ii. the fmp framework - austin isd€¦ · w o r k i n g d r a f t a s o f 2 - 1 8 - 13 2...

I I . T h e F M P F r a m e w o r k

F a c i l i t y M a s t e r P l a n F r a m e w o r k

W o r k i n g D r a f t a s o f 2 - 1 8 - 1 3

II. THE FMP FRAMEWORK

AUSTIN ISD February 25, 2013



W o r k i n g D r a f t a s o f 2 - 1 8 - 1 3 2

INTRODUCTION

This Facility Master Plan (FMP) Framework establishes a three-part framework, which includes the

following three process components: 1) a comprehensive, long-term FMP process; 2) annual updated

information used to inform the FMP process; and 3) Biennial Academic and Facilities Recommendations

(BAFRs), to support the District’s long term goals, including the AISD Strategic Plan, as well as shorter-term

Board-Identified Priority Initiatives.

The Framework will establish processes for a biennial schedule for developing recommendations,

academic and operational guidance, and the site selection process for new schools. Detailed

information regarding district utilization, district assessment, facility condition index results, and individual

facility assessments will be updated annually to inform the Framework.

The outcome of the FMP Framework (which would utilize the updated data) will be the Biennial

Academic and Facilities Recommendations (BAFRs) that reflect the intersection of academic

expectations and operational needs to provide the actions for ongoing facility utilization and

improvements. The Framework has been deliberately designed to be flexible enough to respond to

necessary changes in academic and operational needs so that adjustments to the allocation of

resources can be incorporated accordingly each school year.

FMP FRAMEWORK

Within the FMP Framework, the District assesses and predicts both the need and timing for new or

expanded facilities; bond elections and programs; lease arrangements; general transportation needs;

major renovations; and, policy and procedure adjustments. A biannual review of the FMP Framework

provides for adjustments for changes such as public funding structures, legislative session outcomes,

newly defined industry standards or best practices, and demographic and population shifts.

The BAFRs included in the FMP Framework address information and data that change on a yearly basis

such as shorter-term, Board-Identified Priority Initiatives, facility conditions and assessments, and campus

factors.

Schedule for FMP Biennial Academic and Facilities Recommendations Decisions

The planning schedule for the Biennial Academic and Facilities Recommendations (BAFRs) will align with

the Board of Trustees election cycle, the beginning of academic school year and the annual budget

cycle to ensure comprehensive research, development and stakeholder engagement which are an

integral part of the BAFR process.

As Board elections are held in even-numbered years, Board action on BAFRs will be scheduled during

odd-numbered years to ensure newly elected Board members have the opportunity to engage in the

process for at least one year prior to Board action in December.

Based on availability of information and currently defined administrative deadlines, preparation of the

BAFRs will align to the start of the school year and begin in September of even-numbered years and

end with Board approval in December of the following odd-numbered year. Implementation of

approved BAFRs occurs from January to August immediately following Board approval, unless directed

otherwise by the Board. The process will encompass 24 months as a complete cycle. Where necessary,

this implementation schedule can be adjusted to accommodate funding cycles or the need for

additional time to prepare BAFRs.




The recommendations approved in December are for implementation in the next academic school

year and satisfy District Policy CT (LOCAL): FACILITIES PLANNING.

It is important to note that District Policy AI (LOCAL): ACCOUNTABILITY, applies to schools that have not

met academic criteria established by the District, state, or federal accountability system. This policy

establishes the general framework used to identify schools for potential intervention and is part of a

comprehensive approach that supports the success of each school in alignment with the District’s

strategic plan.

Interventions with schools that are necessary to address Policy AI may occur on an accelerated timeline

to support improvements in these schools. These interventions may not align to the BAFR cycle, but they

will be implemented as needed in order to ensure the success of all of our students.

In addition to the consideration of schools affected by Policy AI, the annual budget cycle also provides

a process to address other initiatives and priorities.

These two processes provide flexibility on an annual basis for considering programmatic needs that do

not align to the 24-month BAFR cycle.

Biennial Schedule for Planning, Community Engagement and Implementation

In order to foster dialogue and solicit input from stakeholders, the Administration will follow a community

engagement and implementation schedule as part of the FMP Framework. The District wants to ensure

that staff, family and community engagement occurs early in this process. Depending on whether there

is a need for a bond program in the future, the FMP implementation schedule may require the

recruitment and appointment of a Citizens’ Bond Advisory Committee to recommend the scope of

work for a future bond program.

To support a transparent community engagement process, the District will maintain a website to

update all stakeholders about the Framework and collect input and publish public records related to

recommendations and actions under consideration.

During the first year, from September to December, the Superintendent or designee will host local and

regional discussions with principals, staff, families and community stakeholders to brainstorm, discuss,

and vet ideas within a district-wide context.

In January, the Board will discuss demographic and population trends and their impact on the District.

This information will inform the identification of priority regions or school areas that will need to be

studied carefully relative to the BAFRs.

From June to August, formal Board-approved committees and district-established advisory bodies,

including the Boundary Advisory Committee and the District Advisory Council, will be consulted for

ongoing input. The Administration will continue to inform the community about the Framework and

timeline using established processes, such as electronic communication and web updates before the

recommendations are made public.

During the second year, the Administration will present draft BAFRs to the Board of Trustees during

September, in odd-numbered years, informed by the feedback and input collected from principals,

staff, families and community stakeholders during the previous academic school year.




Once the draft BAFRs are made public, the Administration will communicate with impacted staff,

families and the community using linguistically and culturally appropriate electronic communication

and direct outreach.

