Elementary FAC - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 83
About This Presentation
Title:

Elementary FAC

Description:

Elementary FAC – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:85
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 84
Provided by: stevere
Category:
Tags: fac | bmw | elementary | m3

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Elementary FAC


1
Elementary FAC
  • Pre-Bond Committee July 2006
  • Elementary Facility Recommendations
  • Capacity and Enrollment Needs Predictions
  • Current Crisis Update How bad can it get?
  • Bond structure what you put off today will be
    back tomorrow!

2
Elementary Subcommittee Members
  • Steve Rebrovich BISD parent, PTO board
    (elementary middle)
  • Pat Worrell BISD retired school administrator
  • Rosie Perez Community representative, past BISD
    parent
  • Patsy Dumas Community representative, past BISD
    parent
  • Vance Reidel BISD parent
  • Bruce Basden BISD parent, business owner in
    school construction
  • Earla Houser Crowley BISD retired school
    administrator
  • Philo Waters BISD principal (past principal at
    Denison ISD)
  • Connie Jackson BISD teacher BISD parent
  • Julie Reidel BISD teacher BISD parent
  • Lynn Quarzenski BISD administration employee
    BISD parent
  • Pam Ehrich BISD administration liaison to our
    committee

3
Facility Recommendations
  • This committee was provided with an existing
    working summary of spaces for a prototype
    elementary campus (gt 96,000 square feet, designed
    for 675-900 students), comparison space numbers
    for Bransom Elementary, and a statement that the
    current thought was to lean toward a compact
    design school.
  • Our first order was to remove duplication, reduce
    unreasonable or unnecessary spaces, design to
    desired capacity, and assure we provided the most
    significant gains possible in design that would
    lead to student achievement.

4
Facility Recommendations
  • Additional considerations
  • Provide a building that enhances the
    instructional program through features designed
    to benefit students and teachers.
  • While being financially responsible, create a
    pleasant space for effective learning.
  • Plan for flexibility today and into future
    decades build in the ability to meet the needs
    of changing programs over time.

5
Building Configuration
  • The committee was initially led toward a compact
    design plan with day-lighting alternatives. We
    quickly found that after touring many different
    campuses, we are strongly opposed to any form of
    compact design school. While one might
    anticipate the desire to have a window is driven
    more by the personal well-being of being able
    to see outdoors, in surveying Stribling
    Elementary teachers (who work in a compact design
    setting) the overwhelming response was that the
    inability to do classroom extension (teaching
    weather, nature, science, other TEKS) without
    moving the class outside was the most important
    reason they wished for a window.

FOR MORE INFO...
Review the completed Summary of Spaces for
proposed BISD future elementary facilities.
6
Building Configuration
  • Additionally, there are dozens of studies
    indicating the calming, centering, and
    stimulating effects that a view of
    nature/outdoors can provide a classroom. The
    committee experienced this personally while
    traveling through different spaces and evaluating
    our reactions to each type of space and as a
    result strongly recommends a more traditional (or
    finger) style design with extensive windows.
    Day-lighting is recommended for its educational
    value, however it requires additional evaluation.

FOR MORE INFO...
Review the completed Summary of Spaces for
proposed BISD future elementary facilities.
7
Building Configuration Cost differentiation
by design
  • Based upon our interviews with architects the
    base costs for differently designed buildings
    that are otherwise similar are
  • Compact Plan Traditional Plan
    Compact Plan Traditional Plan
  • No daylighting No daylighting With
    daylighting With daylighting
  • x x 500,000
    x 1,000,000 (x 500,000)

    500,000
  • OR IN SAMPLE WITH A BASE COST OF X
    12,000,000
  • 12,000,000 12,500,000 13,000,000
    13,000,000
  • After experiencing the compact plan (even WITH
    daylighting, the committee found that it SHOULD
    NOT be considered acceptable.

8
Building Configuration
  • The compact design (with or without day-lighting)
    limits classroom extension of TEKS, is an
    unfriendly environment, and is considered not
    acceptable by the committee.

Campus toured and deemed not acceptable
9
Building Configuration
  • A more traditional design. More adaptive,
    provides classroom extension with windows in
    classrooms, great atmosphere and educational
    opportunity.

Toured considered a model school by the
committee
10
Building Configuration
  • This design was discussed early in the planning.
    It is interesting in that it creates a secure
    area for outdoor learning and provides windows in
    classrooms while maintaining a reasonably compact
    footprint.
  • More feedback is necessary and we are waiting on
    a response from the administrators of the
    Washington, D.C. campus where this plan was built.

