2.0 - AISD - HLC Summary Bond - Presentation — original pdf

Backup

2022 AISD Bond Program Educational Facilities More than 50 Years Old Presentation to the Historic Landmark Commission January 8, 2025 1 Presentation Overview • Goals • Describe purpose and drivers of 2022 AISD Bond Program • Provide background for HLC evaluations of demolition permit requests • Communicate significant schedule constraints: Construction and school opening delays  affects student needs and voter’s intentions • Agenda • 2022 Bond Program Planning Process • Governing Rules and Regulations for HLC evaluation of demolition permits • Schedule Implications • 2022 Bond Program Summary for schools > 50 years of age 2022 AISD Bond Program 2 Bond Development Process 2022 AISD Bond Program 3 2022 Bond Planning Process • Begun in 2021 with Facilities Condition Assessments (FCA). During this process, AISD also conducted an Educational Suitability Assessment (ESA) at each facility. • • 25 schools had an FCA score of unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory 8 schools had an ESA score of unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory. • Along with the facility assessments, the district’s Long-range Planning (LRP) efforts continued through the formation of the LRP Committees. AISD collaborated with 7 planning committees made up of district staff, • student, parents, and community members, representing different segments of the community. AISD used a decision-making framework known as Equity by Design to prioritize projects based on the data collected. The LRP strategies identified for potential bond funding were given to the Bond Steering Committee (BSC), which was formed in February 2022. • • • The BSC used the district’s Long-range Plans, FCA and ESA scores, bond capacity, and other relevant information to create a recommended package for review by the superintendent and board of trustees, and ultimately the voters. 2022 AISD Bond Program 4 Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) • Evaluates the physical condition of a facility to measure what systems are broken, aging, etc. • Includes items such as roofing, heating & air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, site drainage, and parking. • A low score indicates unsatisfactory facility condition while a high score indicates satisfactory condition. • Site Civil, Crawlspace Area, and Interior Architecture are the worst scoring categories. • On average, Site Civil scored unsatisfactory - 82 schools scored unsatisfactory or worse. • There is no correlation between facility condition and neighborhood vulnerability or proportion of historically underserved student groups. 2022 AISD Bond Program 5 Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) 2022 AISD Bond Program 6 Educational Suitability Assessment (FCA) • Evaluates how well a facility supports teaching and learning using the District’s Educational Specifications as the standard. • Includes items such as the exterior, general building, security, controllability of lighting, furniture, academic and administrative spaces, food services, athletics & wellness, and technology • A low score indicates unsatisfactory educational suitability, while a high score indicates satisfactory educational suitability. • The worst scoring ESA categories: Academics & Learning (60%), Administration Spaces (47%), Food Services (40%), and Technology (37%) The best scoring ESA categories were Outdoor Learning & Activity, Environmental Quality, and Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment. • • There was no significant correlation between any ESA category and social vulnerability index or proportion of historically underserved students. • Garza Independence High, Harris Elementary, McCallum High, and Wooten Elementary had the highest number of ESA categories in unsatisfactory or worse. 2022 AISD Bond Program 7 Educational Suitability Assessment (FCA) 2022 AISD Bond Program 8 Equity by Design 2022 AISD Bond Program 9 Equity by Design 2022 AISD Bond Program 10 Equity by Design 2022 AISD Bond Program 11 Community Outreach 2022 AISD Bond Program 12 2022 Ballot Language – Proposition A SHALL THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES (THE “BOARD”) OF THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (THE “DISTRICT”) BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE BONDS OF THE DISTRICT, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES OR INSTALLMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,316,025,000 FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION, RENOVATION, EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPMENT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE SAFETY, SECURITY, AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY) AND THE PURCHASE OF THE NECESSARY SITES THEREFOR AND THE PURCHASE OF NEW SCHOOL BUSES, WHICH BONDS SHALL MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE ISSUED AND SOLD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE; AND SHALL THE BOARD BE AUTHORIZED TO LEVY, IMPOSE AND PLEDGE, AND CAUSE TO BE ASSESSED AND COLLECTED, ANNUAL AD VALOREM TAXES ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT SUFFICIENT, WITHOUT LIMIT AS TO RATE OR AMOUNT, TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS, AND THE COSTS OF ANY CREDIT AGREEMENTS (INCLUDING CREDIT AGREEMENTS EXECUTED OR AUTHORIZED IN ANTICIPATION OF, IN RELATION TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE BONDS), ALL AS AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? 