The Superintendent or designee will host two public hearings for input on BAFRs under consideration.

Each public hearing will be recorded and broadcast live on AISD Channel 22. Families and community

stakeholders will also have an opportunity to provide input regarding the BAFRs during the public

budget planning process from October to December.

The public will also be able to provide comment during the citizens’ communication portion of the

Board’s regular meeting. The Board will receive a full report of all input and feedback collected to-date

before the December action on the BAFRs. All approved actions will have individualized strategies for

communications, marketing and outreach to support the execution and implementation of the Facility

Master Plan BAFRs.

Community Engagement Touch Points

The Administration has also developed the following internal and external community engagement

touch points to be implemented during the BAFR process each year. Different BAFRs require different

types of engagement based on the complexity of the issues and/or the significance of the BAFR’s

impact on the community.

Internal/External FMP Work Group

Engagement with Principals (Impacted Areas)

Cabinet/Expanded Cabinet Engagement

Presentations/Discussions with Board of Trustees

Engagement with Trustee(s) of Impacted District

Planning Team Meetings

Public Information with Proactive Media Strategies

Hosting Community Meetings

Materials/Handouts for Community Meetings

Notification of Community Meetings

Principal-Led School Specific Meetings and Outreach

District-Led School Specific Meetings and Outreach

Engagement with School District Advisory Groups, Committees, and Other District Affiliated

Groups

Stakeholder Engagement

Public Hearings and Citizens Communications

The general public can follow the process and recommendations online via www.austinisd.org/fmp.




June – August

• Analyze and apply academic and operational (facilities) needs to identify possible options

• Update and verify FCI and Annual Information (campus/facility level)

September – December

• Seek individual school-generated facilities planning input

• Begin public engagement: conduct local and regional meetings to brainstorm, discuss, and vet ideas within a district-wide context

• Identify members for planning teams

• Promote engagement process and begin direct outreach with families

January – May

• Begin discussion with Board on population trends and impacts on District with demographic update

• Identify priority areas or regions for public engagement

• Recruit and appoint CBAC for proposed bond program (as needed)

• Present preliminary scenarios for the development of the BAFRs to Board of Trustees

June – August



• Receive continued community feedback through established processes

• Define Board priorities used to inform possible recommendations

• Initiate BAC

• Cost Board priorities

• Define Priority1 & 2 building system upgrades and costs

Year One

September

• Present updated BAFR preliminary scenarios to Board of Trustees

• Present annual data to support BAFRs to Board of Trustees

• Evaluate (Board)any exceptions to the recommendations

• Review (Board) FMP Framework (every two years)

• Provide citizens’ communication opportunities during Board meeting

• Begin budget planning public process

October-December

• Host (Superintendent) public hearings and meetings with families and impacted communities

• Continue communicating recommendations with stakeholders

• Provide citizen communication opportunities during board meeting

• Scheduled action (Board) on changes to FMP Framework (every two years), if needed

• Present draft scenarios of the BAFRs to Board of Trustees

• Provide feedback (Board) on BAFRs

• Prepare final BAFRs for Board action

• Scheduled action (Board) on final BAFRs for following academic year by Board

January - August

• Begin implementation plan for approved BAFRs

• Initiate preparation of next academic year’s plan

• Appoint Boundary Advisory Committee (BAC) (every two years or as vacancies occur)

• Continue communicating progress of approved recommendations with stakeholders

Year Two




FMP Timeline for Planning, Community Engagement and Implementation

YEAR ONE

September – December

• Seek individual school-generated facilities planning input, based on updated Facility Condition

Index (FCI) from June-July.

• Begin public engagement: conduct local and regional meetings to brainstorm, discuss, and vet

ideas within a district-wide context

• Identify members for planning teams

• Promote engagement process and begin direct outreach with families

January - May

• Begin discussion with Board on population trends and impacts on District with demographic

update

• Identify priority areas or regions for public engagement

• Recruit and appoint CBAC for proposed bond program (as needed)

• Present preliminary scenarios for the development of the BAFRs to Board of Trustees

June – August



• Receive continued community feedback through established processes

• Define Board priorities used to inform possible recommendations

• Initiate BAC

• Cost Board priorities

• Define Priorities 1 & 2 building system upgrades and costs

YEAR TWO

September

• Present updated preliminary BAFR scenarios to Board of Trustees

• Present annual data to support BAFRs to Board of Trustees

• Evaluate (Board)any exceptions to the recommendations

• Review (Board)FMP Framework (every two years)

• Provide citizens’ communication opportunities during board meeting

• Begin budget planning public process

October-December

• Host (Superintendent) public hearings and meetings with families and impacted communities

• Continue communicating recommendations with stakeholders

• Provide citizen communication opportunities during board meeting

• Scheduled action (Board) on changes to FMP Framework (every two years), if needed

• Present draft scenarios of the BAFRs to Board of Trustees

• Provide feedback (Board) on BAFRs

• Prepare final BAFRs for Board action

• Scheduled action (Board) on final BAFRs for following academic year by Board




Academics and Operations Inform the FMP Biennial Facility Recommendations

Academically Driven information

In addition to the AISD Strategic Plan, Board Priorities are used as a guide in the development of the

BAFRs.

Any academic options considered are those that have proven results, are high quality, challenging,

inspiring and culturally relevant. Some options are expansions to existing programs; others are new to

the District; and some are new delivery models for existing programs.

These two elements, the Strategic Plan and the applicable Board Priorities, form the first circle in the

development of the FMP BAFRs.

Operations Driven Information

The second circle is the operational component. This includes an objective Facility Criteria Assessment

consistently applied to all facilities across the District.