An interesting alternative considered by the
committee
11
Building Configuration
  • CONCLUSION
  • The committee found educational instructional
    advantages of a more traditional design
    (classrooms with lots of windows) make it ideal.
  • The committee firmly recommends that a compact
    design plan not be considered in any manner.
  • The committee also found that the only way a
    compact plan lowered costs was with dark,
    non-daylit classrooms severely prohibited.

12
Building Design - features
  • Building features
  • Types of spaces
  • Adaptable effective spaces driven by instruction

13
Outside spaces curb appeal
  • Create an inviting building but not a showplace.
  • Entry should have good visibility for safety.

Designs should be functional, friendly, and
responsible
14
Outside spaces curb appeal
  • This entry feature struck the committee as highly
    effective as you approach the campus without
    being offensive in showmanship.

A responsible entry feature
15
Outside spaces safe inviting
  • Building features provide safety at entry
  • Parents have a place to gather outside of
    building.

Many parents will spend more time here than
anywhere else on campus
16
Outside spaces safe inviting
  • Safe and accessible campus traffic patterns for
    each site plan must be successfully addressed.

Successful traffic planning is a MUST
17
Outside spaces student learning
  • Outside learning courtyard secured with fencing.
  • Landscaping will provide additional security when
    mature.

Security issues should be addressed at
construction
18
Outside spaces parent communication
  • A high quality sign was identified as an integral
    part of parent communication.

We must find every effective way to involve
parents
19
Outside spaces community entrance
  • A separate entrance allows after-hours access to
    community spaces while instructional areas remain
    secured.

Gyms, cafeteria, meeting space for the community
20
Entrance secure facility
  • A secure entry that requires visitors to sign in
    at the office. Bransom space was identified as
    ideal due to its configuration and size that
    allows room for parents a place to wait in bad
    weather.

Others have this but none as effective as
Bransom
21
Office - visibility
  • The office reception area benefits from an
    expansive view of the front of the building.

Safety and security at the entrance are paramount
22
Office/Nurse structure
  • Sightlines noted to allow office staff to monitor
    nurses office for emergencies and be able to see
    corridor door so students can always find someone
    available to assist them.

These spaces must be able to work together.
23
Nurses Office
  • Provide adequate space for 3 beds, 1 as
    isolation. Provide sufficient egress for
    emergency services should the need arise.

Something we have struggled with in our current
buildings.
24
Schools that brighten the day
  • This sun-filled hallway that leads from the
    entryway/office, past the instructional hallways
    and library, to the community shared building
    features (gym, cafeteria) was identified as one
    of parents and students favorite features. It is
    achieved without unreasonable cost.

Positive attitudes and atmosphere enhance student
achievement
25
Schools that brighten the day
  • The previously shown hallway affords a quick view
    of the playground from just outside the front
    office - a distinct safety advantage.

Design must include inside and outside
considerations
26
Its all about education
  • Features like this expanded hallway space
    affords teachers an opportunity to read to
    students while working them through the adjacent
    student restrooms without disturbing other
    classes.

Turning every available space into instructional
space
27
Its all about education
  • Science labs with highly adaptable furniture for
    flexible methods of student instruction and a
    high degree of safety.

Rolling science tables can abut counters, sinks,
etc.
28
Its all about education
  • Science prep space provides storage and
    availability of resources to all grade levels
    even when building overcrowding forces the
    designated science lab into duty as a full-time
    classroom.

A science prep lab great for campus FOSS kit
distribution
29
Its all about education
  • An art lab designed to be functional for all
    grade levels. This space is flexible for use as
    additional science space, classroom space, etc.

An art lab with necessary fixtures and great
daylight features
30
Its all about education
  • Larger classrooms (recommended in the facility
    study) allow space for classroom technology and
    differentiated instruction groups per the
    district instructional model.

View of classroom technology center
31
Its all about education
  • A unique design picked up from several successful
    schools allows every 2 classrooms to share a
    flex space

View from classroom looking into flex space
32
Its all about education
  • This flex space can be closed off or opened to
    one or both classrooms simultaneously. It is
    achieved without any added square footage to the
    original planned programming.

View from flex space looking into 1 classroom
33
Its all about education
  • This flex space when opened to both classrooms
    allows a full grade level to congregate in their
    own space for featured instruction, special
    programs, safety training, more!

