,986$ 4,113,238$ 24,702,547$ 16.7% -$ 930,563$

112 Casis Elementary School PK-5 1951 14.2 280,022$ 632,024$ 912,046$ 3,096,268$ 731,873$ 60,579$ 4,800,767$ 4,740,187$ 27,288,458$ 17.4% -$ 1,460,287$

184 Clayton Elementary School K-5 2006 16.8 136,427$ 382,446$ 518,872$ 1,142,866$ 215,392$ -$ 1,877,130$ 1,877,130$ 31,551,211$ 5.9% -$ 1,404,862$

161 Cook Elementary School K-5 1974 12.7 847,723$ 3,046,998$ 3,894,721$ 2,836,484$ 275,616$ 3,529,726$ 10,536,548$ 7,006,822$ 25,515,832$ 27.5% 3,472,684$ 1,093,546$

183 Cowan Elementary School PK-5 1999 22.5 441,004$ 282,482$ 723,486$ 1,163,772$ 269,668$ 287,289$ 2,444,215$ 2,156,926$ 23,634,032$ 9.1% -$ 1,007,303$

113 C unningham Elem ent ar y S cho ol PK-5 1963 8.8 174,656$ 203,988$ 378,644$ 8,662,602$ 475,256$ 3,523,663$ 13,040,166$ 9,488,259$ 27,695,695$ 34.3% 3,471,761$ 1,336,362$

179 Davis Elementary School PK-5 1993 13.2 375,946$ 245,779$ 621,725$ 4,466,364$ 242,164$ 172,691$ 5,502,944$ 5,330,253$ 22,832,945$ 23.3% -$ 1,062,050$

114 Dawson Elementary School PK-5 1954 8.7 825,023$ 1,788,448$ 2,613,471$ 2,164,807$ 124,053$ 1,374,936$ 6,277,266$ 4,902,331$ 18,054,973$ 27.2% 1,332,942$ 812,429$

154 Doss Elementary School PK-5 1970 9.7 277,493$ 1,753,192$ 2,030,684$ 3,366,419$ 262,383$ 585,467$ 6,244,954$ 5,659,486$ 21,571,372$ 26.2% 548,668$ 867,630$

176 Ga lindo Elementa ry School PK-5 1989 10.8 718,525$ 472,173$ 1,190,697$ 1,724,238$ 237,955$ 162,944$ 3,315,834$ 3,152,890$ 27,712,949$ 11.4% -$ 1,255,082$

116 Govalle Elementary School PK-5 1940 8.4 340,133$ 1,139,527$ 1,479,660$ 4,269,803$ 1,386,730$ 3,711,107$ 10,847,299$ 7,136,192$ 23,095,017$ 30.9% 3,614,398$ 935,305$

159 Graham Elementary School PK-5 1972 9.9 776,380$ 3,942,191$ 4,718,571$ 2,175,356$ 462,863$ 145,540$ 7,502,330$ 7,356,790$ 24,196,550$ 30.4% -$ 874,097$

117 Gullett Elementary School K-5 1956 17.9 296,279$ 477,899$ 774,178$ 3,404,040$ 278,491$ 5,578,522$ 10,035,231$ 4,456,709$ 15,275,706$ 29.2% 5,538,153$ 1,100,391$

118 Harris Elementary School PK-5 1955 7.3 168,662$ 462,786$ 631,447$ 3,593,988$ 351,166$ 26,321$ 4,602,922$ 4,576,600$ 21,247,129$ 21.5% -$ 1,301,321$

163 Hart Elementary School PK-5 1998 15.7 440,103$ 429,303$ 869,405$ 1,705,738$ 330,538$ 150,402$ 3,056,083$ 2,905,681$ 28,219,837$ 10.3% -$ 1,071,119$

1 19 H i gh la nd P ar k El em en ta ry S ch oo l K -5 1 952 6 .3 3 78 ,5 90$ 549,487$ 928,077$ 5,117,848$ 220,844$ 2,357,371$ 8,624,139$ 6,266,769$ 20,158,386$ 31.1% 2,314,969$ 1,112,435$

155 Hill Elementary School PK-5 1970 8.9 369,298$ 762,743$ 1,132,041$ 4,753,883$ 395,173$ 2,849,188$ 9,130,285$ 6,281,096$ 23,453,170$ 26.8% 2,816,276$ 921,105$

162 Houst on El ementa ry School PK-5 1976 13.8 347,984$ 5,056,005$ 5,403,989$ 4,782,952$ 313,940$ 513,050$ 11,013,932$ 10,500,882$ 28,771,349$ 36.5% 452,838$ 1,698,239$

178 Jordan Elementary School PK-5 1992 11.5 344,244$ 526,308$ 870,552$ 4,497,788$ 305,917$ 366,415$ 6,040,673$ 5,674,257$ 25,804,974$ 22.0% -$ 1,294,151$

120 Joslin Elementary School PK-5 1954 5.1 365,427$ 1,658,814$ 2,024,241$ 3,828,081$ 489,316$ 1,761,730$ 8,103,367$ 6,341,638$ 15,618,987$ 40.6% 1,726,417$ 905,386$

180 Kiker Elementary School K-5 1992 12.4 465,453$ 285,692$ 751,145$ 3,481,469$ 231,480$ 270,058$ 4,734,153$ 4,464,095$ 27,275,667$ 16.4% -$ 945,244$

172 Kocurek Element ary Schoo l PK-5 1986 12.3 276,757$ 739,213$ 1,015,969$ 4,710,718$ 337,850$ 84,409$ 6,148,946$ 6,064,538$ 23,816,680$ 25.5% -$ 1,239,761$

168 La ngfor d Elem entar y S cho ol PK-5 1980 10.7 543,183$ 5,823,122$ 6,366,305$ 2,847,265$ 293,128$ 600,073$ 10,106,772$ 9,506,698$ 28,303,131$ 33.6% -$ 1,519,228$

121 Lee Elementary School K-6 1939 4.8 426,784$ 1,565,236$ 1,992,020$ 3,564,212$ 200,247$ 36,675$ 5,793,153$ 5,756,478$ 13,990,931$ 41.1% -$ 1,268,395$

160 Linder Elementary School PK-5 1972 9.1 170,717$ 1,486,942$ 1,657,659$ 3,064,256$ 373,892$ 5,824,800$ 10,920,607$ 5,095,807$ 25,625,896$ 19.9% 5,754,971$ 876,187$

131 Lucy Read Pre-K School PK 1961 9.9 191,332$ 843,430$ 1,034,762$ 1,221,125$ 154,414$ 9,470$ 2,419,771$ 2,410,301$ 21,971,173$ 11.0% -$ 715,064$

1 22 M ap le wo od E le me nt ar y S ch oo l P K- 6 1 951 6 .4 1 ,6 30 ,2 35$ 367,527$ 1,997,762$ 3,955,287$ 119,540$ 2,005,569$ 8,078,158$ 6,072,588$ 16,243,675$ 37.4% 1,958,007$ 648,571$

123 Ma thews Elem enta ry S chool PK-6 1916 2.3 103,898$ 1,407,923$ 1,511,822$ 2,537,969$ 285,980$ 2,282,922$ 6,618,692$ 4,335,770$ 13,897,228$ 31.2% 2,258,699$ 841,669$

165 McBee Elementary School K-5 1999 10.9 237,524$ 319,343$ 556,867$ 1,036,048$ 242,383$ 57,384$ 1,892,682$ 1,835,298$ 23,236,719$ 7.9% -$ 883,087$

Page 198



No. Campus Name

Grades

Served Age Site Priority 1 Priority 2

Total Priority

1 a nd 2 P ri or it y 3 P rio rit y 4 P ri or it y 5

Total Facility

Condition

Cost

FCI Related

Facility Cost

Total

Replacement

Cost FCI

Functional

Equity

Educational

Adequacy

147 M enchaca Element ary S choo l PK-5 1975 19.8 237,446$ 4,313,709$ 4,551,155$ 2,516,965$ 693,652$ 82,611$ 7,844,383$ 7,761,772$ 21,040,089$ 36.9% -$ 1,093,862$

124 Metz Elementary School PK-5 1993 6.4 245,693$ 2,198,147$ 2,443,840$ 3,224,075$ 239,898$ 213,073$ 6,120,886$ 5,907,813$ 19,328,741$ 30.6% -$ 958,961$

181 Mills Elementary School PK-5 1998 10.7 254,583$ 438,024$ 692,608$ 2,241,637$ 604,743$ 163,005$ 3,701,993$ 3,538,989$ 27,859,900$ 12.7% -$ 1,316,271$

150 No rma n Elem entar y S cho ol PK-5 1970 10.2 491,997$ 1,618,873$ 2,110,870$ 3,488,359$ 249,133$ 1,961,658$ 7,810,019$ 5,819,127$ 17,864,592$ 32.6% 1,896,243$ 880,325$

148 O ak Hill Elementa ry School PK-5 1974 13.7 577,910$ 2,562,750$ 3,140,659$ 5,082,614$ 417,412$ 46,822$ 8,687,508$ 8,640,685$ 25,741,908$ 33.6% -$ 1,650,197$

125 Oak Spr ings Elementa ry School PK-5 1958 8.6 436,196$ 1,544,778$ 1,980,974$ 1,913,526$ 218,887$ 30,328$ 4,143,715$ 4,113,386$ 15,839,115$ 26.0% -$ 712,476$

156 Odom Elementary School PK-5 1970 8.6 314,793$ 555,080$ 869,872$ 3,051,516$ 304,204$ 75,095$ 4,300,687$ 4,225,593$ 22,017,089$ 19.2% -$ 783,022$

126 Ortega Elementary School PK-5 1959 7.4 554,133$ 2,585,580$ 3,139,712$ 2,666,838$ 188,616$ 55,295$ 6,050,462$ 5,995,167$ 14,984,780$ 40.0% -$ 794,706$

189 Ove rto n Elem entar y S cho ol PK-5 2007 70.4 129,148$ 222,703$ 351,852$ 812,642$ 285,677$ -$ 1,450,171$ 1,450,171$ 30,773,624$ 4.7% -$ 1,014,803$

EXHIBIT "B"



171 Palm Elementary School PK-5 1987 13.2 326,618$ 355,630$ 682,248$ 1,716,073$ 302,890$ 156,623$ 2,857,834$ 2,701,211$ 24,438,393$ 11.1% -$ 1,129,509$

143 Patton Elementary School PK-5 1986 24.1 553,125$ 1,351,958$ 1,905,083$ 2,641,513$ 172,467$ 309,114$ 5,028,177$ 4,719,062$ 26,010,525$ 18.1% -$ 969,016$

128 Pease Elementary School K-6 1876 2.8 366,438$ 2,838,820$ 3,205,258$ 4,030,819$ 795,232$ 51,831$ 8,083,139$ 8,031,308$ 10,597,089$ 75.8% -$ 743,252$

1 29 P ec an S pr ing s El em en ta ry S ch oo l P K- 5 1 957 7 .6 2 04 ,1 13$ 354,593$ 558,706$ 5,221,971$ 1,542,355$ 90,134$ 7,413,166$ 7,323,032$ 19,694,928$ 37.2% -$ 1,346,708$

190 Perez Elem enta ry S chool PK-5 2006 28.0 1,206,199$ 216,162$ 1,422,361$ 1,028,182$ 150,809$ -$ 2,601,352$ 2,601,352$ 29,028,065$ 9.0% -$ 1,027,736$