The Administrative Recommendation for the FMP includes two sets of evaluation data, one quantitative

and one qualitative.

ACADEMICALLY DRIVEN:

AISD Strategic Plan;

Board Priorities

OPERATIONS DRIVEN:

Facility Assessment

Results;

Financial Implications

FMP Biennial Academic and Facilities Recommendations Diagram

Bie

nn

ial

Ac

ad

em

ic a

nd

Fa

cilitie

s R

ec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

5

TheoverlapofAcademicsandOpera onsdeterminestheBAFRs.Theoverlapcanbelargerorsmaller,dependingontheimpactoftheboardpriori es,emergencyneeds(i.e.naturaldisasters),availableresources,unexpected

popula onshi s,andurgentfacili escondi onsinanygivenyear.




The quantitative criteria include:

Percent of permanent capacity;

Percent of functional capacity;

Facility condition (using the revised FCI discussed in the next section);

Academic performance;

The Texas Comptroller’s Financial Allocation Study for Texas (FAST) rating (The FAST Report will be

updated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts each year. Should these updates no

longer occur, a similar report, if one can be identified, will be used in its place);

Cost per student; and

Student movement (in and out of attendance zone).

The qualitative criteria accommodate factors that can ultimately affect facility use. These include:

Historic significance;

Special programs and/or academic portfolio of options;

Equity and parity;

Community needs;

Proximity to “like” schools that affect planning decisions;

Swing space capability; and

Overflow capacity for surrounding over-capacity campuses.

The application of both quantitative and qualitative criteria yields an objective and consistent

assessment of all facilities.

While these criteria will not change, the data generated from the application of the criteria changes

annually as new facility condition assessments are completed, school enrollments and utilization

percentages are updated, school ratings for academic performance are announced and cost per

student calculations are figured.




Each school facility is awarded one to three points for each of the seven quantitative criteria (listed

above). The points are then totaled, and the schools with the lowest scores are identified as potential

candidates for enhanced academic programs (that would draw additional students), repurposing,

consolidation, or right sizing.

The first two criteria focus on Efficient Space Utilization by using both permanent capacity and

functional capacity when measuring facility use efficiency. This method allows for like comparisons

across our entire facility portfolio.

1. Efficient Space Utilization - Permanent Capacity

For long-range planning, the percent of permanent capacity is calculated by dividing the number of

students in the school’s attendance zone population by the number of students the school facility can

accommodate within its permanent building(s). While specific quantitative factors may exist at certain

schools whereby portables may need to be counted as permanent classroom space, permanent

capacity as utilized for these calculations does not include portable buildings.

Percent of Permanent Capacity = _____Attendance Zone Population_____

# of Students Facility Can Accommodate

(permanent buildings only)

2. Efficient Space Utilization - Functional Capacity

For annual planning efforts, the percent of functional capacity is calculated by dividing the number of

students enrolled at the school, taking into account all “in” and “out” student movement, by the

number of students the school facility can accommodate within its permanent and portable building(s),

and also taking into consideration all special programs available at the school that particular year that

may reduce the number of classrooms available for instructional use.

Percent of Functional Capacity = ________# of Students Enrolled_______

# of Students Facility Can Accommodate

(with permanent and portable classroom buildings)

The target range that AISD has used in the past for either methodology is 75% - 115%. Schools below

75% may be available to provide relief for overcrowded schools or may be considered as potential

candidates for other purposes. Schools above 115% are monitored for upward growth trends and

schools that exceed 125% are considered for additions, boundary changes or as candidates to benefit

from the construction of new school facilities.

The FMPTF used a narrower target range of 85% - 105% when assessing the percent of permanent

capacity of school facilities. Although the percent of functional capacity was provided to the task

force, it was not part of their evaluation criteria.

To identify a school facility’s ability to accommodate its future neighborhood population, the

percent of permanent capacity, based on a five-year projection of attendance zone

population, is scored as follows:

Below 75% - 1 point,

75% to 115% - 2 points,

Above 115% - 3 points

To identify a school facility’s ability to accommodate its current enrollment, including “in” and

“out” student movement, the percent of functional capacity, based on enrollment, is scored as

follows:



W o r k i n g D r a f t a s o f 2 - 1 8 - 1 3 1 0

Below 75% - 1 point,

75% to 115% - 2 points,

Above 115% - 3 points

3. Facility Condition

Facility condition is the state of repair of the school facility’s existing infrastructure. School facility

condition takes into consideration all of the major facility systems from roofs and windows to electrical

and mechanical systems. Although there is a cost associated with rectifying every school facility

according to current codes and standards, these costs are not included in the FCI calculations, but

have been captured for future use. The implementation of these improvements will not be required until

extensive facility renovations take place.

To identify the physical condition of the school facility, and the expense associated with repairs

and improvements, the Facility Condition Index rating categories are as follows:

50.1% or more; “Poor” – 0 points,

30.1% to 50%; “Fair” – 1 point,

15.1% to 30%; “Moderate” – 2 points

0 to 15%; “Good” – 3 points

4. Academic Performance

To address school performance, the five-year average (2006 – 2010) of TEA ratings was derived

by assigning the following point system for each year the school has been rated: Academically

Unacceptable – 0 points; Academically Acceptable – 1 point; Recognized – 2 points; Exemplary

– 3 points); and then the average is calculated. The performance average is then scored as

follows:

0.0 – 0.5 – 0 points,

0.6 – 1.5 – 1 point,

1.6 – 2.5 – 2 points

2.6 – 3.0 – 3 points

5. Cost per Student

To identify efficiencies in operating costs (includes both M&O and grants/other external funds),

the five-year average (e.g., 2006 – 2010) cost per student is ranked and grouped to identify

schools that fall above or below the mean plus one standard deviation:

Highest Range - 1 point,

Mid-Range (approximately 2/3 of the schools) - 2 points,

Lowest Range - 3 points

6. Student Movement (in and out of attendance zones)

To support the neighborhood schools concept, a student’s residence determines the school he or she

will attend. Use of attendance zones for school assignments is designed to promote balanced

enrollments and the efficient use of school facilities. However, students may attend a school outside

their attendance zones for a variety of reasons including magnet programs, priority or general transfers

and federal- or state-mandated school choice options.

