Minutes - Austin ISD

2013 CITIZENS’ BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CBAC)
Meeting Summary
October 2, 2012
Committee Members in Attendance
Elizabeth Alford
Larry Amaro
Adolphus Anderson
John Blazier
Ramon DeJesus*
Marty DeLeon
Rob Delgado
Ashley Fisher
Marisol Foster
Antonio Fuentez III
Haydee Fuselier
Shelly Grabe
Albert Hawkins*
Kevin Lungwitz
Robert Martinez
Carolyn Merritt*
Amy Wong Mok
Robin Moten
Cathy Painter
Mark Penniman
Jane Prince-MacLean
Geronimo Rodriguez
Reyes Rodriguez
Absent Committee Members
Latisha Anderson
Estelle Brooks
Raul Calvoz
Freddie Dixon
Betty Johnson
Casie Wenmohs
Ken Zarifis
Staff Members in Attendance
Randy Baldwin
Chaneel Daniels
Lawrence Fryer
Jeff Kauffmann
Irene Krill
Juan Nuñez
Pat Rossett
Scott Rouse
Curt Shaw
Paul Turner
Visitors
Bernie Blazier, URS Corporation
Richard Frazier, Teacher, Anderson High
School teacher
Larry Huang, Community Member
Cyndi Harrison, AISD Athletics Task Force
Mike Hoffman, URS Corporation
Amy Jones, AISD Athletics Task Force
Beverly R. Mendez, AISD Athletics Task
Force
Jason Pittman, URS Corporation
Rick Potter, AISD Athletics Task Force
Chairman
Huddie Murray, AISD Athletics Task Force
Lindsay Rosenthal, Athletics (All Schools)
Trustees in Attendance
Robert Schneider
*Denotes Committee Tri-chair
1

Agenda
I. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes
II. Review of Materials
Recognition of Visitors
CBAC– Open Meeting
III. Citizens’ Communication
IV. Chief Operations Officer’s Update
V. Discussion of Potential Projects and Priorities
VI. Requests for Information & Agenda Items for Next Meeting
I. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes
Tri-chair Ramon DeJesus called the meeting to order and recognized AISD Trustee
Robert Schneider and visitors. The September 18 and 29, 2012, minutes were
approved as written.
II. Review of Materials
The chair introduced Paul Turner, who reviewed the meeting materials with the
committee.
III. Citizens’ Communication
No citizens were signed up to speak.
IV. Chief Operations Officer’s Update
Tri-chair Ramon DeJesus introduced Lawrence Fryer, Chief Operations Officer, who
provided the CBAC with his regular update.
Mr. Fryer summarized the committee’s accomplishments to date and the next steps
in priority setting process.
Individual Campus Generated Plan requests that will be presented to the
CBAC on October 16.
The CBAC will present its preliminary scope of work at public hearings on
October 23 and 25 to gather community input.
Committee comments regarding the COO update included the following:
The CBAC will incorporate public feedback into the scope of work and
present it to the Board of Trustees on November, 12, 2012.
The CBAC asked questions regarding the status of the planning for the South
High School in order to consider $60M to fund construction of a portion of the
South High school.
2

o Mr. Fryer informed the committee that a planning team has been
established to determine the academic programming for the South
High School.
o He went on to explain that the academic programming must be
determined in order to select an appropriate site that will be acquired
with funds from the 2008 Bond Program.
o Tri-chair Carolyn Merritt informed the committee that she is a member
of the South High School Planning Team which has already held one
meeting to date.
A member asked for options to address underutilization at Garcia Middle
School and, a report on space underutilization at under enrolled schools in
the District.
o Mr. Fryer responded that Garcia and Pearce Middle School’s Program
Design, District 1, may possibly be linked with the preliminary Annual
Academic and Facilities Recommendation (AAFR) for the Single
School for Young Men, which would fully utilize space at Garcia Middle
School.
o Three of the five scenarios for the School for Young Men were
outlined.
• Co-locating in an existing facility.
• Co-location and then moving.
• Using an existing facility.
Solar Power
Tri-chair Ramon DeJesus introduced Jason Pittman from URS Corporation who
presented information on AISD solar power projects and provided the rationale for
developing a District-wide solar project to lower energy costs and reduce
maintenance and operating costs for the District. He also discussed the possibility
of working out an arrangement with Austin Energy in which they would purchase
unused solar power.
The committee asked if this would be done this at existing schools.
o Mr. Pittman explained that some of the existing projects are located
at existing schools however; another approach would be to locate
at a central facility and use the energy array from Austin Energy.
This would require collaboration with Austin Energy.
o Mr. Pittman added that there is already a master plan being
developed to create a solar array at the landfill.
o The plan is to use solar energy to produce power for the District so
as to receive the required energy credit from Austin Energy, which is
needed to achieve climate protection goals.
A member asked whether there are any solar arrays currently located at
District schools.
o At this time, there are none.
3