View from flex space looking into 2 classrooms
34
Its all about education
  • The additional storage, counter and water
    available in every flex space brings
    opportunities for science, art, and more to every
    classroom space, without any distraction inside
    the classroom.

Classroom amenities extend educational opportunity
35
Its all about education
  • Educators on the committee had an exhaustive list
    of uses for this space including experiments,
    reading groups, tutoring, independent study, team
    building, etc.

Uses for the flex space are limited only by
imagination
36
Its all about education
  • Our committee is investigating aligning the flex
    space with the corridor to allow 1) more
    flexibility in future renovation, and 2) windows
    into the classroom as opposed to into the flex
    space.

Conceptual view of flex space see right for our
recommendation
37
Its all about education
  • This architects rendering shows a classroom with
    the flex space adjacent to the corridor and a
    large amount of natural light through a wall of
    windows.

38
Its all about education
39
Its all about education
  • Details such as classroom furnishings can be a
    major factor contributing to classroom
    efficiency. Things like highly flexible student
    trapezoid desks, rolling teacher desks/tables and
    effective storage have been noted.

Details can help teachers accomplish more in less
space
40
Its all about education
  • Day-lighting is recommended by the committee for
    the educational advantages it offers. There are
    however trade-offs to be discussed and specific
    needs for it to be done in a certain manner to be
    cost effective.

Day-lighting monitors
Day-lighting will not pay for itself in MO
costs (its more of a break-even), but does offer
returns in educational value.
41
The Day-Lighting Decision
  • New methods of Day-lighting offer better energy
    controls than the system in place at Bransom.
    Concerns of increased roof maintenance can be
    minimized by using a slightly more expensive but
    more effective construction method. It is
    believed that the roughly 650,000 cost to
    provide day-lighting would be a break-even
    proposition over the life of the building.
  • Assuming the break-even projection in MO
    costs, the day-lighting feature is recommended
    for the educational value it provides to
    students.
  • This is seen as the first place to limit initial
    costs (before reducing classroom size or deleting
    other building features).

42
Campus safety security
  • Common safety features in most of todays new
    schools include carded access at main entrances
    doors to the playground from classroom wings,
    communication (preferably phones for full teacher
    communication options) in every classroom, and
    panic buttons in all classrooms.

43
Technology
  • The committee took specific note of technology
    requests both by the district IT staff and
    through observations made in campus tours within
    other districts.
  • ALL classrooms should be fitted with projection
    equipment at build.
  • ALL classrooms should be wired for 4 student
    computer workstations (possibly in 2 locations
    for classroom flexibility).

44
Technology
  • Schools should include two computer labs 1 for
    rotational instruction and one to facilitate
    teachers providing class instruction.

45
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
  • CURRENT CAPACITY
  • FUTURE CAPACITY
  • PLANNING LEVELS OF OVERCROWDING
  • REALISTIC FUTURE ENROLLMENT
  • AN ONGOING FLEXIBLE BONDING PLAN FOR THE FUTURE

46
Current Student Capacities what they are not
  • The capacity in this document (3,460) was
    determined to not meet criteria for effective
    planning

47
Current Student Capacities good news
  • The 3,460 capacity was derived from the original
    base of the facility studys state standards
    capacity (2,760). This is not an accurate number
    as we have not actually done any renovation to
    make existing campuses meet those standards. The
    result is we actually have more seats available
    than indicated.

Standards capacity assumes building renovation
has eliminated seats to meet state standards for
all classrooms and facilities.
48
Current Student Capacities bad news
  • In addition to the 2,760, another 700 seats were
    added based upon moving several of these programs
    that were using 1 full classroom into smaller
    spaces (sharing full classrooms and creating
    available rooms for classes). However, not all
    programs calculated exist on all 7 campuses and
    not all of the programs were actually moved,
    meaning the true gain is much lower than the
    theorized 700.

List of programs compacted to create additional
capacity
49
Current Student Capacities verified
  • In order to determine true capacity, current
    campus maps were evaluated for spaces available
    for classrooms along with current special
    program space needs and portables available for
    utilization. There is minimal ability to add
    additional portable space due to limited building
    facilities (cafeterias, restrooms, etc).

50
Current Student Capacities verified
  • Once a school is highlighted, there is no current
    additional growth (ie space is fully utilized).
    Most schools will be near Inside Capacity this
    year. Only 2 schools have additional space after
    that time. There is minimal ability to add
    additional portable space due to inadequate
    common facilities (cafeterias, gyms, etc).
  • The green circle represents short term planning
    capacity, the red circle crisis level capacity
    while abusing buildings and negatively impacting
    instruction.