164 Pickle Elementary School PK-5 2001 17.5 267,092$ 283,194$ 550,286$ 1,241,301$ 347,992$ 116,853$ 2,256,432$ 2,139,580$ 37,780,539$ 5.7% -$ 1,225,897$

151 Pillow Elementary School PK-5 1969 10.0 223,451$ 347,521$ 570,972$ 7,437,607$ 293,128$ 2,716,120$ 11,017,828$ 8,301,708$ 19,335,286$ 42.9% 2,695,012$ 1,237,573$

1 30 P le as ant H il l E le me nt ar y S ch oo l P K- 5 1 985 1 0. 1 3 38 ,9 74$ 421,776$ 760,750$ 3,408,419$ 101,031$ 473,908$ 4,744,109$ 4,270,200$ 21,837,014$ 19.6% 367,071$ 767,791$

132 Reilly Elementary School PK-5 1954 10.8 397,166$ 785,780$ 1,182,946$ 2,658,687$ 203,051$ 11,517$ 4,056,202$ 4,044,685$ 14,216,116$ 28.5% -$ 623,670$

133 Ridget op Element ary Schoo l PK-5 1939 5.0 165,485$ 1,164,852$ 1,330,337$ 1,527,895$ 899,377$ 22,541$ 3,780,150$ 3,757,609$ 11,956,232$ 31.4% -$ 492,082$

174 R odr iguez Element ary Schoo l PK-5 1999 15.0 229,804$ 335,591$ 565,395$ 1,437,448$ 305,732$ 64,181$ 2,372,756$ 2,308,575$ 28,810,020$ 8.0% -$ 1,238,887$

127 Sanchez Elementary School PK-5 1976 9.2 169,463$ 3,527,025$ 3,696,487$ 2,600,313$ 340,250$ 2,934,744$ 9,571,794$ 6,637,050$ 25,069,329$ 26.5% 2,843,511$ 1,158,542$

139 Sims Elementary School PK-5 1956 8.4 929,492$ 624,530$ 1,554,022$ 4,091,216$ 273,990$ 868,224$ 6,787,451$ 5,919,228$ 15,016,609$ 39.4% 837,082$ 928,787$

136 S t. Elmo Elementary School PK-5 1960 9.4 516,693$ 681,703$ 1,198,396$ 4,849,681$ 238,602$ 1,342,548$ 7,629,227$ 6,286,679$ 15,255,478$ 41.2% 1,326,203$ 1,045,047$

138 Summit t Element ar y S cho ol PK-5 1986 14.5 459,077$ 411,250$ 870,328$ 5,355,622$ 258,428$ 177,876$ 6,662,254$ 6,484,378$ 25,777,010$ 25.2% -$ 1,075,677$

1 58 S uns et V al le y E le me nt ar y S ch oo l P K- 5 1 971 1 0. 4 1 70 ,7 70$ 2,801,633$ 2,972,404$ 5,549,996$ 235,908$ 2,385,867$ 11,144,175$ 8,758,308$ 20,685,803$ 42.3% 2,339,157$ 1,005,839$

1 40 T ra vi s H ei ght s E le me nt ar y S ch oo l P K- 5 1 938 3 .2 9 64 ,4 51$ 2,480,760$ 3,445,212$ 3,035,427$ 505,213$ 1,545,119$ 8,530,971$ 6,985,852$ 19,096,715$ 36.6% 1,471,609$ 991,804$

1 41 W al nu t C re ek E le me nt ar y S ch oo l K -6 1 961 1 1. 5 3 78 ,3 61$ 1,157,572$ 1,535,934$ 2,650,418$ 199,636$ 10,090$ 4,396,078$ 4,385,988$ 28,685,677$ 15.3% -$ 1,064,371$

175 Widen Elementary School PK-5 1986 10.7 344,749$ 519,889$ 864,638$ 2,387,370$ 207,421$ 244,825$ 3,704,253$ 3,459,428$ 26,737,543$ 12.9% -$ 1,026,980$

166 William s Elem ent ar y S cho ol PK-5 1976 14.0 207,027$ 3,996,735$ 4,203,762$ 3,314,316$ 634,239$ 2,107,462$ 10,259,778$ 8,123,194$ 22,031,262$ 36.9% 2,037,080$ 1,806,830$

157 Winn Elementary School PK-5 1970 10.0 449,115$ 758,666$ 1,207,781$ 2,895,852$ 360,778$ 6,696,886$ 11,161,297$ 4,464,411$ 19,839,796$ 22.5% 6,617,626$ 1,369,856$

152 W ooldr idge Elementa ry School K-5 1969 11.6 681,037$ 1,779,983$ 2,461,020$ 3,258,538$ 345,503$ 3,072$ 6,068,132$ 6,065,060$ 26,329,413$ 23.0% -$ 961,821$

144 Woot en El ementa ry School PK-5 1955 6.7 1,154,161$ 3,089,669$ 4,243,830$ 6,189,133$ 541,732$ 1,429,495$ 12,404,189$ 10,974,694$ 21,453,872$ 51.2% 1,380,857$ 1,403,037$

145 Zavala Elementary School PK-6 1937 3.4 874,332$ 410,359$ 1,284,691$ 5,062,642$ 414,056$ 19,700$ 6,781,088$ 6,761,389$ 20,624,524$ 32.8% -$ 1,032,634$

146 Zilker Elementary School PK-6 1950 11.8 895,527$ 1,978,488$ 2,874,015$ 6,699,936$ 776,182$ 2,565,129$ 12,915,262$ 10,350,133$ 18,351,848$ 56.4% 2,409,599$ 1,023,970$

Page 199



No. Campus Name

Grades

Se rve d Age Site Prior ity 1 Prior ity 2

Total Priority

1 a nd 2 P ri ori ty 3 P ri ori ty 4 P ri or ity 5

Total Facility

Condition Cost

FCI Related

Facility Cost

Total

Replacement

Cost FCI

Functional

Equity

Educational

Adequacy

Middle Schools

059 Bailey Middle School 6-8 1993 41.3 718,590$ 2,307,324$ 3,025,915$ 4,249,984$ 1,260,797$ 175,348$ 8,712,044$ 8,538,264$ 52,022,435$ 16.4% -$ 2,483,427$

054 Bedichek Middle School 6-8 1972 23.3 6,051,876$ 3,947,712$ 9,999,588$ 4,289,394$ 1,517,014$ 13,820,241$ 29,626,237$ 15,805,996$ 51,604,343$ 30.6% 13,761,948$ 2,467,186$

046 Burnet Middle School 6-8 1961 23.7 696,528$ 7,228,821$ 7,925,349$ 8,242,121$ 1,461,392$ 1,228,083$ 18,856,946$ 17,628,862$ 51,140,088$ 34.5% 1,167,871$ 2,786,054$

057 Covington Middle School 6-8 1986 21.3 961,398$ 3,791,641$ 4,753,039$ 5,457,787$ 679,240$ 1,960,490$ 12,850,556$ 10,890,066$ 58,357,322$ 18.7% 1,633,542$ 2,218,938$

055 Dobie Middle School 6-8 1973 20.2 819,317$ 1,032,156$ 1,851,474$ 3,993,260$ 1,153,996$ 6,327,599$ 13,326,328$ 6,998,729$ 46,067,662$ 15.2% 6,294,500$ 2,605,739$

043 Fulmore Middle School 6-8 1911 9.8 1,675,047$ 7,905,746$ 9,580,793$ 11,125,201$ 1,520,831$ 353,775$ 22,580,600$ 22,226,825$ 54,800,107$ 40.6% -$ 1,873,471$

056 Garcia Middle School 6-8 2008 41.3 341,779$ 375,320$ 717,098$ 1,477,213$ 256,690$ -$ 2,451,001$ 2,451,001$ 52,634,348$ 4.7% -$ 1,785,189$

062 Gorzycki Middle School 6-8 2009 14.2 309,464$ 330,542$ 640,006$ 1,551,469$ 435,269$ -$ 2,626,743$ 2,626,743$ 57,473,012$ 4.6% -$ 1,948,774$

044 Kealing Middle School 6-8 1986 13.2 375,942$ 4,974,961$ 5,350,903$ 5,384,570$ 962,232$ 464,321$ 12,162,026$ 11,697,705$ 62,920,315$ 18.6% -$ 2,797,674$

045 Lamar Middle School 6-8 1955 14.3 868,115$ 2,862,857$ 3,730,973$ 3,240,381$ 1,109,337$ 19,344$ 8,100,034$ 7,963,458$ 41,245,693$ 19.3% -$ 2,294,389$

051 Martin Middle School 6-8 1966 9 9 529 628$ 6 008 583$ 6 538 211$ 4 037 673$ 630 629$ 3 297 183$ 14 503 696$ 11 206 513$ 38 873 997$ 28 8% 3 222 769$ 1 488 156$

EXHIBIT "B"



051 Martin Middle School 6 8 1966 9.9 529,628$ 6,008,583$ 6,538,211$ 4,037,673$ 630,629$ 3,297,183$ 14,503,696$ 11,206,513$ 38,873,997$ 28.8% 3,222,769$ 1,488,156$

058 Mendez Middle School 6-8 1987 20.7 1,080,210$ 4,069,741$ 5,149,951$ 3,162,498$ 903,869$ 1,830,512$ 11,046,831$ 9,216,319$ 61,291,493$ 15.0% 1,701,214$ 2,294,128$

052 Murchison Middle School 6-8 1967 26.2 485,127$ 1,623,549$ 2,108,676$ 5,951,701$ 1,040,012$ 8,153,256$ 17,253,644$ 9,100,388$ 45,706,537$ 19.9% 7,989,851$ 1,754,965$

047 O. Henry Middle School 6-8 1953 13.8 287,063$ 788,273$ 1,075,336$ 4,249,201$ 368,706$ 3,270,833$ 8,964,076$ 5,693,243$ 42,714,090$ 13.3% 3,236,248$ 1,604,680$

061 Paredes Middle School 6-8 2000 78.2 639,397$ 655,597$ 1,294,994$ 2,788,004$ 1,505,034$ 274,674$ 5,862,705$ 5,588,032$ 50,694,496$ 11.0% -$ 3,031,743$

048 Pearce Middle School 6-8 1958 14.8 797,160$ 1,469,168$ 2,266,328$ 3,870,033$ 437,683$ 797,883$ 7,371,927$ 6,574,044$ 43,914,998$ 15.0% 770,887$ 1,421,448$

028 Ann Richards School 6-10 1958 15.3 1,751,415$ 2,490,074$ 4,241,489$ 10,459,899$ 775,306$ 126,188$ 15,602,883$ 15,476,695$ 45,071,376$ 34.3% -$ 1,975,612$

060 Small Middle School 6-8 1999 36.5 354,444$ 1,045,835$ 1,400,279$ 1,980,661$ 354,205$ 162,029$ 3,897,174$ 3,735,145$ 54,088,993$ 6.9% -$ 1,928,150$

053 Webb Middle School 6-8 1961 15.6 420,533$ 3,515,438$ 3,935,971$ 3,080,033$ 1,413,498$ 733,661$ 9,163,164$ 8,429,502$ 42,628,637$ 19.8% 703,954$ 2,101,392$

High Schools

017 Akins High School 9-12 2000 57.7 954,259$ 1,208,558$ 2,162,817$ 3,966,511$ 1,452,488$ 134,171$ 7,715,986$ 7,581,815$ 115,209,011$ 6.6% -$ 4,294,809$