A member asked if there are any advantages or disadvantages in
investing at this time.
o The consultant indicated that this is an excellent time to develop a
solar array, due to costs being low.
A member added that URS assisted the District to prepare a grant funding
request to the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) which resulted in
an award of close to $1M in grant funding and in kind-services.
At the conclusion of the Solar Power presentation Curt Shaw, Director of
Construction Management, went on to provide the status of information being
received from the Individual Campus Plans and that 80% of the plans had been
received. He outlined how the plan was to meet with the Associate Superintendents
and begin vetting the requests. He outlined the considerations received to date,
which included:
‣ Space considerations
‣ Educational adequacy
‣ Special Projects
The committee asked if there were any trends noted in the Individual Campus
Plans.
o Mr. Shaw said that Innovation Stations were being requested routinely.
A member asked if the feedback from the vertical teams would be included in
the consideration.
o This information will be included in the process. The hope is to identify
any signature programs that may be possible. This process will be driven
from the top down and the Associate Superintendents will assist in making
those determinations.
o The intent is to provide enough support to make the all the signature
programs equal and perhaps in future bond elections, there may be
focus on specific signature programs.
A committee member asked for clarification on vertical teams and how the
committee would consider each item, and;
With 18% outstanding, it is critical to receive the Individual Campus Plans
from each campus.
o Mr. Shaw indicated staff was contacting each school principal to
complete the Individual Campus Plan.
o In anticipation of items included in the ICPs, staff has set aside a
placeholder in the amount of $30M to address the funding.
A member asked for a report on underutilized schools and justification for
building new schools, when there were schools identified for closure in the
Superintendent’s Facility Master Plan Workgroup.
Also a report was requested on the schools on the closure list and how space is
being used at those schools now.
4

Paul Turner indicated that Beth Wilson is preparing a report to address space
utilization after the first six weeks of school and plans to present it to the CBAC.
V. Discussion of Potential Projects and Priorities
Tri-chair Carolyn Merritt led the committee in its review of reports prepared by
facilities staff that summarized the committee’s preliminary prioritization and
recommended funding levels of projects for inclusion in the scope of work for the
bond.
Tri-chair Ramon DeJesus led a discussion of whether the committee will support the
needs of campuses equitably or focus on signature programs. Committee members
discussed this issue and affirmed that equity was a high priority and that support for
signature programs would follow.
Jeff Kauffmann, Director of Construction Management, presented key AISD staff
responses to the Committee’s Requests for Information. He described the 2013
Bond Projects with the following information:
Project Name
Requesting Department
Facilities Staff Recommended Low
Cabinet Recommended Funding Level
CBAC Preliminary Recommended Funding Level
Facilities Staff Recommended High Funding Level, and
Full Request
Committee members discussed each funding level and affirmed their recommended
funding level, adjusted their funding level or requested additional information. The
committee clarified its position on new construction to include three undesignated
elementary school additions. The committee then received additional information
from the Maintenance Department and per its request of September 29 th , Mr. Juan
Nuñez, Director of Maintenance, responded to questions from the committee
regarding maintenance needs.
The committee questioned the rationale behind a large reduction in funding
recommended by staff. The CBAC requested that Mr. Nuñez revise his
proposal to focus on equipment, a new satellite facility, parking, and
renovations to its existing facility.
They requested that critical items for District maintenance be restored to the
proposal.
Athletics Request
Mr. Walter “Tommy” Cox, Athletics Director, explained the reductions discussed by
the Cabinet. He also expressed that the District has proposed a 30% cut. He
5

indicated there is proof that strong academic programs build character and reduce
truancy in addition to improving academic performance.
The CBAC requested that Mr. Cox provide updated costs for essential line
items.
The CBAC requested a report on current research and findings on childhood
obesity and how this is impacted by athletics in schools.
The CBAC then discussed how the District had not focused on Athletics in
the last Bond package and has not maintained nor expanded athletics
facilities in a manner that is comparable to neighboring districts or districts of
the same size.
The Athletics Task Force recommended the CBAC increase their main
funding proposal to $79,930,000 and asked that two more propositions be
created and placed on the ballot. One of the propositions would be for a
natatorium and the second would be for $30M for general athletics needs.
The CBAC asked if Athletics would be able to work with the $30M amount.
A Committee suggested the possibility of organizing a Town Hall meeting.
A member noted that although Hutto only uses 50% of its tax income to pay
its debt, they have better athletics facilities than AISD.
Another member stressed the need to have programmatic changes, as well
as improve facilities to improve the Athletics.
A member asked about the cost for concessions and the revenue generated.
o The general fund and the campus split the revenues by 50%.
A member also noted that the District does not have the capability of
processing credit card information, like other districts, resulting in lost
revenue.
A member requested more information on the wrestling program.
o The Athletics Task Force indicated they would like the CBAC to place
this on a separate proposition. This sport has been added recently
and a facility was not considered at that time however, when the
weather is inclement, students are unable to use the gym, due to
insufficient space.
The Athletics Task Force added Items #7-11 to the bond funding request and suggested
additional propositions for Item #12-120.
Total
30% reduction
Item 1 Bowie, Akins. Austin, Anderson, Crockett $24,876,552.00 $17,413,586.40
Item 2 Eastside, McCallum, Ann Richards, Lanier, $8,727,768.00 $ 6,109,437.60
LBJ, Travis, Reagan
Item 3 All 12 HS $147,862.00 $ 103,503.00
Item 4 AR, Anderson, Crockett, Eastside, $1,774,339.00 $ 1,242,037.30
Reagan, McCallum, Travis
Item 5 All 12 HS $492,872.00 $ 345,010.40
Item 6 Anderson $11,021,341.00 $ 7,714,939.00
Item 7 Turf one practice field*** All 11 HS/Not AR $24,162,897.00 $16,914,028.00
6