51
Planning Student Capacities Levels of
overcrowding
  • Capacity must be divided into levels depending
    upon the planning goal. While the long-term goal
    is to provide ALL campuses with adequate
    educational space to meet district instructional
    programming needs, the current goal is to provide
    space to house all students with the least amount
    of negative impact to instruction. The following
    levels were identified as useful in planning

52
Current Student Capacities verified
53
Planning Student Capacities Level
1 No overcrowding, allows for district
instructional programming
  • LEVEL 1 This is the ultimate goal the number
    of students the district can accommodate with all
    students housed inside brick-and-mortar
    buildings. No special programs (reading
    intervention, gifted talented, etc.) or
    educational spaces (science labs, etc.) are
    displaced by classroom use. Additionally, all
    spaces provide sufficient room to meet the
    district instructional program as identified in
    the facility study (classrooms with space for
    student seating, several breakout groups for
    differentiated instruction, and technology space
    for up to 4 computers).
  • This level is attainable within the committees 8
    year plan.

54
Planning Student Capacities Level 2 buildings
at current functional levels, instruction mildly
effected at existing campuses that lack the space
needed for instructional programming
  • LEVEL 2 This is the immediate goal the number
    of students the district can accommodate with all
    classrooms housed inside brick-and-mortar
    buildings. Special programs (reading
    intervention, gifted talented, etc.) or
    educational spaces (science labs, etc.) are not
    displaced by classroom use. New construction
    spaces provide sufficient room to meet the
    district instructional program (classrooms with
    space for student seating, several breakout
    groups for differentiated instruction, and
    technology space for up to 4 computers), however
    existing schools do not.
  • This level is 90 met within the committees 3
    year plan.

55
Planning Student Capacities -living
against our motto!
  • In the facility study document preface,
    appreciation is expressed to Dr. Troutman for
    providing the motto instruction drives
    construction indicating that facilities are
    only important in the degree that they hinder or
    enhance instruction. Operation at level 2 begins
    to cause the abuse of facilities to result in
    degraded instructional effectiveness. Level 3
    disregards instructional quality altogether for
    the sake of packing in the students.

56
Planning Student Capacities
Level 3 severely overcrowded, instructional
quality highly compromised
  • LEVEL 3 This is where we are (and its getting
    worse!) the number of students the district can
    accommodate with classrooms housed everywhere
    there is a space. All special programs (reading
    intervention, gifted talented, etc.) or
    educational spaces (science labs, etc.) are
    displaced by classroom use and/or moved to
    portables. New construction spaces provide
    sufficient room to meet the district
    instructional program, however buildings are
    abused to hold maximum capacity in every
    available space. Instructional quality is highly
    compromised on a daily basis. This should be
    remedied as soon as possible.
  • This level is where we are and it will get worse
    until a suitable number of new schools are
    completed.

57
Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
  • While determining capacity is one thing, filling
    schools to that capacity is another. The only
    way to reach 100 capacity at all schools is to
    assign a campus to new students as opposed to
    using defined attendance zones. Because only 1
    or 2 of our campuses have reached this stage,
    several operate well below 100. For planning
    purposes, 92 occupancy (201) was identified as
    a hopeful goal without the need to utilize mass
    transfers within the district.
  • Occupancy will rise as campuses reach capacity.

58
Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
  • Percentage of occupancy goals have a huge impact
    on facility design. The current prototype
    facility has been designed to educate 534-580 at
    optimum capacity using a target of 92 (201) and
    the board stated preference of 4 sections per
    grade level.
  • However, if the long term goal is lower
    student/teacher ratios (say 181), an additional
    change in planning is required.
  • The facility design would be reduced to an
    operating capacity of about 486-532, or would
    require more classrooms (5 sections per grade)
    and would result in a design capacity of 549-717
    students and involve an additional cost of about
    2,000,000 per building.

59
Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
  • At 181, a 5th section per grade level on a
    permanent basis increases student population from
    a low of 549 (at 181) to a high of 717 (at
    221). Additionally, an additional classroom
    per grade level would need to be added to the
    current building design. This would add roughly
    6,080 square feet at an increased cost of roughly
    1.3 million per facility.
  • If this facility then operates at 92 occupancy,
    the population would be 650-700 students (up to
    920 overcrowded with portables) at 100
    capacity the population would be 700-725 (up to
    1,000 overcrowded with portables).
  • These higher levels of maximum occupancy would
    require another 650,000 in increased cost for
    cafeterias and restrooms, in addition to the
    1.3 mil..