009 Anderson High School 9-12 1973 38.8 883,879$ 7,269,324$ 8,153,203$ 9,335,056$ 1,959,665$ 8,421,936$ 27,869,861$ 27,743,960$ 100,442,692$ 27.6% 8,296,036$ 5,596,292$

002 Austin High School 9-12 1975 44.3 1,821,769$ 8,599,187$ 10,420,955$ 17,067,949$ 4,155,102$ 8,187,414$ 39,831,421$ 31,644,007$ 101,704,101$ 31.1% 8,019,994$ 4,786,572$

013 Bowie High School 9-12 1988 66.0 1,142,743$ 13,619,484$ 14,762,227$ 14,517,730$ 15,147,412$ 884,595$ 45,311,964$ 44,427,369$ 141,414,289$ 31.4% -$ 16,682,721$

008 Crockett High School 9-12 1969 39.5 1,822,148$ 10,610,065$ 12,432,213$ 19,394,213$ 3,011,592$ 186,183$ 35,024,201$ 34,838,018$ 111,743,044$ 31.2% -$ 3,899,330$

0 19 E as ts id e M em or ia l H ig h S ch oo ls ( EM HS JC ) 9 -1 2 1 96 0 2 7. 6 3 ,5 10 ,9 42$ 12,123,425$ 15,634,366$ 7,266,111$ 650,888$ 213,544$ 23,764,910$ 23,551,366$ 87,276,402$ 27.0% -$ 2,370,779$

015 Garza Inde pe ndence High Scho ol 11-12 1939 3.1 528,781$ 925,712$ 1,454,494$ 1,791,072$ 516,483$ 198,632$ 3,960,682$ 3,762,050$ 17,523,392$ 21.5% -$ 1,160,890$

029 International High School 9-10 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$

014 Johnson (LBJ) High School 9-12 1974 41.4 1,082,734$ 3,932,853$ 5,015,587$ 7,240,361$ 1,922,200$ 96,326$ 14,274,474$ 14,178,148$ 98,621,982$ 14.4% -$ 3,610,445$

004 Lanier High School 9-12 1966 28.5 1,328,937$ 4,526,958$ 5,855,895$ 12,659,556$ 1,639,563$ 176,389$ 20,331,402$ 20,155,013$ 91,315,888$ 22.1% -$ 3,798,556$

018 LASA 9-12 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$

005 McCallum High School 9-12 1953 31.1 1,149,580$ 3,763,557$ 4,913,137$ 10,864,608$ 1,362,340$ 2,583,395$ 19,723,479$ 17,140,084$ 83,866,651$ 20.4% 2,352,452$ 3,347,251$

006 Reagan High School 9-12 1965 31.8 1,208,310$ 865,508$ 2,073,817$ 12,941,528$ 3,120,501$ 348,003$ 18,483,850$ 18,135,847$ 81,643,031$ 22.2% -$ 5,067,540$

007 Travis High School 9-12 1953 34.8 1,049,482$ 1,617,099$ 2,666,581$ 24,320,432$ 1,903,928$ 870,745$ 29,761,687$ 28,890,942$ 95,250,042$ 30.3% 685,951$ 3,901,369$

Other Facilities

852 Clifton Center Alt. Ed. 1977 7.8 255,304$ 1,789,699$ 2,045,003$ 2,557,341$ 752,437$ 36,615$ 5,391,397$ 5,354,782$ 13,110,071$ 40.8% -$ 1,163,512$

012 Ridgeview ALC 6-12 1953 1 9.8 594,690$ 1,052,657$ 1,647,347$ 7,759,365$ 1,468,980$ 32,018$ 10,907,709$ 10,875,692$ 31,629,925$ 34.4% -$ 843,199$

251 Rosedale School Alt. Ed. 1939 4.9 492,433$ 462,750$ 955,183$ 3,490,585$ 251,739$ 68,255$ 4,765,762$ 4,697,506$ 14,472,614$ 32.5% -$ 777,226$

252 Baker Center 1911 4.8 282,216$ 1,676,261$ 1,958,477$ 1,224,224$ -$ 202,910$ 3,385,610$ 3,182,700$ 18,483,157$ 17.2% -$ -$

951 Burger Athletic Complex 1977 48.1 1,189,463$ 7,099,714$ 8,289,176$ 3,529,618$ 35,546$ 42,012$ 11,896,352$ 11,854,340$ 50,681,646$ 23.4% -$ -$

941 Carruth Administration Center 1991 2.8 180,247$ 903,444$ 1,083,691$ 5,448,615$ 269,285$ -$ 6,801,590$ 6,801,590$ 37,598,528$ 18.1% -$ -$

922 Central Warehouse 1983 18.7 268,665$ 404,270$ 672,935$ 725,905$ -$ 11,195$ 1,410,034$ 1,398,840$ 27,023,496$ 5.2% -$ -$

949 Delco Activity Center 2003 44.1 259,623$ 205,193$ 464,817$ 170,579$ 10,355$ -$ 645,750$ 645,750$ 16,919,044$ 3.8% -$ -$

948 House Park 1936 11.1 137,227$ 70,034$ 207,260$ 730,632$ -$ 157,489$ 1,095,381$ 915,722$ 8,999,133$ 10.2% -$ -$

281 Nelson Field 1963 20.1 422,773$ -$ 422,773$ 1,663,288$ -$ 91,966$ 2,178,027$ 2,086,061$ 16,557,338$ 12.6% -$ -$

959 Nelson Field Bus Terminal 1995 6.6 70,197$ 81,921$ 152,119$ 58,564$ 61,039$ 24,167$ 295,889$ 271,722$ 4,105,030$ 6.6% -$ -$

950 Noack Sports Complex 2004 11.2 126,224$ -$ 126,224$ -$ -$ -$ 126,224$ 126,224$ 906,929$ 13.9% -$ -$

942 Pleasant Hill Annex 1936 2.0 270,019$ 180,761$ 450,779$ 2,381,648$ 94,588$ -$ 2,927,015$ 2,927,015$ 7,228,209$ 40.5% -$ -$

960 Saegert Transportation 1975 10.6 128,439$ 185,122$ 313,561$ 1,456,374$ 172,306$ 28,659$ 1,970,900$ 1,942,241$ 7,983,889$ 24.3% -$ -$

962 Se rvice Ce nter - Building & Grounds 1991 16.7 170,528$ 209,015$ 379,543$ 1,102,379$ 44,245$ 135,726$ 1,661,892$ 1,526,167$ 15,239,037$ 10.0% -$ 15,999$

Total 77,451,146$ 242,076,008$ 319,527,153$ 0 522,702,751$ 88,789,541$ 144,246,781$ 1,075,266,227$ 0 938,928,480$ 4,112,139,818$ 22.8% 130,776,864$ 184,824,729$

Page 200

A list of the FCIs for all AISD campuses and their replacement cost is shown in the following table.

S S / i i C S

EXHIBIT "B"



AISD School/Facility FCI Summary

No. Campus Name Total Area

Total Facility

Condition Cost

FCI Related

Facility Cost

Total Replacement

Cost FCI

Pre-K

131 Lucy Read Pre-K School 73,860 2,355,781$ 2,346,311$ 21,971,173$ 10.7%

Elementary Schools

101 Allison Elementary School 69,106 4,089,675$ 4,079,387$ 20,556,998$ 19.8%

102 Andrews Elementary School 69,128 7,599,425$ 6,064,356$ 20,563,542$ 29.5%

103 Barton Hills Elementary School 49,043 4,894,150$ 4,879,804$ 14,588,847$ 33.4%

104 Becker Elementary School 62,742 7,036,234$ 6,917,872$ 18,663,896$ 37.1%

105 Blackshear Elementary School 70,726 7,349,617$ 7,291,599$ 21,038,900$ 34.7%

106 Blanton Elementary School 81,033 5,068,277$ 5,009,131$ 24,104,928$ 20.8%

107 Brentwood Elementary School 65,963 5,994,554$ 4,551,938$ 19,622,049$ 23.2%

108 Brooke Elementary School 56,140 5,477,387$ 5,439,501$ 16,699,995$ 32.6%

109 Brown Elementary School 58,523 8,933,788$ 6,267,791$ 17,408,867$ 36.0%

110 Bryker Woods Elementary School 45,197 4,636,795$ 4,592,141$ 13,444,775$ 34.2%

111 Campbell Elementary School 63,329 4,294,266$ 3,916,911$ 18,838,511$ 20.8%

112 Casis Elementary School 91,735 4,800,432$ 4,739,853$ 27,288,458$ 17.4%

113 Cunningham Elementary School 77,744 12,674,635$ 9,122,729$ 23,126,547$ 39.4%

114 Dawson Elementary School 60,695 6,110,749$ 4,870,418$ 18,054,973$ 27.0%

116 Govalle Elementary School 77,638 11,910,197$ 8,328,341$ 23,095,017$ 36.1%

117 Gullett Elementary School 51,352 8,464,128$ 4,645,259$ 15,275,706$ 30.4%

118 Harris Elementary School 66,818 4,751,949$ 4,725,627$ 19,876,385$ 23.8%

119 Highland Park Elementary School 67,766 10,584,925$ 8,342,957$ 20,158,386$ 41.4%

120 Joslin Elementary School 52,506 8,466,116$ 6,889,953$ 15,618,987$ 44.1%

121 Lee Elementary School 47,033 5,737,368$ 5,700,693$ 13,990,931$ 40.7%

122 Maplewood Elementary School 54,606 7,376,745$ 5,936,739$ 16,243,675$ 36.5%

123 Mathews Elementary School 45,182 6,508,124$ 4,275,795$ 13,440,313$ 31.8%

124 Metz Elementary School 64,977 5,914,131$ 5,701,058$ 19,328,741$ 29.5%



EXHIBIT "B"



Appendix B Facility Capacity Charts and

Population Updates

Page 202

LOC Elementary

Permanent

Capacity

2010

Enrollment

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Enroll.

2009-10

Population

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Pop.