To identify schools that serve large groups of students outside of their attendance zones, and

that may not be considered a neighborhood school, the percent of enrollment from areas other

than the school’s attendance zone is scored as follows:




More than 25% - 1 point,

Between 25% - 15% - 2 points,

Less than 15% - 3 points

7. Financial Allocation Study for Texas (FAST) Rating

The 2009 Legislature’s House Bill 3 directed the Texas Comptroller’s Office to examine how schools and

school districts spend their money, and how this spending translates into student achievement. In

response, the Comptroller’s office created the FAST Report. The FAST Report will be updated by the

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts each year. Should these updates no longer occur, a similar report,

if one can be identified, will be used in its place.

This study includes many factors both in and outside school that influence the cost of education, some

beyond the District’s control. These factors include federal, local and state funding, academic

progress, state accountability rating, drop-out rates, average class size, and district demographics.

To address school performance as it relates to cost over time, the 2011 FAST star rating is scored

as follows:

1 to 2 stars– 1 point,

2.5 to 3.5 stars - 2 points,

4 to 5 stars – 3 points

The qualitative criteria are defined below:

1. Historic significance – Is this a facility that has been officially designated as having architectural or

historic significance by a governmental entity and, as a result, should be preserved, conserved, and

protected? Will this designation impact the potential uses for the building and restrict the types of

renovations that can be made?

2. Special programs and/or academic portfolio of options – Is this a campus or facility that serves a

special population with specific academic needs and provides unique educational programs that

may not be easily replicated at other facilities? Is this a campus that provides academic offerings

that support the vertical team signature program?

3. Equity and parity – Is this a campus or facility that provides improved academic programming or

replicates quality programs to help balance offerings geographically throughout the District?

4. Community needs - Is this a campus or facility where the District, in conjunction with other

governmental entities, serves the needs of the community at large through joint-use projects such as

libraries, health centers or recreational centers?

5. Proximity to “like” schools that affect planning decisions – Is this a campus or facility that addresses

the unique needs of a community by providing programs that complement those of neighboring

schools?

6. Swing space capability – Is this a campus or facility that can be used temporarily to accommodate

additional students, or a school population, during renovations, additions, or emergencies?

7. Overflow capacity for surrounding over-capacity campuses - Is this a campus or facility that has

capacity to permanently accommodate additional students from an over-capacity neighboring

school?

The data utilized in creating a portion of the quantitative criteria for the facility assessment represents a

collaborative data gathering process with the City Austin and other community organizations, which is

summarized below.

1. City of Austin demographic, census, residential development information, approved plats and

MetroStudy housing data are all used in the development of the District's annual demographic




report. AISD Facilities planning staff and the current district demographic consultant, meet at

least two times a year with the city demographic expert, and a leading provider of housing

market information, to exchange information about Austin area demographic and economic

trends that are likely to have an impact on the student population projections for the next five

years.

2. AISD Office of Facilities planning staff works with the Community Action Network to compare

aggregate student population data and demographic and census data with area school

districts to identify trends that may impact student population.

3. AISD Office of Facilities planning staff works with the City of Austin’s Planning and Development

Review Department to complete Educational Impact Statements for residential developments in

order to identify, evaluate and communicate the educational impact of real-estate

development and redevelopment projects.

4. AISD Office of Facilities staff periodically contacts the Assistant City Manager for Community

Services, which includes the Parks and Recreation Department, to explore the possibility of joint-

use projects in conjunction with future district facilities.

5. In addition to the City of Austin departments mentioned above, AISD’s Office of Facilities and

Construction Management staff work with the Planning and Development Review Department,

the Watershed Protection Department and the Sustainability Office to ensure construction

projects are aligned with City of Austin policies and ordinances and to consult and collaborate

on sustainability initiatives.

6. AISD Office of Facilities staff also consults frequently with Austin Energy and the Office of Real-

Estate Services to identify energy and sustainability issues and to explore the possibility of

mutually beneficial interlocal agreements or potential land exchanges.

DATA VERIFICATION SOURCES

FACILITY CONDITION INDEX

In 1991, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) established the

Facility Condition Index (FCI) standard and defined it as a ratio of the Cost of Repairs divided by the

Current Replacement Value of a facility:

FCI = Cost of Repairs/Current Replacement Value

AISD Operations:

City of Austin

Demographer/Census

Planning and Development Review

Capital Planning Office

Parks and Recreation Department

Watershed Protection Department

Sustainability Office

Community

Community Action Network

MetroStudy

School Site Verification Data Verification




NACUBO developed the FCI as a means of quantitatively measuring the physical condition of a facility

or portfolio of facilities, which is widely used today by those engaged in the management of facilities in

both the private and public sectors. This standard provides for a rating relative to the FCI to offer a

qualitative sense of the “Good”, “Moderate”, “Fair” or “Poor” condition of a facility (or its components,

or a group of facilities) against a cost model of a similar facility as if it were at the beginning of its useful

life, or fully “renewed” to today’s standards. As shown below, the lower the FCI, the better the facility

condition.