60
Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
  • While this is a long range planning issue, it
    must be addressed NOW before a high volume
    construction phase begins in order to be
    meaningful.
  • Planning long term for a goal of student
    populations at an 181 ratio and campus
    populations of _at_475 results in final build-out
    requirements for 27 elementary schools.
  • Planning long term for a goal of student
    populations at a 201 ratio and campus
    populations of _at_534 results in final build-out
    requirements for 24 elementary schools.

61
Student Capacities Goal Target planning
  • With the previous levels in mind, the immediate
    goal is to plan to level 2 (at 92 occupancy), so
    that all campuses are not suffering reduced
    instructional quality due to displaced programs,
    new facilities are constructed to meet
    instructional program goals, and overcrowding is
    immediately alleviated without mass transfers.
  • While new facilities will initially be the only
    ones to meet instructional program goals (level
    1), the committee has formed a reasonable plan to
    overcome current overcrowding and replace or
    renovate all BISD campuses to meet instructional
    programming goals.

62
Student Capacities Goal New facility capacity
  • The prototype facility programmed by the
    Elementary Facility Advisory Committee using the
    preferences from the Planning Criteria Executive
    Summary we were provided has an optimum operating
    capacity of 580 students at 100 capacity. This
    means the facility would have a common maximum
    operating capacity of 534 (92), and would likely
    function in the 525-550 range. The facility will
    however accommodate up to 671 (_at_617 functional
    capacity) without portables and up to 806 (_at_742
    functional) with 3 portables on site.

63
Enrollment planning How many are coming?
  • Once again, the committee determined that this
    document is no longer acceptable criteria for
    planning. While the current position seems to
    indicate the high numbers from the 2004
    demography study are close to accurate, the
    following pages will demonstrate why that will
    change drastically in the immediate future.

64
Enrollment planning How many we thought were
coming
  • This chart shows the areas that the demographer
    identified as high growth areas for the period
    through 2009. There are only 2 locations
    identified for growth of 164-263 students and 8
    locations with growth of 69-163 students. New
    development has altered this outlook drastically.

65
Enrollment planning Where they are coming from
  • This is a current aerial map of BISD. The
    previous demographers map of anticipated growth
    for 2004-2009 has been laid over this map,
    resulting in the green shaded areas. The
    brownish shaded areas are those under
    construction. The boxes (that you cannot read on
    this copy-see next page) indicate currently
    platted lots within BISD.

Updated June 2006 with numbers from the City of
Burleson, Ft Worth, and local developers.
66
Enrollment planning How many are really coming
  • The color coded numbers on this map represent
    currently platted lots. The colors indicate what
    level of growth the 2004 demographers report
    predicted from those lots. At the 2000-2004
    rate of .45 students per new home, we would gain
    4,767 students. The demographers rpt indicated
    only 2,100 growth in 8 years. This committee
    estimates it at 3,400.

250
124
300
550
1,617
192
403
231
141
233
195
163
117
473
24
299
17
30
749
2,385
1,809
Lots identified as high growth (164-274 students)
212
1,146
55
1,796
Lots identified as moderate growth (69-163
students)
71
156
28
730
837
Lots identified as low growth (21-68 students)
6,150
Lots identified as NO growth (-9 - 9 students)
Updated June 2006 with numbers from the City of
Burleson, Ft Worth, and local developers.
10,592
TOTAL LOTS PLATTED/IN DEVELOPMENT
67
Enrollment planning How many are really coming
  • The demographers study also identified that
    during 2000-2004 every new home produced .45 new
    students (a very low ratio with a common number
    being .6-.8 per home). Therefore, the current
    inventory of 10,891 known platted lots equates to
    4,901-8,713 new students (in addition to those
    moving into existing housing). At the low end of
    the scale, our growth rate would grow to double
    that of the demographers report.

68
Enrollment planning How many are really coming
  • Based upon the number of lots illustrated that
    were not a part of the demographers projections
    and currently exist, of the known timeframe for
    those lots being developed, and common sense
    predictions, the committee believes that one of
    the bottom 2 projections (that phase in growth)
    will be accurate for planning.