Classroom

Count

Special

Rooms

(ES Only)

Average

Students

per

Classroom

Efficiency

Factor

Classroom

Capacity

Café Area

(SF)

4.77 SF per

student

Capacity

based on

Café Size

Café /

Classroom

Gym Area

(SF)

3.41 SF per

student

Capacity

based on

Gym Size

Gym /

Classroom

Library

Area (SF)

3.98 SF per

student

Capacity

based on

Library Size

Library /

Classroom

142 Allan 673 379 56% 357 53% 42 6 22 85% 673 5,483 4.77 1 ,1 49 1 71 % 6,160 3.41 1 ,8 06 2 68 % 6,704 3.98 1 ,6 85 2 50 %

101 Allison 486 543 112% 536 110% 30 4 22 85% 486 3,513 4.77 736 151% 2,972 3.41 871 179% 3,636 3.98 914 188%

102 Andrews 486 717 147% 604 124% 31 5 22 85% 486 3,361 4.77 705 145% 3,192 3.41 936 192% 2,217 3.98 557 115%

187 Baldwin 669 508 76% 488 73% 38 6 22 95% 669 4,507 4.77 945 141% 3,183 3.41 933 140% 3,598 3.98 904 135%

182 Baranoff 794 876 110% 881 111% 44 6 22 95% 794 3,845 4.77 806 102% 2,878 3.41 844 106% 2,850 3.98 716 90%

149 Barrington 556 996 179% 909 163% 41 6 22 85% 655 2,574 4.77 540 82% 2,558 3.41 750 115% 2,642 3.98 664 101%

103 Barton Hills 251 386 154% 184 73% 14 2 22 95% 251 2,707 4.77 567 226% 2,329 3.41 683 272% 2,834 3.98 712 284%

104 Becker 524 208 40% 214 4 1% 33 5 22 85% 524 3,337 4.77 700 134% 3,403 3.41 998 191% 2,116 3.98 532 102%

105 Blackshear 598 244 41% 255 43% 37 5 22 85% 598 3,117 4.77 653 109% 3,054 3.41 896 150% 2,246 3.98 564 94%

106 Blanton 636 591 93% 667 105% 40 6 22 85% 636 3,052 4.77 640 101% 2,531 3.41 742 117% 2,723 3.98 684 108%

185 Blazier 598 775 130% 827 138% 38 6 22 85% 598 5,258 4.77 1,102 184% 3,203 3.41 939 157% 3,480 3.98 874 146%

170 Boone 752 501 67% 496 6 6% 42 6 22 95% 752 4,052 4.77 850 113% 2,887 3.41 847 113% 3,384 3.98 850 113%

107 Brentwood 585 495 85% 419 72% 33 5 22 95% 585 2,468 4.77 517 88% 2,447 3.41 718 123% 3,078 3.98 773 132%

Classroom Capacity

Cafeteria = 4,200 SF / 880 Students

4.77 SF per Student

Gym = 3,000 SF / 880 Students

3.41 SF per Student

Library = 3,500 SF / 880 Students

3.98 SF per Student

EXHIBIT "B"



108 Brooke 430 439 102% 449 104% 27 4 22 85% 430 2,363 4.77 495 115% 2,328 3.41 683 159% 2,743 3.98 689 160%

109 Brown 468 519 111% 480 103% 29 4 22 85% 468 3,944 4.77 827 177% 2,426 3.41 712 152% 3,139 3.98 789 169%

110 Bryker Woods 272 404 149% 283 104% 16 3 22 95% 272 2,296 4.77 481 177% 2,987 3.41 876 322% 2,307 3.98 580 213%

111 Campbell 524 360 69% 377 72% 33 5 22 85% 524 4,129 4.77 866 165% 3,030 3.41 889 170% 2,777 3.98 698 133%

173 Casey 711 669 94% 652 9 2% 44 6 22 85% 711 4,425 4.77 928 131% 3,055 3.41 896 126% 2,757 3.98 693 97%

112 Casis 669 825 123% 729 109% 38 6 22 95% 669 3,962 4.77 831 124% 2,588 3.41 759 113% 3,736 3.98 939 140%

184 Clayton 836 867 104% 734 88% 47 7 22 95% 836 4,282 4.77 898 107% 3,025 3.41 887 106% 3,576 3.98 898 107%

161 Cook 561 901 161% 1,173 209% 35 5 22 85% 561 3,242 4.77 680 121% 2,365 3.41 694 124% 3,375 3.98 848 151%

183 Cowan 669 783 117% 678 101% 37 5 22 95% 669 4,060 4.77 851 127% 2,985 3.41 875 131% 2,968 3.98 746 111%

113 Cunningham 627 512 82% 632 101% 35 5 22 95% 627 3,363 4.77 705 112% 2,518 3.41 738 118% 3,091 3.98 777 124%

179 Davis 731 683 93% 675 92% 41 6 22 95% 731 3,995 4.77 837 114% 3,047 3.41 894 122% 2,848 3.98 716 98%

114 Dawson 505 331 6 6% 279 55% 32 5 22 85% 505 2,470 4.77 518 103% 2,338 3.41 686 136% 2,121 3.98 533 106%

154 Doss 543 768 141% 679 125% 30 4 22 95% 543 4,623 4.77 969 178% 3,027 3.41 888 163% 2,925 3.98 735 135%

176 Galindo 711 704 99% 715 101% 44 6 22 85% 711 4,287 4.77 899 126% 3,041 3.41 892 125% 3,545 3.98 891 125%

116 Govalle 598 415 69% 450 75% 37 5 22 85% 598 3,570 4.77 749 125% 2,301 3.41 675 113% 2,225 3.98 559 93%

159 Graham 598 761 127% 759 127% 38 6 22 85% 598 4,280 4.77 897 150% 3,217 3.41 943 158% 3,068 3.98 771 129%

117 Gullett 418 541 129% 340 81% 24 4 22 95% 418 2,195 4.77 460 110% 2,401 3.41 704 168% 2,434 3.98 612 146%

118 Harris 542 758 140% 793 146% 34 5 22 85% 542 3,408 4.77 714 132% 2,267 3.41 665 123% 2,594 3.98 652 120%

163 Hart 711 898 126% 865 122% 44 6 22 85% 711 3,667 4.77 769 108% 3,040 3.41 892 125% 2,848 3.98 716 101%

119 Highland Park 585 662 113% 567 97% 33 5 22 95% 585 2,469 4.77 518 88% 2,514 3.41 737 126% 1,951 3.98 490 84%

155 Hill 627 732 117% 677 108% 35 5 22 95% 627 2,723 4.77 571 91% 2,456 3.41 720 115% 3,357 3.98 844 135%

162 Houston 692 915 132% 911 132% 43 6 22 85% 692 4,951 4.77 1 ,0 38 1 50 % 3,483 3.41 1 ,0 21 1 48 % 3,645 3.98 916 132%

178 Jordan 655 833 127% 672 103% 41 6 22 85% 655 4,159 4.77 872 133% 2,997 3.41 879 134% 2,807 3.98 705 108%

120 Joslin 374 363 97% 314 84% 24 4 22 85% 374 3,595 4.77 754 202% 2,375 3.41 696 186% 2,080 3.98 523 140%

180 Kiker 752 933 124% 866 115% 42 6 22 95% 752 3,779 4.77 792 105% 3,211 3.41 942 125% 2,782 3.98 699 93%

172 Kocurek 673 660 98% 676 100% 42 6 22 85% 673 4,292 4.77 900 134% 2,962 3.41 869 129% 3,561 3.98 895 133%168 Langford 692 834 121% 914 132% 43 6 22 85% 692 2,881 4.77 604 87% 2,579 3.41 756 109% 2,519 3.98 633 91%

121 Lee 418 428 102% 293 70% 24 4 22 95% 418 2,059 4.77 432 103% 2,238 3.41 656 157% 2,647 3.98 665 159%

160 Linder 542 892 164% 906 167% 34 5 22 85% 542 2,738 4.77 574 106% 2,507 3.41 735 136% 2,322 3.98 584 108%

122 Maplewood 355 406 114% 302 85% 20 3 22 95% 355 2,470 4.77 518 146% 2,447 3.41 718 202% 1,941 3.98 488 137%

123 Mathews 397 405 102% 299 75% 23 4 22 95% 397 1,906 4.77 400 101% 2,377 3.41 697 176% 2,278 3.98 572 144%

165 McBee 580 765 132% 1,026 177% 36 5 22 85% 580 5,127 4.77 1 ,0 75 1 85 % 3,045 3.41 893 154% 2,852 3.98 717 124%

147 Menchaca 606 686 113% 702 116% 34 5 22 95% 606 3,572 4.77 749 124% 2,501 3.41 734 121% 2,442 3.98 614 101%

124 Metz 542 498 92% 481 89% 34 5 22 85% 542 4,045 4.77 848 156% 3,013 3.41 884 163% 2,816 3.98 708 130%

181 Mills 794 928 117% 860 108% 44 6 22 95% 794 3,759 4.77 788 99% 3,052 3.41 895 113% 2,747 3.98 690 87%

150 Norman 486 333 6 8% 380 78% 30 4 22 85% 486 2,876 4.77 603 124% 2,259 3.41 662 136% 2,647 3.98 665 137%

148 Oak Hill 773 772 100% 783 101% 43 6 22 95% 773 4,567 4.77 957 124% 3,393 3.41 995 129% 3,330 3.98 837 108%

125 Oak Springs 411 274 67% 336 82% 26 4 22 85% 411 2,086 4.77 437 106% 2,985 3.41 875 213% 2,130 3.98 535 130%

156 Odom 542 658 121% 740 136% 34 5 22 85% 542 2,643 4.77 554 102% 2,421 3.41 710 131% 2,877 3.98 723 133%

126 Ortega 374 296 79% 263 70% 24 4 22 85% 374 2,734 4.77 573 153% 2,323 3.41 681 182% 1,468 3.98 369 99%

189 Overton 617 668 108% 904 146% 39 6 22 85% 617 4,148 4.77 870 141% 7,853 3.41 2 ,3 03 3 73 % 3,560 3.98 894 145%

171 Palm 673 606 90% 687 102% 42 6 22 85% 673 4,189 4.77 878 130% 3,075 3.41 902 134% 3,757 3.98 944 140%

143 Patton 773 914 118% 894 116% 43 6 22 95% 773 4,849 4.77 1 ,0 17 1 31 % 3,067 3.41 899 116% 3,542 3.98 890 115%

128 Pease 293 256 87% 0 0% 17 3 22 95% 293 1,307 4.77 274 94% 2,995 3.41 878 300% 1,468 3.98 369 126%

129 Pecan Springs 486 532 109% 520 107% 30 4 22 85% 486 3,220 4.77 675 139% 2,412 3.41 707 146% 2,986 3.98 750 154%

190 Perez 598 886 148% 864 144% 37 5 22 85% 598 4,158 4.77 872 146% 3,295 3.41 966 161% 3,467 3.98 871 146%

164 Pickle 617 740 120% 618 100% 39 6 22 85% 617 4,363 4.77 915 148% 9,153 3.41 2 ,6 84 4 35 % 2,882 3.98 724 117%

151 Pillow 522 653 125% 617 118% 29 4 22 95% 522 2,761 4.77 579 111% 3,069 3.41 900 172% 2,282 3.98 573 110%

130 Pleasant Hill 524 619 118% 662 126% 33 5 22 85% 524 3,991 4.77 837 160% 3,022 3.41 886 169% 3,546 3.98 891 170%131 Read Pre-K 393 509 129% 0 0% 23 - 18 95% 393 2,982 4.77 625 159% NA 3.41 NA NA 2,148 3.98 540 137%