0 – 15% Good: The facility is in overall good physical condition, with 15% or less of the value of

the building and site systems needing repair or replacement.

15.1% - 30% Moderate: The facility is in overall moderately good physical condition, with 15.1% to 30%

of the value of the building and site systems needing repair or replacement.

30.1% - 50% Fair: The facility is in overall fair physical condition, with 30.1 to 50% of the value of the

building and site systems needing repair or replacement. Many of the building and site

systems are approaching or have exceeded their expected useful life.

50% or more Poor: The facility is in unsatisfactory physical condition with more than 50% of the value

of the building and site systems needing repair of replacement. Many of the building

and site systems are failing or no longer meet the needs of the facility. [Note: When the

FCI begins to reach 61% (⅔ the cost of replacing the building), strong consideration is

usually given to having the facility replaced, if the need continues to exist, in lieu of

continuing to commit additional capital resources to the sustenance of the existing

building.]

As part of the Facility Master Plan Task Force effort during March 2010, the District’s Facility Master Plan

consultants developed an FCI calculation that went beyond the conventions described above by the

inclusion of costs for:

The expansion of various building and site systems (e.g., adding cameras to closed-circuit

television security systems);

The addition or replacement of some moveable equipment;

Technology needs (including a computer refresh schedule, and new system software and

programs);

Both public and program-related accessibility renovations to achieve eventual compliance

with the American with Disabilities Act/Texas Accessibility Standards (ADA/TAS); and

The renovation of temporary classroom buildings (portables).

The consultant’s approach yielded an index that went beyond the more basic industry standard

calculation of an FCI by calculating additional variable elements as deficiencies.

To remedy this situation, AISD Construction Management staff consulted with various other educational

facilities planners and educational entities with experience in comprehensive facilities condition

assessments to gain their perspective on industry best practices for developing meaningful FCIs. As a

result of this consultation, AISD has elected to utilize the more conventional approach to developing an

FCI rating for its permanent buildings and their sites. This approach provides for a more equitable

comparison of facilities based on the actual condition of their existing building and site systems, which

includes:

roofs

air-conditioning systems

site drainage systems

plumbing systems




electrical and lighting systems

paving and sidewalks

wall and floor coverings and finishes

other exterior and interior building systems

The additional elements, i.e., technology needs and ADA/TAS improvements, included in the initial FCI

calculations and as part of the FMP Task Force work will be utilized by AISD as secondary factors to

inform decisions regarding future facility uses and the need for legitimate, beneficial, system

enhancements and improvements on a facility-by-facility basis. For example, it is likely that only a

portion of the various program related accessibility ADA/TAS improvement scenarios that were

developed for each facility will actually have to be constructed, and only when triggered by future

renovations that eventually need to be performed at a facility.

The District maintains current information on the Facility Condition Index (FCI) calculations for all AISD

facilities, which are available in the AISD Construction Management Department.

Facility Condition Assessment Needs/Deficiencies

DEFICIENCY PRIORITIES

Deficiencies are assigned a priority that is primarily in accordance with the level of their criticality, which

ranges from 1 (most critical) to 5.

Priority 1: currently critical (immediate need; i.e., fire-alarm system upgrades, replacement of

deteriorated sanitary sewer lines, other life safety system improvements).

Priority 2: potentially critical (to be corrected within one year; i.e., the replacement of major HVAC

equipment, improvements to electrical lighting systems, the replacement of plumbing

fixtures, piping and trim, roofing replacement).

Priority 3: necessary/not yet critical (1-2 years; i.e., site drainage improvements, refinishing exterior

doors and frames, replacement of HVAC, plumbing and electrical equipment that is nearing

the end of its useful life).

Priority 4: recommended (3-5 years; i.e., replacement of ceiling systems that are approaching the end

of their useful lives; replacement of wall and floor coverings and finishes, refinishing interior

doors and frames).

Priority 5: does not meet current code/standards/grandfathered (i.e., building and site system

improvements and upgrades that are not required in the near term, and are not included in

the Facility Condition Index [FCI] computations).

EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY

Educational Adequacy provides a reference for how well a school is equipped to deliver the District’s

instructional program. As part of the initial FMPTF effort, an educational adequacy assessment was

conducted by the FMP consulting team during the summer of 2010, whereby each instructional space

in each existing school was examined for deficiencies that when compared to district-developed

standards had the potential for impairing the delivery of instruction. Eight criteria were used to perform

the Educational Adequacy assessment:

Capacity;

Support for Programs;

Technology;

Supervision and Security;

Instructional Aids;




Physical Characteristics; and

Learning Environment.

Educational Adequacy deficiencies noted also included: inadequate teacher storage space; lack of

private toilets in elementary classrooms; inadequate marker board or bulletin board space in

classrooms; insufficient numbers or the lack of overhead projectors and projection systems in

classrooms.

FUNCTIONAL EQUITY

Functional Equity (FE) is a reference for the determination of those core areas (cafeterias, libraries,

gymnasiums, and administrative space) of existing schools that are appreciably less than the

requirements specified in the District’s current Educational Specifications. In addition to identifying core

space deficiencies, the FE assessment included the development of a physical design for eliminating

these deficiencies to achieve equitable improvement through addition/renovation projects. Although

complete compliance with current Educational Specifications is not always possible, meaningful

improvements can often be developed to achieve the maximum equitable solution on a school-by-

school basis. This effort began during the implementation of the 1996 Bond Program, and has

continued throughout subsequent bond programs. Potential solutions to the most problematic FE

deficiencies, identified at approximately 45 existing schools, have been developed at a preliminary

building design level, as has the estimated cost to implement the construction.