2022 AISD Bond Program 13 Governing Rules & Regulations 2022 AISD Bond Program 14 Interlocal Agreement • Redevelopment of AISD Educational Facilities is governed by the Land Development Standards Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between AISD and the City of Austin, dated October 12, 2023. • Section 6.16 of the ILA governs Demolition and Historic Review of Educational Facilities. Under this section: • The Historic Preservation Office may review and release a demolition permit administratively per LDC Section 25-11-213(B)(7) without the requirement of a hearing before the Historic Landmark Commission if the applicable project was included in a School District bond approved by voters. • City staff shall collaborate with School District and historic preservation stakeholders to identify Educational Facility projects that include buildings over 50 years of age that may require demolition permits and to develop recommendations regarding expedited scheduling at the Historic Landmark Commission. A demolition permit shall not expire for a period of 5 years if it is for a project that was included in a School District bond approved by voters. • • It is under this statute that AISD is before the HLC today. 2022 AISD Bond Program 15 § 25-2-352 - HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA. (A) The council may designate a structure or site as a historic landmark (H) combining district if: (1) the property is at least 50 years old and represents a period of significance of at least 50 years ago, unless the property is of exceptional importance as defined by National Register Bulletin 22, National Park Service (1996); (2) the property retains a high degree of integrity, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places, that clearly conveys its historical significance and does not include an addition or alteration which has significantly compromised its integrity; and (3) the property: (a) is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places; or is designated as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark, State Archeological Landmark, or National Historic Landmark; or (b) demonstrates significance in at least two of the following categories: (i) Architecture. The property embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a recognized architectural style, type, or method of construction; exemplifies technological innovation in design or construction; displays high artistic value in representing ethnic or folk art, architecture, or construction; represents a rare example of an architectural style in the city; serves as an outstanding example of the work of an architect, builder, or artisan who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; possesses cultural, historical, or architectural value as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian or vernacular structure; or represents an architectural curiosity or one-of-a-kind building. A property located within a local historic district is ineligible to be nominated for landmark designation under the criterion for architecture, unless it possesses exceptional significance or is representative of a separate period of significance. (ii) Historical Associations. The property has long-standing significant associations with persons, groups, institutions, businesses, or events of historic importance which contributed significantly to the history of the city, state, or nation; or represents a significant portrayal of the cultural practices or the way of life of a definable group of people in a historic time. (iii) Archeology. The property has, or is expected to yield, significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region; (iv) Community Value. The property has a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, a neighborhood, or a particular group. (v) Landscape Feature. The property is a significant natural or designed landscape or landscape feature with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. 2022 AISD Bond Program 16 Schedule Implications 2022 AISD Bond Program 17 2022 AISD Bond Program 18 Schedule Implications • AISD strives to minimize temporary classroom environments for their students to maximize their learning potential. • As opposed to development projects, schedule delays have a massive impact on a student’s learning environment. • Slips in the construction schedule can delay school openings by full semesters, and in some cases full years. • Similarly, construction delays cost AISD money which can negatively impact the budget for each school, potentially taking money away from design components in each school. • For these reasons, it is imperative that AISD be afforded every opportunity to modernize existing schools to meet not only the needs of each student, but also the expectations of the voters who approved Proposition A in 2022. 2022 AISD Bond Program 19 Program Summary Schools over 50 years of Age 2022 AISD Bond Program 20 Remaining Projects on Campuses Over 50 Years Old • Allison ES – 1955 • Andrews ES – 1962 • Barrington ES - 1969 • Burnet MS – 1958 • Dobie MS - 1973 LBJ ECHS - 1974 • Linder ES – 1972 • • Martin MS – 1966 • Oak Springs ES – 1958 • O’Henry MS - 1953 • Pecan Springs ES – 1957 Travis ECHS – 1953 • • Wooldridge ES – 1969 2022 AISD Bond Program 21 2022 AISD Bond Program 22 2022 AISD Bond Program 23 Remaining Projects on Campuses Greater than 50 Years Old 2022 AISD Bond Program 24 Facility Design Process – Campus Architectural Teams (CATs) 2022 AISD Bond Program 25 Facility Design Process • Sample Design Engagement Process 2022 AISD Bond Program 26 Summary 2022 AISD Bond Program 27 • The 2022 Bond Program schools have been carefully selected for modernization or other improvements based on: • • • Facilities Condition Assessments (FCAs) Educational Suitability Assessments (ESAs) Equity by Design parameters • Each school has undergone a design process that balances the needs identified above while accommodating any historic characteristics of the school or property itself. • In February/March 2025, AISD 2022 Bond Program schools that have the potential to meet Historic Designation Criteria cited in LDC § 25-2-352 will be brought to the Historic Landmark Commission. • These will be presented in a single meeting for your consideration. 2022 AISD Bond Program 28