132 Reilly 318 296 93% 342 108% 20 3 22 85% 318 2,287 4.77 479 151% 2,398 3.41 703 221% 1,637 3.98 411 129%

133 Ridgetop 206 219 106% 123 60% 13 2 22 85% 206 2,309 4.77 484 235% 2,336 3.41 685 333% 1,762 3.98 443 215%

Page 203

174 Rodriguez 711 910 1 28% 1,044 1 47% 44 6 22 85% 711 3,714 4.77 779 110% 3,056 3.41 896 126% 2,818 3.98 708 100%

127 Sanchez 580 585 101% 564 97% 36 5 22 85% 580 2,959 4.77 620 107% 2,399 3.41 704 121% 3,028 3.98 761 131%

139 Sims 355 277 78% 366 103% 22 3 22 85% 355 2,599 4.77 545 153% 2,484 3.41 728 205% 2,625 3.98 660 186%

136 St. Elmo 411 304 74% 407 99% 26 4 22 85% 411 2,825 4.77 592 144% 2,259 3.41 662 161% 3,149 3.98 791 192%

138 Summitt 731 854 117% 572 78% 41 6 22 95% 731 3,683 4.77 772 106% 3,064 3.41 898 123% 4,017 3.98 1 ,0 09 1 38 %

158 Sunset Valley 561 451 80% 494 88% 35 5 22 85% 561 2,987 4.77 626 112% 2,376 3.41 697 124% 2,952 3.98 742 132%

140 Travis Heights 486 537 110% 556 114% 31 5 22 85% 486 2,992 4.77 627 129% 2,812 3.41 825 170% 1,962 3.98 493 101%

141 Walnut Creek 655 916 140% 918 140% 41 6 22 85% 655 4,721 4.77 990 151% 2,638 3.41 773 118% 3,706 3.98 931 142%

175 Widen 673 769 114% 834 124% 42 6 22 85% 673 3,851 4.77 807 120% 3,051 3.41 895 133% 3,363 3.98 845 126%

166 Williams 561 642 114% 728 130% 35 5 22 85% 561 3,040 4.77 637 114% 2,500 3.41 733 131% 2,923 3.98 734 131%

157 Winn 524 463 88% 601 115% 33 5 22 85% 524 2,565 4.77 538 103% 2,322 3.41 681 130% 2,348 3.98 590 113%

152 Wooldridge 524 878 1 68% 1,096 209% 33 5 22 85% 524 4,120 4.77 864 165% 2,580 3.41 757 145% 2,319 3.98 583 111%

144 Wooten 468 695 149% 740 158% 29 4 22 85% 468 3,534 4.77 741 158% 2,534 3.41 743 159% 3,036 3.98 763 163%

145 Zavala 580 407 7 0% 339 58% 36 5 22 85% 580 2,618 4.77 549 95% 2,740 3.41 804 139% 2,714 3.98 682 118%

146 Zilker 460 522 114% 329 7 2% 26 4 22 95% 460 2,894 4.77 607 132% 2,217 3.41 650 141% 2,703 3.98 679 148%

44,905 4 8,738 47,366

ClassroomCapacity

Cafeteria = 4,500 SF / 1,100 Students

4 10 SF per Student

Gym = 13,400 SF / 1,100 Students

12 18 SF per Student

Library = 4,800 SF / 1,100 Students

4 36 SF per Student

EXHIBIT "B"



LOC Middle

Permanent

Capacity

2010

Enrollment

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Enroll.

2009-10

Population

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Pop.

Classroom

Count

Special

Rooms

(ES Only)

Average

Students

per

Classroom

Efficiency

Factor

Classroom

Capacity

Café Area

(SF)

4.10 SF per

student

Capacity

based on

Café Size

Café /

Classroom

Gym Area

(SF)

12.18 SF

per

student

Capacity

based on

Gym Size

Gym /

Classroom

Library

Area (SF)

4.36 SF per

student

Capacity

based on

Library Size

Library /

Classroom

59 Bailey 1,176 1,041 89% 997 85% 56 0 28 75% 1,176 4,752 4.10 1,159 99% 13,668 12.18 1,122 95% 4,013 4.36 920 78%

54 Bedichek 941 1,054 112% 1,171 124% 48 0 28 70% 941 6,348 4.10 1,548 165% 11,555 12.18 949 101% 3,657 4.36 839 89%

46 Burnet 1,039 998 96% 1,163 112% 53 0 28 70% 1,039 5,765 4.10 1,406 135% 11,877 12.18 975 94% 3,243 4.36 744 72%

57 Covington 1,125 805 72% 922 82% 63 0 28 75% 1 ,323 4,461 4.10 1,088 82% 13,935 12.18 1,144 86% 4,044 4.36 928 70%

55 Dobie 902 630 70% 709 79% 46 0 28 70% 902 4,790 4.10 1,168 130% 11,388 12.18 935 104% 3,553 4.36 815 90%

43 Fulmore 1,078 995 92% 898 83% 55 0 28 70% 1,078 5,452 4.10 1,330 123% 13,196 12.18 1,083 101% 4,127 4.36 947 88%

56 Garcia 1,215 658 54% 801 66% 62 0 28 70% 1,215 5,220 4.10 1,273 105% 15,986 12.18 1,312 108% 4,666 4.36 1,070 88%

62 Gorzycki 1,323 963 73% 943 71% 63 0 28 75% 1,323 4,669 4.10 1,139 86% 15,396 12.18 1,264 96% 5,616 4.36 1,288 97%

44 Kealing 1,333 1,233 93% 563 42% 80 0 28 70% 1,568 4,433 4.10 1,081 69% 12,344 12.18 1,013 65% 4,499 4.36 1,032 66%

45 Lamar 1,008 604 60% 554 55% 48 0 28 75% 1,008 6,725 4.10 1,640 163% 10,575 12.18 868 86% 3,665 4.36 841 83%

51 Martin 804 639 80% 1,070 133% 41 0 28 70% 804 4,022 4.10 981 122% 11,740 12.18 964 120% 2,983 4.36 684 85%

58 Mendez 1,215 890 73% 1,224 1 01% 62 0 28 70% 1,215 4,501 4.10 1,098 90% 13,699 12.18 1,125 93% 4,044 4.36 928 76%

52 Murchison 1,113 1,281 115% 1,187 107% 53 0 28 75% 1,113 4,879 4.10 1,190 107% 11,857 12.18 974 87% 3,413 4.36 783 70%

47 O. Henry 945 1,026 109% 764 81% 45 0 28 75% 945 5,199 4.10 1,268 134% 10,628 12.18 873 92% 3,147 4.36 722 76%

61 Paredes 1,156 930 80% 1,123 97% 59 0 28 70% 1 ,156 5,953 4.10 1,452 126% 12,775 12.18 1,049 91% 2,798 4.36 642 55%

48 Pearce 1,078 329 31% 683 63% 55 0 28 70% 1,078 5,057 4.10 1,234 114% 13,147 12.18 1,079 100% 4,293 4.36 985 91%

28 Richards YWL 924 528 57% 0 0% 44 0 28 75% 924 5,272 4.10 1,286 139% 11,751 12.18 965 104% 5,046 4.36 1 ,1 57 1 25 %

60 Small 1,239 959 77% 873 70% 59 0 28 75% 1,239 6,244 4.10 1,523 123% 13,899 12.18 1,141 92% 3,142 4.36 721 58%

53 Webb 804 591 74% 692 86% 41 0 28 70% 804 4,348 4.10 1,061 132% 12,023 12.18 987 123% 4,399 4.36 1 ,0 09 1 26 %

20,417 1 6,154 16,337

LOC High

Permanent

Capacity

2010

Enrollment

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Enroll.

2009-10

Population

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Pop.

Classroom

Count

Special

Rooms

(ES Only)

Average

Students

per

Classroom

Efficiency

Factor

Classroom

Capacity

Café Area

(SF)

3.75 SF per

student

School

Capacity

based on

Café Size

Café /

Classroom

Gym Area

(SF)

8.63 SF per

student

School

Capacity

based on

Gym Size

Gym /

Classroom

Library

Area (SF)

3.50 SF per

student

School

Capacity

based on

Library Size

Library /

Classroom

17 Akins 2,394 2,720 114% 3,076 128% 114 0 28 75% 2 ,394 1 0,9 35 3 .7 5 2 ,9 16 1 22 % 2 1,4 71 8 .6 3 2 ,4 88 1 04 % 8,371 3.50 2 ,3 92 1 00 %

9 Anderson 2,017 2,089 104% 1,912 95% 113 0 28 75% 2,373 8,178 3.75 2,181 92% 1 7,0 68 8 .6 3 1,978 83% 9,864 3.50 2 ,8 18 1 19 %

2 Austin 2,205 2,337 1 06% 1,964 89% 105 0 28 75% 2,205 1 0,0 74 3 .7 5 2 ,6 86 1 22 % 1 7,4 88 8 .6 3 2,026 92% 5,977 3.50 1,708 77%

13 Bowie 2,535 2,876 113% 2,594 102% 142 0 28 75% 2,982 9,200 3.75 2,453 82% 2 2,0 36 8 .6 3 2,553 86% 9,862 3.50 2,818 94%

8 Crockett 2,163 1,686 78% 1,927 89% 103 0 28 75% 2,163 8,955 3.75 2 ,3 88 1 10 % 1 7,0 50 8 .6 3 1,976 91% 7,671 3.50 2 ,1 92 1 01 %

19/20/29

EMHSJC /

International 1,548 894 58% 1,310 85% 79 0 28 70% 1,548 8,952 3.75 2 ,3 87 1 54 % 1 6,4 19 8 .6 3 1 ,9 03 1 23 % 6,106 3.50 1 ,7 45 1 13 %

15 Garza 321 260 81% 0 0% 18 0 28 75% 378 1,834 3.75 489 129% 2,282 8.63 264 70% 1,223 3.50 349 92%

4 Lanier 1,627 1,624 1 00% 2,037 1 25% 83 0 28 70% 1,627 1 3,5 13 3 .7 5 3 ,6 03 2 21 % 2 3,4 65 8 .6 3 2 ,7 19 1 67 % 7,677 3.50 2 ,1 94 1 35 %

14/18 LBJ / LASA 1,842 1,881 102% 1,110 60% 94 0 28 70% 1,842 8,026 3.75 2 ,1 40 1 16 % 1 8,9 36 8 .6 3 2 ,1 94 1 19 % 8,856 3.50 2 ,5 30 1 37 %

5 McCallum 1,596 1,824 114% 1,343 84% 76 0 28 75% 1,596 6,244 3.75 1 ,6 65 1 04 % 1 5,7 65 8 .6 3 1 ,8 27 1 14 % 6,981 3.50 1 ,9 94 1 25 %

6 Reagan 1,588 901 57% 1,597 101% 81 0 28 70% 1 ,588 8,600 3.75 2 ,2 93 1 44 % 2 2,1 80 8 .6 3 2 ,5 70 1 62 % 6,226 3.50 1 ,7 79 1 12 %

7 Travis 1,862 1,420 76% 1,994 1 07% 95 0 28 70% 1,862 9,462 3.75 2 ,5 23 1 36 % 1 4,8 70 8 .6 3 1,723 93% 7,017 3.50 2 ,0 05 1 08 %

21,698 2 0,512 20,864

Classroom Capacity

Cafeteria = 9,000 SF / 2,400 Students

3.75 SF per Student

Gym = 20,720 SF / 2,400 Students

8.63 SF per Student

Library = 8,400 SF / 2,400 Students

3.50 SF per Student

Classroom Capacity 4.10 SF per Student 12.18 SF per Student 4.36 SF per Student

Page 204

LOC Elementary

Permanent

Capacity

2010

Enrollment

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Enroll.

2010-11

Population

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Pop.