REVISED EDUCATION SPECIFICATIONS

A separate set of AISD Educational Specifications has been developed for elementary schools, middle

schools and high schools that describe the current standards for program areas, equipment needs,

space requirements (square footage), and special considerations for new facilities. These documents

are periodically reviewed and revised over time by the District’s instructional leaders and operations

staff to respond to changes in instructional programming and instructional delivery. Proposed

specialized programs must be evaluated relative to their reliance upon any program-specific facility

needs to ensure that proper instruction can be delivered. Facilities staff input on potential costs for

proposed changes provides a systems check and informs the future design and construction process.

TECHNOLOGY

When the Facility Master Plan Framework was being initially developed, AISD’s Technology Department

projected the management information system and network system needs that the District could

expect over the long term. These needs included:

Creation of an integrated enterprise resource management system for the Human Resources

Department, Finance and ancillary departments;

Completion of the roll-out of Innovation Station assemblies for the remaining 3,784 classrooms;

Installation of a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) in the District to replace the existing Nortel

System;

Upgrades to wireless and network infrastructure for approximately 45 campuses;

Upgrades to approximately 117 public address (PA) systems;

Upgrades to instructional and assessment systems (e.g., Learning Platform, Data Warehouse,

Student Information System [SIS] and Gradebook);

Upgrades to outside data cable plant and installation of a wireless solution for portable

classroom buildings;

Upgrades to/replacement of projection systems in approximately 6,000 classrooms; and

Replacement of:

o Existing Nortel voice mail system;




o Approximately 7,000 teacher laptop computers;

o Approximately 20,000 desktop computers;

o Approximately 3,000 printers; and

o Electrical generators at six GAATN (Greater Austin Area Technology Network)Supernodes

SITE FCI VERIFICATION

In addition to FCI assessments, an individual Site Verification Process has been adopted. On an annual

basis, campus and building administrators will be furnished a list of currently identified site and building

system deficiencies for their school or facility. The noted deficiencies will be those relative to the existing

site and building systems of the permanent structures at each site location.

It should be noted that a one-page summary sheet that the administrators receive is formatted to group

the deficiencies by site and building system level, and by priority. Priority 1 deficiencies are those that

are regarded as currently critical, and constitute an immediate need; Priority 2 deficiencies are those

that are potentially critical, and should be corrected within one year; Priority 3 deficiencies are those

that are not yet critical, but should be corrected within 1 to 2 years; and, Priority 4 deficiencies are those

representing systems that are approaching the end of their useful life, and should be replaced within

three to five years.

The deficiencies are organized by site and by subdivided wings or areas of a facility. For the

administrator’s orientation and information, a diagram of each campus/facility building is included with

the deficiencies reports, which display the referenced subdivision of wings, areas, or separate buildings

(identified as building subdivision “A”, “B”, “C”, etc.). In the one-page summary document, an aerial

photograph of each facility is provided, the subdivided building areas are numbered and titled, and

their gross square footage is noted.

Not included in this list of deficiencies, but captured in other databases, are improvements or features

that need to be added to a facility (i.e., additional marker boards and tack boards, overhead

projectors, computers and technological equipment, the creation of additional computer labs, or the

construction of a classroom or other building addition necessary to accommodate new programs or an

increase in the student population).

The school or designated facility administrator will consult with the Campus Advisory Council to review

the validity of the facility condition deficiency report and provide the District with points of concurrence

or identify additional needs for the facility.

INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL-GENERATED FACILITIES PLANNING INPUT

Facilities information that has been collected from individual school-generated campus planning efforts

is, and will continue to be, incorporated into the District’s facilities database. Staff reviews these plans,

critiques them, and provides general concurrence or alternate suggestions regarding the campus’s

proposed facilities improvements. The process is similar to that which is used by staff in the identification

of Functional Equity facility needs, which includes the development of high-level schematic designs and

probable cost estimates. The AISD Construction Management Department contact information is

provided if additional assistance is needed.

The information collected in this process permits schools to reflect vertical team signature programs

and/or individual school programming requests. The opportunity to identify these specialized or

particular programming requests position schools to take advantage of external funding options.

While some schools have initiated their own facilities planning efforts at their campuses, many of the

District’s schools do not have adequate experience and resources to do so. To ensure equity for all

schools in the consideration of their future facility needs, including building expansions or other




improvements necessitated by program changes or student population growth, a standardized

template or format has been developed to assist the campuses with their planning. This effort will be

supported through AISD Construction Management assistance to ensure the consistent application of

good planning practices, and will be provided to groups of schools as they are gathered as a Vertical

Team, or individually to campuses with specialized facility needs.

The objective is to have all campus facility planning information developed, collected and available for

consideration by a Citizens’ Bond Advisory Committee (CBAC), or similar advisory group, for possible

inclusion in the scope of projects in a future bond program. The facilities information generated by

individual campuses will be utilized during the Biennial Academic and Facilities Recommendations

(BAFRs) process, as a reference point to ensure that future facility plans support and do not conflict with

academic programs that are being proposed as BAFRs.