Item 8 Construct on Campus Laundry
rooms with washers/dryers All 12 HS $2,094,706.00 $1,466,294.20
Item 9 Expansion & renovation of training room $2,464,360.00 $1,725,052.00
Bowie, AR, Travis
Item 10 Expand Storage
Anderson, Austin, Akins, Bowie, AR, $1,257,850.00 $ 880,495.00
Eastside, McCallum
Item 11 Practice Field lights All 12 HS $3,372,000.00 $2,360,400.00
Additional Propositions
Item 12 Concession Stands and outdoor restrooms
Bowie, Austin, Akins, Anderson, Crockett,
Lanier, LBJ, McCallum, Reagan, Travis
$ 8,850,409.00 $ 6,195,286.30
Item 13 Renovation of restroom in foyer to main gym
McCallum, Eastside, Austin $ 1,359,480.00 $ 951,636.00
Item 14 Wrestling gym All 11 HS/Not AR $27,362,476.00 $19,153,733.20
Item 15 Fencing around athletic areas
Akins, Anderson, Austin $ 90,000.00 $ 63,000.00
Item 16 Renovate and add tennis courts
Item 17
Ann Richards, Crockett, Eastside $ 903,599.00 $ 632,519.30
Renovate gym space/removal of stage in gym
Ann Richards, ES, Travis $1,309,141.00 $ 916,398.70
Item 18 Dugouts for softball Anderson $ 205,363.00 $ 143,754.10
Item 19 New outdoor bleachers McCallum, Travis $ 24,644.00 $ 17,250.80
Item 20 Scoreboard (indoor) Eastside $ 41,073.00 $ 28,751.10
VI. Responses to Requests for Information
Fine Arts
Mr. Kauffman referred the committee to a map entitled Potential 2013 Bond
Projects that illustrated bond funding allocations to schools for Fine Arts in the 2004
and 2008 Bond packages. The map also highlighted schools that have been
identified as priorities for the 2013 Bond Funding Program.
Science
Mr. Kauffmann presented labor costs for items listed in the Science Department’s
bond funding request.
VII.
Requests for Information
General
Explanation of how the Facility Campus Index relates to current data
presented in the bond funding requests.
7

Security
Individual Campus Plans from all campuses.
Space utilization report:
o A list of underutilized schools.
o A list of under-enrolled schools.
Clarification on what constitutes a signature program.
Information regarding the South High School and work done by the
academic planning team.
Justification of the need for security cameras at all school entrances and
whether this is effective.
Technology
The rationale for projector screens being upgraded, when innovation
stations should include this capability and are also being requested.
Clarification on line item #6 of its bond funding request
Clarification on line item #2, request to complete all new Innovation
Stations. How are these needs being coordinated to prevent overlap?
CTE
Update on the CTE implementation scenario and facility costs resulting
from community engagement meetings.
Food Service
Members asked for more information regarding functional equity and how the
older facilities that are undersized are based on enrollment and it affects the
number of students being served.
A member remarked that some overcrowding may be due to No Child Left
Behind and questioned the beginning of lunch at some schools at 10:30 a.m.
The member mentioned this might be resolved with realignment of
boundaries.
Maintenance
Revised proposal with justification and the business case to support
funding requests for equipment, parking, and a new auxiliary facility
adjacent to the AISD Southeast Bus Terminal.
8

AISD Committees
Information and recommendations under consideration by the BAC that
may impact the CBAC prioritization process.
Updates from any AISD committees, planning teams, or workgroups that
may be relevant to the CBAC’s prioritization process.
Requests for Information & Agenda Items for Next Meeting
Next meeting October 16, 2012, Board Auditorium
6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
VIII.
Collateral Issues
Assess the wisdom of building new schools in attendance zones with high
outmigration.
Assess the wisdom of building new facilities in areas where out migration is
high, and assess how we can meet students’ needs with good fiscal
stewardship.
Consider the amount of bonds outstanding or not issued.
Consider how our choices impact the operating budget.
Discuss whether Pre-K and Primary Centers are working at Dobie Middle
School and Webb Middle School, and are they located where we really
want them. Also, discuss the processes that are in place to guide these
decisions.
The CBAC expressed strong concern regarding the proposed timeline for
completing the prioritization process and whether it would allow them to
review the bond funding requests, and provide the Board of Trustees with
recommendations by November 12, 2012.
9