142 Allan 673 379 56% 354 53%

101 Allison 486 543 112% 585 120%

EXHIBIT "B"



102 Andrews 486 717 147% 692 142%187 Baldwin 669 508 76% 557 83%

182 Baranoff 794 876 110% 891 112%

149 Barrington 556 996 179% 955 172%

103 Barton Hills 251 386 154% 203 81%

104 Becker 524 208 40% 226 43%

105 Blackshear 598 244 41% 288 48%

106 Blanton 636 591 93% 630 99%

185 Blazier 598 775 130% 896 150%

170 Boone 752 501 67% 478 64%

107 Brentwood 585 495 85% 456 78%

108 Brooke 430 439 102% 441 103%

109 Brown 468 519 111% 525 112%

110 Bryker Woods 272 404 149% 312 115%

111 Campbell 524 360 69% 367 70%

173 Casey 711 669 94% 763 107%112 Casis 669 825 123% 731 109%

184 Clayton 836 867 104% 837 100%

161 Cook 561 901 161% 1,252 223%

183 Cowan 669 783 117% 707 106%

113 Cunningham 627 512 82% 573 91%

179 Davis 731 683 93% 666 91%

114 Dawson 505 331 66% 276 55%

154 Doss 543 768 141% 728 134%

165 McBee 580 765 132% 1,031 178%

147 Menchaca 606 686 113% 685 113%

124 Metz 542 498 92% 477 88%

181 Mills 794 928 117% 831 105%

150 Norman 486 333 68% 376 77%

EXHIBIT "B"



150 Norman 486 333 68% 376 77%

148 Oak Hill 773 772 100% 820 106%125 Oak Springs 411 274 67% 293 71%

156 Odom 542 658 121% 706 130%

126 Ortega 374 296 79% 266 71%

189 Overton 617 668 108% 948 154%

171 Palm 673 606 90% 637 95%

143 Patton 773 914 118% 908 117%

128 Pease 293 256 87% 0 0%

129 Pecan Springs 486 532 109% 490 101%

190 Perez 598 886 148% 945 158%

164 Pickle 617 740 120% 737 119%

151 Pillow 522 653 125% 651 125%

130 Pleasant Hill 524 619 118% 631 121%

131 Read Pre-K 393 509 129% 0 0%

132 Reilly 318 296 93% 357 112%

133 Ridgetop 206 219 106% 128 62%

174 Rodriguez 711 910 128% 1,045 147%

127 Sanchez 580 585 101% 584 101%

139 Sims 355 277 78% 343 97%

136 St. Elmo 411 304 74% 369 90%

138 Summitt 731 854 117% 623 85%

158 Sunset Valley 561 451 80% 483 86%

140 Travis Heights 486 537 110% 548 113%141 Walnut Creek 655 916 140% 936 143%

LOC Middle

Permanent

Capacity

2010

Enrollment

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Enroll.

2010-11

Population

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Pop.

EXHIBIT "B"



59 Bailey 1,176 1,041 89% 979 83%54 Bedichek 941 1,054 112% 1,219 130%

46 Burnet 1,039 998 96% 1,170 113%

57 Covington 1,125 805 72% 905 80%

55 Dobie 902 630 70% 719 80%

43 Fulmore 1,078 995 92% 850 79%

56 Garcia 1,215 658 54% 829 68%

62 Gorzycki 1,323 963 73% 989 75%

44 Kealing 1,333 1,233 93% 541 41%

45 Lamar 1,008 604 60% 583 58%

51 Martin 804 639 80% 1,056 131%

58 Mendez 1,215 890 73% 1,266 104%

52 Murchison 1,113 1,281 115% 1,171 105%

47 O. Henry 945 1,026 109% 804 85%

61 Paredes 1,156 930 80% 1,165 101%

48 Pearce 1,078 329 31% 712 66%28 Richards YWL 924 528 57% 0 0%

60 Small 1,239 959 77% 876 71%

53 Webb 804 591 74% 731 91%

20,417 16,154 16,565

LOC High

Permanent

Capacity

2010

Enrollment

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Enroll

2010-11

Population

% of Perm.

Capacity

by Pop



May 13 & 14, 2010

EXHIBIT "B"



AUSTIN ISDFacility Master PlanVisioning Workshop

Acknowledgements

Cuningham Group Architecture P.A., as a consultant to DeJONG-RICHTER, prepared this document with

EXHIBIT "B"



the support and assistance of the following Facility Master Plan Vision Workshop participants:

John Alawneh AISD - TechnologyTony Arnold City of Austin – Parks & RecreationJohn Blazier Business Partner Kathrin Brewer Austin Partners in EducationBill Caritij AISD - Chief AccountabilityMeria Carstarphen AISD - Superintendent

Nan Clayton Former AISD Board Member Ariel Cloud AISD – Asst. Superintendent ElementaryNicole Conley-Abram AISD - CFOTommy Cowan Business Partner Paul Cruz Chief of SchoolsAshton Cumberbatch Community Seton HospitalElizabeth Dickey AISD Special EducationBill De Dufour AISD - Technology

Richard Frazier AISD – Teacher / Task Force Chair Janna Griffin Asst. Supt. Office - ElementaryJanis Guerrero AISD – Community RelationsBergeron Harris AISD – Asst. Supt. Middle SchoolsJanna Lilly AISD – Special EducationViviana Lopez AISD – Curriculum/Special ProjectsEliza May CommunityJanet Mitchell Community – Task Force Chair

Chris Moore City of Austin – Child SafetyJ i P t E l Childh d

AUSTIN ISD Facility Master Plan Visioning Workshop

Table of Contents

EXHIBIT "B"



Introduction

Day OneA. Greatest HopesB. Provocation I: Sir Ken RobinsonC. Issues & Assets

D. Provocation II: School of One

E. I See…We See… F. Facility Master Plan Vision StatementG. Provocation III: Environment MattersH. Values: AISD Strategic Plan 2010-2015 ReviewI. Story Time

Day TwoA. ReflectionsB. Provocation III: John A. JohnsonC. Facility Principles

AppendicesA. Day One Presentation

Facility Master Plan Visioning Workshop AUSTIN ISD

Introduction

This document is the result of a Facility Master Plan Visioning Workshop held May 13th & 14th, 2010 with

EXHIBIT "B"



participants from the Austin Independent School District and the community. The purpose of this workshopwas to create a Facility Master Plan Vision Statement and Facility Principles.

The purpose of a Facility Master Plan is to create a clear and compelling vision of the future for AISD,aligning facilities with learning. A Facility Master Plan Vision Statement creates a filter by which futuredecisions can be made and Facility Principles create over arching ideas about what‟s important for allschools in AISD.

The process used during the Visioning Workshop was interactive and included “Provocations” and smalland whole group work. The following is a summary of our work during both days.


Greatest Hopes:Day one started with participants sharing their Greatest Hopes for the Facility Master Planning process.Below are some of the hopes shared by participants:

EXHIBIT "B"




Provocation I: Sir Ken Robinson: Do Schools Kill Creativity?http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Reactions to the video included the following:

EXHIBIT "B"

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html





Reactions to the video included the following: Learning occurs in many ways – public education focuses on academic achievement Career/Vocational Education is not emphasized but some children want – we need to provide the right

programs for all children The system is structurally set up to fail some children – there are ethnocentric, gender, and cultural

differences we need to consider Everyone learns differently Focus on where students can be successful through application Plan for the future but not at the expense of today There is a knowing/doing gap in education – establish the courage to do what we know is right – “thou shalt”

…accountability We continue to build boxes for people to teach in that look the same – we need more flexible, collaborative

spaces We need to respond to changes in the world; we need to be agile and our environment affects us The challenge is that we have given critical responsibility to one group of adults: teachers; we need to

consider the role of parents and the community to create creative thinkers. Open possibilities for kids tolearn from and in whole world – engage the community


Issues & Assets We discussed and prioritized Issues and Assets in Austin ISD. This was a way to find out what wasimportant to those present and what they thought were key to the success of a Facilities Master Plan. As is

EXHIBIT "B"



noted below on the sheets the key issues identified were: Equity of facilities and resources across the district Efficient use of resources throughout the community Partnering Future flexibility for teaching in the future Competition and school choices (Middle class participates in public schools but they have other

choices) School boundaries


Provocation II: School of One http://schools.nyc.gov/community/innovation/SchoolofOne/default.htm

The group watched a video on the School of One a program that started the summer of 2009 in New York

EXHIBIT "B"

http://schools.nyc.gov/community/innovation/SchoolofOne/default.htm





The group watched a video on the School of One, a program that started the summer of 2009, in New YorkCity.

From the above website:

“The mission of School of One is to provide students with personalized, effective, and dynamic classroominstruction so that teachers have more time to focus on the quality of their instruction.To achieve this mission, School of One re-imagines the traditional classroom model. Instead of one teacher

and 25-30 students in a classroom, each student participates in multiple instructional modalities, including acombination of teacher-led instruction, one-on-one tutoring, independent learning, and work with virtualtutors.

To organize this type of learning, each student receives a unique daily schedule based on his or her academic strengths and needs. As a result, students within the same school or even the same classroomcan receive profoundly different instruction as each student‟s schedule is tailored to the skills they need andthe ways they best learn. Teachers acquire data about student achievement each day and then adapt their

live instructional lessons accordingly

By leveraging technology to play a more essential role in planning instruction, teachers have more time tofocus on doing what they do best - delivering quality instruction and ensuring that all students learn. ”


Activity I: I See…We See…

“Vision is the art of seeing the invisible” Jonathan Swift

EXHIBIT "B"



To start the visioning process we asked participants to „imagine it‟s 10 years out, the AISD Facility Master Plan has given the district amazing learning places that reflect the community and help the districtaccomplish its mission. People visit because its facilities are so successful in accomplishing the goals of the District. Imagine you‟re giving someone a tour – what do you see?‟

Individually participants created I See statements: One-on-one time with teachers

Entire staff focused and engaged with kids Teachers focused on teaching the kids and not other issues Schools are the pride of the community and the first choice of middle class families

Large yet flexible spaces built to fit our growing population Repurposed spaces that are vintage yet functional for the community All facilities are beautifully maintained and are supportive of the instructional programs

All schools are painted in bright colors – place of exciting learning A dramatically reduced number of schools, yet a mix of small, medium, and large facilities 50 years later the space is still current (or can be)

Public and private, city and school district co-location of offices, classrooms, theaters, and meeting areas Art facilities which involve all our students and the world class Austin arts community in a learning partnership Shared facilities with the city Zachary Scott Theater, Long Center, AT&T, IBM, CAN. ACC – classroom days around

and within the city Students integrated within the community, downtown, capitol, tech companies, Whole Foods; “what do you do days”

Students a large part of the day as interns and apprentices Schools have clear feeder patterns and each feeder pattern has a special focus Engaged, enthusiastic students that want to be there. Eager to explain their love for learning.

Loud sounds from playing and team problems solving

Quiet places for reading and silent learning contemplation Team sports, yoga, and meditation


Schools that welcome visitors and are responsive to visitors Classrooms that are interactive include technology but also instructionally interactive – kids engaged with each other

and teacher All students have internet access at home

EXHIBIT "B"



Staff, students and parents can readily access results and academic plans Students have exactly the information they need in the best format Realization of the promise of “instructional TV” to help teachers with complex, real world concepts such velocity,

acceleration, gravity, history of Middle Eastern areas, areas on curves, environmental science, poetry etc… Virtual lab for HS students to work on course credits. Teachers as side facilitators. As I walk through the facility I see a number of distant learning centers where students and teachers participating in a

collaborative learning process. These rooms have state of the art technology. State of the art facilities on each campus and two district-wide performing art centers

Students attend neighborhood schools as best opportunity

Classroom instruction that accommodates different student learning styles and provides support and enrichment basedon student learning needs

Stimulating and inviting learning environments that are fun to be in Inviting/welcoming face to the facility Parents working with students throughout the school Spaces for collaboration between teachers, parents and students Parents present, actively engaged, knowing learning goals of students Space for community/parents to be engaged

Outside area is an extension of the learning environment

Students learning in flexible indoor and outdoor spaces Gardens, fountains and trails instead of carpet and grass Active learning Classrooms that make use of indoor and outdoor settings for learning Students moving and active in the learning process

Students actively engaged in their learning Classrooms which comfortably hold 30 students in a variety of ways Students working in small groups collaboratively

I see building design geared towards multi -sensory student engagement A clean, well maintained visually appealing school for every student Tables instead of desks


Social skills training as part the degree program (such as mediation training) Flex schedules for students in high school Young children given the time and opportunity to learn through play Access to all resources within a school for every student

EXHIBIT "B"



Curriculum that is differentiated to fit individuals needs and flexible schedules to allow the best use of time Secondary classrooms that allow for small group work (not just rows of chairs) A flower bed at the entrance of school, there are trees that have been pruned, and doors have been painted recently

and rooms are brightly painted, there are posters on the walls along with student work. The facilities reflect attention todetail

As we enter the library, there is a bank of computers and students working in small groups accessing databases fromaround the world. The students are engaged and the noise level is amazingly semi quiet.