As previously stated, the greatest use of the facilities data collected through the individual campus

facility planning process will occur at the time a future bond advisory committee is formed. The

committee will be asked to review all of the school district’s facilities data, categorize, prioritize and

justify it, and form a recommendation for consideration by the Board of Trustees on the legitimate and

supportable facilities needs that should be addressed through a proposed bond program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Included in each of the proposed educational options, located in the BAFR section, is a Financial

Implications statement. This statement presents the financial implications of the proposed educational

program and design. It also includes estimated revenue and savings from possible budgetary

reallocations that could be made to support individual new initiatives. Estimated program costs were

based on prototypical designs and historical spending. Actual program costs will not be available until

final decisions are made regarding program design, scope and site. In some cases, a range will be

presented as the actual costs could vary depending upon the aforementioned variables.

SITE SELECTION PROCESS FOR NEW SCHOOLS

In cases where it is decided that a new school is needed, the specific location begins with site selection

to meet capacity or programmatic needs. The steps outlined below explain the sequence of activities

that are followed when determining the areas for school site acquisition.

The steps in the process will include the following for areas that need large relief steps (1-17) below:

1. Identify large relief areas within which to search for sites using the population projections for the

school attendance areas for the appropriate level (i.e., elementary, middle school or high

school).

2. Present the proposed relief areas to the Board of Trustees for its feedback.

3. Vet the proposed relief areas with district-wide committees, such as the District Advisory Council

and the Community Bond Oversight Committee.

4. Hold a public hearing to receive community feedback.

5. Modify the proposed relief areas by incorporating the community feedback.

6. Present the modified relief areas to the Board of Trustees for approval.

While it may be necessary at times to utilize the aforementioned steps, the Board will make the

determination if the site selection process should be limited only to the steps outlined below (Steps 7-17).

below




7. Identify the need for a site after reviewing programmatic or demographic data.

8. Search for sites in a specified geographic area.

9. Rate and rank-order using the District’s site evaluation criteria.

10. Recommend the highest ranked site to Board in executive session.

11. Request direction from the Board to acquire a right of entry.

12. Board approves right of entry.

13. Initiate the site feasibility evaluation period, if the Board approves the right of entry, if not, return

to the step above, “Search for sites in a specified geographic area,” and begin again with the

steps that follow.

14. Acquire the results of the site feasibility evaluation, requests direction from the Board of Trustees

to acquire the site in executive session.

15. Board directs staff to negotiate a purchase contract.

16. Negotiate a contract and place on the Board agenda for approval, if the Board approves. If

the Board does not approve, return to the step above “Search for sites in a specified

geographic area,” and begin again with the steps that follow.

17. Board approves an agenda item for the contract for the site.

Once a site is acquired, staff moves forward with design and construction. As with final site approval,

both the design and construction require Board approval. This process may be adjusted through Board

direction and at the discretion of the Board.

CONCLUSION

The Facility Master Plan Framework is not complete without using detailed information regarding district

utilization, district assessment, facility condition index results, and individual facility assessments to inform

the process annually. (See Annual Information)

The outcomes of the FMP Framework provide a long-term plan for a community engaged process to

provide for academically-driven, ongoing facility utilization and improvements. The Framework is

deliberately designed to be flexible enough to respond to necessary changes in academic and

operational needs so that adjustments to the allocation of resources can be incorporated accordingly.




APPENDIX A:

BACKGROUND

INFORMATION

AUSTIN ISD February 18, 2013




BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In past years, the Austin Independent School District (AISD or District) and the City of Austin have worked

closely on two important initiatives, the Community Committee on Neighborhoods and Schools, and the

Family and Children’s Task Force, designed to improve neighborhood schools facility planning

processes. Notwithstanding these critical endeavors, a formal long-term Facility Master Plan (FMP)

Framework has never been developed.

Under the current administration, a long-range facility planning process was launched in November

2009, when the Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to initiate this work. From March 2010 to

March 2011, the Facility Master Plan Task Force (FMPTF) developed an FMP that the Task Force

submitted to the Board on March 28, 2011. The Board then referred the plan to the Administration for

development of an administrative response. The Board also approved the Facility Master Plan Next

Steps (a timeline for key benchmarks) on May 23, 2011.

School Year 2011-2012 Schedule

One key benchmark of the timeline was the development of an Administrative Recommendation. The

Administration held meetings with representatives from selected board-approved committees, district-

established advisory bodies, and other advisors to the Superintendent, to develop and inform the

Administrative Recommendation. This work group attended multiple meetings and devoted a great

deal of time to closely analyzing materials on academic programming, student population data and

facilities needs, as well as reviewing:

Facility Master Plan Task Force Report;

School Community Proposals;

Facility Master Plan Task Force Minority Report;

Board Policy; and

Census Data.




Chronology

The following is a chronology of various references to FMP work:

May 29, 2009: MGT Efficiency Study recommended development of a long-range facility master

plan.

November 16, 2009: Board of Trustees gave initial direction to staff in a dialogue meeting to

design a facility master planning framework.

March 2010-March 2011: FMPTF convened and worked in conjunction with a nationally

recognized educational facility planning firm to develop a FMP.

March 7, 2011: FMPTF chairs and the consultants presented to the Board the final draft of

Facility Master Plan.

March 28, 2011: AISD Board of Trustees received FMPTF Facility Master Plan and referred it to the

Administration for the development of administrative recommendations.

May 23, 2011: Board approved the Facility Master Plan Next Steps outlining key benchmarks.

July, 2011-September, 2011: Administration worked on FMP Administrative Recommendation.

August 27, 2011: Board Priorities for (School Year 2011-2012) are drafted by Board.

Superintendent received guidance from Board on FMP.

September 12, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to Board

at work session.

September 19, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the

Board at Board dialogue for review and input.


Board at regular Board meeting for review and input.

