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