Technology driven learning in every classroom in AISD facility

Language development academy, producing fluent 2nd and 3rd language proficiency

Fine arts integrated with academics integrated with social learning Music academy generating music professionals, singers, etc.

Spaces that are student/teacher friendly Teachers interacting with students Community advocate centers/service for students and family members

Learning centers for 0 to 4-year olds All students actively involved in learning Collaboration between AISD and ACC that produces HS graduates interested in graduation with certificates in medical

technology, nursing, construction, etc…

Central headquarters reduced in physical size, in more compact, effective structure Substantial revenue generated from space use that can be reinvested into important programming Private and corporate donation to AISD foundation in excess of $50 million Number-one rated HS in the country in Austin due to technology or live music/jazz, band or other with an awesome

facility/stages, media rooms, etc…

I See Wordle

www.wordle.net


In small groups participants then shared these I See… statements and created We See… statements.Listed below are the We see… statements worked on by participants in small groups. These became thebasis of the Vision Statement.

EXHIBIT "B"

http://www.wordle.net/





We see….. An overall environment that is both encouraging and engaging Purposeful, functional, modular facilities that serve all students needs Facilities “co-purposed” for student and community usage Teachers totally focused on education and innovation

Students in a variety of learning environments with technology support, integrated to ensure development

of individual learning styles and goals, supported by community partnerships on an ongoing basis (24/7)

Facilities that are inviting, welcoming, flexible enough to accommodate and support a variety of instructionalarrangements and incorporates:

instructional technology family and community access to information teacher access to information and resources

Facilities with dedicated spaces to foster and engage parents/community Facilities that use the outdoors and indoors in ways that are environmentally responsible and

allows for learning to take place in a variety of ways Facilities that engage with the community to provide extended learning opportunities both within

the school walls and beyond Classrooms large enough to allow for flex grouping and active hands-on learning A variety of multi-use areas Facilities where technology is integrated in every space and accessible to all students and staff

Spaces that allow for differentiated instruction and flexible school day




Facility Master Plan Vision Statement

EXHIBIT "B"



The purpose of a vision statement is to guide the entire process, help set priorities, align resources againstpriorities and facilitate an efficient decision making process. The following vision statement was created byparticipants from the work done together:

All AISD schools inspire high student achievement and commoncommunity goals through inviting, accessible, and efficient facilities that

integrate technology and sustainability.

Revised Version:

All AISD schools will inspire high student achievementand support common community goals through equitable,

inviting facilities that integrate technology and are

optimally used, accessible, sustainable, and meet highest

educational adequacy standards.


Provocation III: Environment Matters “The only true voyage of discovery consists not of visiting new places, but seeing with new eyes.” Voltaire

EXHIBIT "B"



As a part of the process of thinking about the future of Austin schools, the group looked at learning styles,the learning environment and current examples of what other districts are doing with their facilities. Beloware examples of what was discussed. The presentation is included in the May 13th presentation in theappendix of this document.


Values Building on the work that has already been done in the District we reviewed the Austin ISD Strategic Planand expanded on the Values contained in the Plan:

EXHIBIT "B"



AISD Strategic Plan 2010-2015:

Mission (What We Do)In partnership with parents and our community, AISD exists to provide a comprehensive educationalexperience that is high quality, challenging, and inspires all students to make a positive contribution tosociety.

Vision (Where We Want to Be)AISD will be nationally recognized as an outstanding school district, instilling a passion for life-long learningin all students.

Goals (What We Want to Accomplish) Goal 1: All students will perform at or above grade level. Goal 2: Achievement gaps among all student groups will be eliminated. Goal 3: All students will graduate ready for college, career, and life in a globally competitive economy.

Goal 4: All schools will meet or exceed state accouintability standards, and the district will meet federalstandards and exceed state standards.

Strategies (How We Will Achieve Our Goals) Provide a high-quality, well-rounded educational experience to all students that is rigorous, culturally

relevant, healthful, and engaging. Build strong relationships with students, families, and the community to increase trust and shared

responsibility.

Ensure that every classroom has a high-quality, effective educator, supported by high-quality, effectiveadministrators and support staff

AUSTIN ISD Facility Master Plan Visioning Workshop EXHIBIT "B"



Facility Master Plan Visioning Workshop AUSTIN ISD EXHIBIT "B"




Story Time As a way to think more about how learning will happen in the future and what role the facilities play,participants were asked to work in small groups and answer the following question:

EXHIBIT "B"



Imagine it is 2020 and AISD has met its strategic plan goals for 2015 and has addressed many of the keyfacility needs as defined in the Facility Master Plan of 2010.

Imagine you are (a student, a community member, a teacher, a staff member) Describe your typical day inan AISD school – what does your day look like?

1. What are you doing? What is the process of learning and what are the outcomes or expectations?

2. Who are you with? How is your day organized?3. What is your environment like? Where are you and how do you feel?4. What makes AISD a special place to learn?


Day Two: ReflectionsWhile Day One was about creating a Facility Master Plan Vision Statement, Day Two of the workshopwas about creating Facility Principles. Facility Principles create over arching ideas about what‟s

EXHIBIT "B"



important for all schools in AISD.

To start off Day Two the group reflected on Day One and on a video assigned as homework:Dave Eggers‟ Wish: Once Upon a School. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dave_eggers_makes_his_ted_prize_wish_once_upon_a_school.html


Provocation IV: John A. JohnsonFrom the KnowledgeWorks website: http://www.kwfdn.org/resource_library/_resources/sacc_video_guide.asp

"Schools as Centers of Community: John A. Johnson Achievement Plus Elementary School” is a video

EXHIBIT "B"

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dave_eggers_makes_his_ted_prize_wish_once_upon_a_school.html



http://www.kwfdn.org/resource_library/_resources/sacc_video_guide.asp





y ycase study and discussion guide that assists local leaders and residents in creating constructive,meaningful dialogue on the importance of good school design and ways schools can become centersof their communities. KnowledgeWorks Foundation partnered with the American ArchitecturalFoundation to create the guide and video.

Video link:http://www.archfoundation.org/aaf/gsbd/Videos.SCC.htm


Facility PrinciplesStarting with the Austin ISD 2010-2015 Strategic Plan Strategies, participants worked in small groups todefine Facility Principles. Facility Principles are overarching ideas about what‟s important for all schools inthe Austin Independent School District.

EXHIBIT "B"

http://www.archfoundation.org/aaf/gsbd/Videos.SCC.htm





p

For each of the Strategies groups defined what this meant for facilities. So, for example, if the Austin ISD iscommitted to an engaging/healthy experience for all students, this means what in terms of facilities.


Facility Principles

The Austin Independent School District is committed to An engaging/healthy experience for all students …

EXHIBIT "B"



This means…

• All schools will have a space identified to engage parents and be responsive to student needs(learning/language/cultural/socioeconomic)

• All schools will have spaces dedicated to active learning and diverse learning styles

• All schools will be equipped to provide technology resources in classrooms and other learningareas

• Create and maintain clean and attractive grounds that encourage physical activities• Provide safe entry and exit for cyclists, walkers, skateboarders, etc.

• Develop spaces that promote social and recreational interaction

• Common areas for active, hands-on group activities

• Coordinate and cooperate with other entities (YMCA, YWCA, Parks & Recreation) to share and/or build new facilities (pools, gyms, parks)

• All schools will have good indoor air quality, climate control, and day-lighting

• Our facilities will support high quality, rigorous, well rounded learning


Facility Principles

The Austin Independent School District is committed to Strong relationships with students/families/community …

EXHIBIT "B"



This means… • Community hubs for services and programs

• Flexible spaces and hours to accommodate changes in learning styles, instructional deliverysupported by technological resources for students, families and communities

• Facilities to provide learning spaces that support student collaboration, teamwork and relationshipbuilding


Facility Principles

The Austin Independent School District is committed to Supporting and engaging high quality effective staff …

EXHIBIT "B"



This means… • AISD facility decisions promote long-term value

• AISD facilities should be equitable and adequate across the district

• AISD staff and community must have input into facility decisions to ensure adequate resources(examples: space, storage, technology, outlets)

•

AISD facilities to provide high quality professional development spaces• AISD facilities must provide an appropriate environment for staff effectiveness (example: HVAC,

light, acoustics, security)

• AISD facilities must include adequate, flexible-use core facilities (library, gym, cafeteria)

• AISD staff must have appropriate access to various spaces to meet student needs of a high qualityrigorous educational experience


Facility Principles

The Austin Independent School District is committed to Aligning resources with priorities…

EXHIBIT "B"



This means… • Leverage Austin public and private resources for more effective and efficient use of existing and

new facilities by:

• Revisit efficiency study

• Align decisions with fiscal impact statement

•

“CAN” concept (Community Action Network) to engage various public entities (e.g. UT, ACC,Travis County, Seton, St. David‟s, etc…) for purpose of repurposing facilities including charters andco-location

• Must at least break even or generate revenue

• Strategy for maintenance and operations to support facilities and address deferred, routine, andpreventative maintenance

• Develop detailed capital plan schedule/report that includes budget/actuals/completion dates and M& O impact by project

• CAN concept must be integrated into bond planning process to address shared facilities and amore comprehensive set of services

• Develop strategic partnerships to obtain private donations /endowments in excess of $50 million





Appendices

Contained on the following pages are the presentations from both days.