October 10, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the

Board at Board work session for review and input.

October 17, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the

Board at Board dialogue for review and input.

November 7, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the

Board at Board work session for review and input.


Board at Board work session and Board approved seven proposed modifications to the FMP

Framework which included: o removing background from the body of the Framework to Appendix A; o completion of the approved AAFRs before initiating the next AAFR process in January of

the following year; o a modification to clarify that Policy AI (LOCAL): ACCOUNTABILITY address interventions

at schools to support academic improvements on a timeline that may not align to the

AAFR process and that the annual budget cycle provides a process to address other

initiatives and priorities to provide flexibility for necessary adjustments; o add language to one of the qualitative criteria to emphasize the importance of aligning

academic offerings with the vertical team signature programs; o removal of the Facility Condition Index (FCI) chart, since these data will change from

year to year; o addition of language to explicitly outline that school input is a key component related to

vertical team signature programs or individual school programming requests; and o clarification that the new school site selection process can address programmatic

needs in addition to addressing overcrowding relief.

November 12, 2012: Board member raised a concern regarding the timing of Board elections

and the schedule for FMP Annual Academic and Facilities Recommendations decisions.

November 13, 2012: Superintendent requested that staff prepare revisions to the FMP

Framework to reflect a proposed modification to the schedule for FMP Annual Academic and

Facilities Recommendations decisions that would enable appropriate aligned with the timing of

Board elections




February 25, 2012: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the Board

at regular Board meeting for review and input.




The following table is the Facility Master Plan Next Steps outlining key benchmarks for the Administration

approved by the Board on May 23, 2011.

FACILITY MASTER PLAN NEXT STEPS

Key Differences between FMPTF and Administrative Recommendation

There are four key differences in the work of the FMPTF and the Administrative Recommendation:

1. First, the FMPTF used an expanded Facility Condition Index to determine the Facility Assessment. It

included the FCI industry standard components but added others not normally found in FCI analysis.

These additional components were:

Expansion and associated costs for buildings and site systems;

Addition and/or replacement of moveable equipment;

Technology needs;

Code-related enhancements/ ADA renovation needs; and

Portable building renovations.

This method of calculating FCIs caused the district to reconsider its methodology and eliminate from

the calculations the more variable cost components not strictly related to curing deficiencies of

existing permanent site and building systems.




Therefore, the Administrative Recommendation adheres strictly to the National Association of

College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) definition. For the Administrative

Recommendation, it has been applied consistently to all facilities. By aligning with these industry

standards used by the majority of school districts in Texas, we can review our data with comparable

data of other districts.

2. Second, the FMPTF recommendations were perceived to be primarily efficiency focused in order to

assist in addressing the District's budget shortfall by closing and consolidating schools. This

perception led to a conclusion from communities, which were affected directly, that efficiency was

more important than the education of students. In the Administrative Recommendation, both

Academics and Operations inform the FMP BAFRs.

3. Third, the facility criteria considered by the FMPTF to consider utilization was limited to permanent

capacity, while the Administrative Recommendation built in the consideration of both permanent

and functional capacity into the criteria that are applied annually to all facilities.

4. Fourth, the FMPTF used the range of 85-105% for the percentage of permanent capacity to define

the range for under- and over-capacity, whereas the Administrative Recommendation returns to

the standard range used by AISD of 75-115%.

Alignment with Strategic Plan

Further, the work group reviewed the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan to support the Board-approved goals:

1. All students will perform at or above grade level.

2. Achievement gaps among all student groups will be eliminated.

3. All students will graduate ready for college, career, and life in a globally competitive economy.

4. All schools will meet or exceed state accountability standards, and the District will meet federal

standards while exceeding state standards.

There was also a purposeful effort to honor Strategy 4, Action 9 in the Strategic Plan which states,

“ensure that instructional initiatives, the budget, and other district and campus plans align with each

other and support Strategic Plan goals and policies.” The work group was ever mindful of crafting

options with considerations of their minimal, moderate, and maximum impact on graduation rates and

increasing student achievement.




Additional Considerations

The following are other examples of points considered and discussed over the course of developing the

Administrative Recommendation:

Accomplishing goals and priorities with a shrinking budget and growing population

Unlike most urban school districts, AISD’s student population is growing at a steady rate (projected to be

approximately1,000 students annually through 2020-21) and is faced with a projected budget shortfall in

the out years, possibly through school year 2017-2018 under current Senate Bill 1.

Student movement (in and out of attendance zones) and transfer policies

The number of students previously living within the Austin urban core has declined over the past 20

years. However, not all under- and over-capacity is a direct result of population and demographic

shifts. Large numbers of students that attend a school outside of the boundary of their assigned schools

present a challenge when the District is making future facility decisions.

Attendance area population vs. enrollment

The most reliable figure that can be used for planning purposes is the number of students living within

each attendance area. Actual enrollment due to student movement changes each year.

Boundary adjustment solutions

A logical and seemingly simple solution to improve efficiencies among over- and under-capacity

schools is to adjust attendance boundaries and assign more or fewer students as appropriate. In

practice, it is far more complex.

Balancing short- and long-term facility needs

As is the case in any long-term facility plan, significant resources will be needed to address capital

projects. In addition to the funds needed to renovate AISD’s facility inventory, additional investment to

address deferred maintenance and small capital projects will increase as buildings age. At the same

time, new schools will need to be constructed to accommodate concentrated growth in heavily

populated areas of the District.

ii. the fmp framework - austin isd€¦ · w o r k i n g d r a f t a s o f 2 - 1 8 - 13 2...

Documents