Note color coding that shows above
demographers predictions
69
Note color coding that shows above
demographers predictions
70
Facility planning Facility availability vs
enrollment
  • The following two charts project the
    recommendations of the Elementary Facility
    Advisory Committee in terms of the number of new
    facilities needed to meet growth projections, the
    number of facilities required to implement the
    recommendations of the repurposing committee
    (with modifications to be able to accommodate
    growth), and for renovating existing facilities
    in order to create equity in the instructional
    environment.
  • The first chart shows what facilities are needed
    (new or repurposing/replacement) and timing.
    Please note that while the timing for bonds 2/3
    will be adjusted over the span of time as real
    numbers are determined, the follow-up years
    (bonds) were planned with the same detail as the
    current recommendation and should not be taken
    lightly.
  • The second chart shows the resultant of seats
    available as a result of each of the proposed
    facilities. Color coding highlights different
    projections.

71
Facility planning What we need to be prepared
72
Facility planning What we need to be prepared
73
Facility planning What we need to be prepared
74
Current Recommendations
  • The current bond should include 4 elementary
    facilities. Three of these would be new
    campuses, one would be to facilitate the
    repurposing of Frazier Elementary as recommended.
  • While not recommended, if this bond is reduced to
    3 elementary facilities, the repurposing of
    Frazier would have to be put off (at a
    significant cost to the district) so that maximum
    new seats are added.
  • The Nola Dunn campus should be replaced as soon
    as possible (no later than 2008 bond) due to
    building condition (see facility study),
    educational environment, and extremely poor
    student safety.
  • A new middle school should be considered for this
    bond. The illustrations attached show that
    including a middle school high school design in
    this bond with high school construction on the
    following bond creates the most reasonable
    funding plan. Without a middle school included,
    this bond would result in 9-10 elementary
    campuses feeding 2 middle schools.

75
Because the recommendation of this committee is
only valid as it works with overall planning, the
below illustrates how the recommendations made
impact this and future bonds that will be
required.
76
  • Important notesRegardless of bonding, high
    school construction could not begin until
    2008.Leaving middle school construction to 2008
    results in much higher future bonding.If middle
    school construction is left to future bonding,
    design work should be funded now.The district
    goal is 3 elementary schools feeding 1 middle
    school we will have 9-10 elementary campuses
    after the 2006 bond.

77
Important notesNot shown is option to build
complete high school AND middle school in 2006.
This would result in 275 mil bond in 06 (and
reduce an 08 bond to around 100 mil).Building a
portion of the high school (with or without a
middle school) could also be considered.DESIGN
WORK FOR ALL LEVELS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS
BOND.
78
Important notesThe below addresses all levels
of facilities required at the apparent least
painful level.DESIGN WORK FOR ALL LEVELS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED IN THIS BOND.
79
Important notesThe below addresses all levels
of facilities required but falls 1 elementary
short.DESIGN WORK FOR ALL LEVELS SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THIS BOND.
80
Need for continued planning
  • This committee (and the others) have all noted
    the fact that it is extremely critical that BISD
    remain in a constant state of facility planning
    due to the impending growth rate. This was
    learned from discussion, experience of
    professionals consulted, and through the
    experience of other districts that several
    individual committees consulted in planning.

81
Need for continued planning
  • This committee has shown commitment, has gained
    expertise, and is a strong representation of our
    community and district. This committee would
    submit that it should be continued (with some
    additional representation of district staff) in
    order to 1) monitor changes in demographics
    that will cause these recommendations to require
    updating, 2) assist in construction oversight,
    and 3) continue to identify best practices for
    building features that will help us to meet our
    instructional program goals.

82
Commitment to excellence
  • The members of this committee are to be praised
    for their dedication and commitment to the
    students and staff of our community. Each has
    given significant time to assure that no stone
    was left unturned. Additional thanks are due to
    Pam Ehrich and Nicole Hammons of the
    administration staff for their assistance in
    completing our task. Finally, Terry Hoyle and
    Craig Drone of SHW Architects worked with us on
    this project as if their own kids attend BISD and
    should be commended.
  • Thank you to each of you.

83
Related Documents
  • Elementary FAC PPT Presentation
  • Elementary FAC Recommendation
  • Capacity, enrollment projections, facility
    bonding recommendations, and resultant seats
    available.
  • Burleson ES SOS and Costs Projections
  • Size quantity of spaces to be included in a
    prototype elementary facility.
  • Cost Projections current costs anticipated
    inflation
  • Overlay PPT Slide indicates number of
    developing lots that were not included in the
    2004 demographers study.
  • BISD layover with numbers shows active
    developments the number of lots included.

FOR MORE INFO...
Documents will be posted to the BISD web-site at
http//www.burlesonisd.net/facility_committee.php
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com