EXHIBIT "B"




EXHIBIT "B"




Photos taken during the Workshop

EXHIBIT "B"




EXHIBIT "B"



Appendices D, E, and F

Appendix D: Community Dialogue #1 Results

Appendix E: Community Dialogue #2 Results

Appendix F: Community Meeting #3 Results

Due to the volume of these reports, see the following link to access this information:

http://rcpt.yousendit.com/1042147173/d50a3fb54a75365c932c5df95adbd0c4

Page 303



EXHIBIT "B"






Appendix G

Summary of Facility Options Discussed by the FMPTF

Page 304

0.1

Cut all bus service for magnet schools and signature

programs $1,994,516

0.2

Redraw boundaries for the entire district with the

greatest weight on vertical alignmentUnknown Unknown $0

0 4

Move International HS from Eastside HS to ALC. Relocate

ALC students to Blackshear ES. Move Blachsear ES

t d t t Z l ES k $0 $0

NOTE: Highlighted op tions were p resented at the Com munity Mee tings held on January 12 & 13, 2011

DescriptionOption M&O Savings

Cost

Avoidance

Future Bond

Impact

EXHIBIT "B"



0.4 students to Zavala ES Unknown $0 $0

0.5

Repurpose Allan ES as a Pre-K thru 8 and move Allison ES

attendance area middle school students from Martin MS

to Allan Pre-K-8 Unknown $0 $0

0.6

Repurpose Blackshear ES to a Pre-K - 8 school, and Oak Springs ES as a Pre-K - 6th, move middle school students

from these attendance zones from Kealing MS Unknown $0 $0

0.7

Repurpose Campbell ES as a Pre-K -8th school and move

middle school students from Kealing MS to Campbell Pre-

K-8th Unknown $0 $0

0.8

Repurpose Brentwood ES as a Pre-K-6th school, move

sixth grade students in this attendance zone from Lamar

MS to Brentwood PreK-6 School Unknown $0 $0

0.9

Repurpose Zavala ES to a Pre-K-8th school and move

middle school students from Martin MS to the new school Unknown $0 $0

0.10

Add a sixth grade class to Metz ES, Govalle ES, Ortega ES,

Norman ES, and Sims ES, move sixth grade students from

Martin MS and Garcia MS. Unknown $0 $0

Assuming all changes in options 0 5 through 0 10 are



Cost

Avoidance

Future Bond

Impact

0.18

Build a new middle school - Southeast (land funded from

previous bond) $0 $0 $55,700,000

0.19

Build a new high school - South (land funded from

previous bond)$0 $0 $106,600,000

0.20 School for Young Men

EXHIBIT "B"



0.21

Global option to remove 6th grade from all elementary

schools when room is available in middle schools

1.1

Consolidate Reilly ES and Ridgetop ES at a new school

built on the Reilly ES site $2,076,204 $7,734,391 $24,000,000

1.2 Reassign students from Brown ES to Reilly ES $0 $0 $0

2.1Move a portion of student population from Cowan ES toBoone ES ($72,607) $0 $0

2.2

Close Joslin ES and move students to Sunset Valley ES

and Boone ES $1,259,273 $8,466,116 $0

2.2A

Close Joslin ES and move students to Sunset Valley ES.

Move a portion of Sunset Valley ES students to Boone ES $1,259,273 $8,466,116 $0

2.2 B


Move a portion of Sunset Valley ES students to Boone ES

and Cunningham ES. Adjust boundaries between

Cowan ES and Boone ES. $1,266,595 $8,466,116 $0

2.2 C



and Cunningham ES. $1,266,595 $8,466,116 $0

2 2 D



d C i h ES $1 276 967 $8 466 116 $0



Cost

Avoidance

Future Bond

Impact

3.4 Adjust boundaries for Maplewood ES and Campbell ES $0 $0 $0

3.5Close Oak Springs ES and Ortega ES and consolidatestudents into Blackshear ES, Sims ES, and Norman ES $2,300,842 $10,308,022 $0

3.6 Close Pease ES $712,296 $7,302,501 $0

EXHIBIT "B"



3.7

Close Govalle ES and Oak Springs ES and move students

to Allan ES, Zavala ES, and Blackshear ES $2,510,507 $16,136,129 $0

3.8

Repurpose Blackshear ES as a Hutson-Tillotson

demonstration school, training site for future teachers $0 $0 $0

3.9 A

Close Brooke ES and move students to Allan ES andZavala ES. Adjust boundary between Allan ES and

Norman ES. $1,301,382 $5,477,387 $0

3.9 B1 Close Ortega ES and move students to Govalle ES. $1,153,873 $6,082,090 $0

3.9 B2

Close Oak Springs ES and move students to Blackshear

ES. $1,146,969 $4,225,932 $0

3.9 C

Close Sanchez ES and move students north of Town Laketo Zavala ES and Metz ES. Adjust boundaries between

Zavala ES and Linder ES. Build a new 800-student

elementary south of Town Lake to receive students from

Sanchez ES, Metz ES and Travis Heights ES. $1,556,924 $9,424,688

* included in

Option 0.17

3.12

Close Allan ES and repurpose as a middle school for

Young Men, repurpose Martin MS as a middle school for

Young Women. Reassign Allan ES students to Govalle ES,

Ortega ES and Norman ES $12,203 $0 $15,389,258



Cost

Avoidance

Future Bond

Impact

4.4B

Close Barton Hills ES and Zilker ES and move students to

Becker ES and Dawson ES. $2,266,637 $17,543,935 $0

4.5

Close Barton Hills ES and Becker ES and move students

into Zilker ES and Dawson ES $2,207,301 $11,930,384 $0

4.6

Close Barton Hills ES and Joslin ES and move students into

Zilker ES and Dawson ES $2,367,541 $13,360,266 $0

EXHIBIT "B"



4.7

Close Barton Hills ES and reassign students to Zilker ES and

close Becker ES and reassgin students to Dawson ES $2,207,301 $11,930,384 $0

4.8

Reassign a portion of Linder ES to Travis Heights ES and

reassign a portion of Travis Heights ES to Becker ES $0 $0 $0

5.1

Do not accept transfers into Bryker Woods ES, Casis ES,

Gullett ES, and Highland Park ES $0 $0 $0

5.2

Discontinue the option to offer 6th grade at Bryker

Woods ES $0 $0 $0

5.3

Adjust boundaries between Bryker Woods ES, Gullett ES,

and Brentwood ES $0 $0 $0

5.4

Build new school and adjust boundaries for Highland

Park ES, Doss ES, and Hill ES $0 $0 $25,200,000

5.5 Adjust boundaries between Mathews ES and Casis ES $0 $0 $0

6.1

Adjust boundaries between Norman ES, Overton ES, and

Ortega ES ($1,220) $0 $0

6.3

Add Pre-K center to Winn ES to provide relief for Andrews

ES, Pecan Springs ES, Jordan ES and Overton ES Unknown $0 $0

M K li MS t t M ti MS M



Cost

Avoidance

Future Bond

Impact

8.4

Close Webb MS and repurpose school as a School for

Young Men ($98,844) $0 $0

9.1

Reassign a portion of Bedichek MS population to

Covington MS($28,677) $0 $0

9.2

Adjust boundary between Bedichek MS and Covington

MS ($234,298) $0 $0

EXHIBIT "B"



10.1 Adjust boundary between Reagan HS and McCallum HS $0 $0 $0

10.2

Improve programming at Reagan HS by providing cross-

training and mentoring with McCallum staff. Provide

nurturing environment to draw students back into

Reagan HS. $0 $0 $0

10.3

Give Reagan HS students the option to attend

specialized signature programs at McCallum HS with

transportation provided. $0 $0

10.4 Close Eastside HS and consolidate into Reagan HS ($539,373) $0 $0

10.5

Close Reagan HS and CAC, repurpose Reagan HS as

administrative center $0 $0 $0

10.6

Close Reagan HS and repurpose as Junior College /

ACC Partner $0 $0 $0

11.1

Identify surplus portables and build new elementary

school in the next bond $0 $0 $0

11.2

Repurpose Langford ES as a Pre-K center and adjust

boundaries with adjacent schools $0 $0 $0

12 1

Close Dobie MS and repurpose as elementary school to

provide relief for Hart ES, Graham ES, Walnut Creek ES

and Barrington ES. Reassign Dobie MS students to Webb

MS d P MS ($437 477) $0 $0



Cost

Avoidance

Future Bond

Impact

12.7

Repurpose Garcia MS as a 4 - 8 school and reassign a

portion of the population (Sims ES and Norman ES

attendance areas) to Pearce MS. Reassign Overton ESand Jordan ES 4 - 5 grade to new Garcia 4 - 8.

13 1

Adjust boundaries between Maplewood ES and

Campbell ES $0 $0 $0

EXHIBIT "B"



13.1 Campbell ES $0 $0 $0

13.2

Build new elementary school in Mueller to relieve

overcrowding at Andrews ES, Harris ES, and Blanton ES ($58,093) $0 $24,000,000

13.3 Adjust boundaries between Andrews ES and Winn ES ($84,811) $0 $0

13.4

Build a Pre-K center to relieve Andrews ES, Winn ES,

Blanton ES, Pecan Springs ES, and Blanton ES $0 $0 $21,600,000

14.1 Build a new school west of Clayton ES $0 $0 $25,200,000

14.2

Adjust boundaries between Mills ES, Kiker ES, Cowan ES,

and Boone ES ($6,120) $0 $0

14.3 Add a K-8th grade school in southwest area Unknown $0

14.4 Adjust boundaries between Clayton ES and Baldwin ES $0 $0 $014.5 Repurpose Boone ES as a PK - 8 school $0 $0 $0

15.1

Repurpose Casey ES as a Pre-K Center and adjust

boundaries between Williams ES, Menchaca ES, Casey

ES, Odom ES, and Pleasant Hill ES $0 $0 $0

15.2

Build Pre-K center in the Williams ES attendance zone to

relieve Williams ES, Casey ES, Menchaca ES, Odom ES,

and Pleasant Hill ES $0 $0 $21,600,000

C t t d dd t t



EXHIBIT "B"



Appendix H

Glossary

Page 311

District-wide Facility Master Plan

Glossary of Terms – Update 02/15/2011 Glossary

The following is a list of definitions of known abbreviations

and terms used throughout the District-wide Facility

Master Plan Report.

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.

Capital Cost Avoidance – Buying less, or buying nothing

at all, 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 - A school that is no longer open to students.

Cohort - A specific group of students established for

EXHIBIT "B"



i

g

Bond Program – The capital improvement efforts

associated with funding generated from a local voter-

approved tax levy for capital spending.

Building - A structure that houses children or equipment

on a school site or campus.

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, anelementary school can share a site with a middle school;

therefore, it is considered a campus.

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 areutilized 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

Page 312


Glossary of Terms – Update 02/15/2011 space in the classroom? Is there the correct number of

lab stations in a science room and do they have the

proper equipment?

Educational Specifications - Document that describes

the current standards for program areas, equipment

needs, technology needs, square footage, and special

considerations for a new school.

Enrollment - The number of students attending a school.

Facility Condition Assessment - An evaluation of a school

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.

M&O – Maintenance and Operations; school funding

that pays for day-to-day administrative and operational

costs.

EXHIBIT "B"



ii

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 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.

costs.

Open Enrollment – A policy or practice that allows

students to attend other AISD outside their assigned

attendance area zone.

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-enrolled - A school enrollment that is greater than

105% of permanent capacity.

Over-utilized - A school enrollment that is greater than

105% of permanent capacity.

Permanent Capacity - The number of students a school

can accommodate within its permanent building(s). See

pages 182-183 for additional information.

Page 313


Glossary of Terms – Update 02/15/2011 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 - A categorization of building deficiencies,

defined as follows.

Priority 1: currently critical (immediate need, i.e., firesafety systems)

Priority 2: potentially critical (to be corrected within one

i j HVAC i t it t )

Signature Program – A specialized curriculum

implemented in a vertical team to enhance the vertical

team’s instructional program.

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.

Site - Geographical location of a school’s building[s].

SQL - Structured Query Language; a form of database

EXHIBIT "B"



iii

year, i.e., major HVAC equipment, security systems)

Priority 3: necessary/not yet critical (1-2 years, i.e., sitelighting, 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)

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.

School Zone Population - The number of AISD students

living within the attendance zone of a school.

that allows the analysis of data by sorting it into

categories.

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.

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.

Page 314


Glossary of Terms – Update 02/15/2011 Under-enrolled - A school enrollment that is less than 85%

of permanent capacity.

Under-utilized - A school enrollment that is less than 85%

of permanent capacity.

Utilization Factor - The enrollment of a school divided by

its permanent capacity, also known as percent of

permanent capacity.

Vertical Team - A group of campuses consisting of a high

school and its feeder middle and elementary schools.

EXHIBIT "B"

austin isd recommended facility master plan

Documents