Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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 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.
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 3
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.
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 4
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.
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 5
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
• Analyze and apply academic and operational (facilities) needs to identify possible options
• Update and verify FCI and Annual Information (campus/facility level)
• 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
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 6
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
• Analyze and apply academic and operational (facilities) needs to identify possible options
• Update and verify FCI and Annual Information (campus/facility level)
• 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
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 7
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.
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 8
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.
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 9
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:
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 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:
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 1 1
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
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 1 2
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
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 1 3
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
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 1 4
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;
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 1 5
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;
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 1 6
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
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 1 7
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
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 1 8
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.
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 1 9
APPENDIX A:
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
AUSTIN ISD February 18, 2013
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 2 0
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.
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 2 1
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.
September 26, 2011: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the
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.
September 24, 2012: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the
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
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 2 2
February 25, 2012: Superintendent presented FMP Administrative Recommendation to the Board
at regular Board meeting for review and input.
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 2 3
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.
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 2 4
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.
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 2 5
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.