ACSD Long-Range Facilities Plan – Thoughts and Concerns

- to be submitted/read at January 16, 2012 School Board Meeting

For many reasons, I believe the school board should postpone making a decision on the elementary portion of the long-range facilities plan and postpone any referendum till this fall in order to better understand the impacts of what it is proposing.

FINANCIAL

In the past couple of months, this board has learned about school finance and the position the district is in regarding spending authority.

At our 11-07-11 meeting, the district’s CFO presented us materials suggesting the district’s regular program cost will be $474,775 lower than last year. Per comments shared from the Budget committee at our last meeting, increase costs tied to contract negotiations and benefit costs may likely take necessary cuts over $1 million.

We were recently given a board learning session on negotiations where the past 30 year history documents that personnel costs have outpaced “new” money by 2% or more. On the presumption this trend will not change, more adjustments will be necessary.

Also at our 11-07-11 meeting, the CFO also gave us an Unspent Authorized Budget Report. The report showed that without corrective action, the projected unspent authorized budget in FY16 would be a reported -$3.3 million. This is not a certainty; rather a strong indication work needs to be done.

The budget guarantee being utilized by the district this year and next year will need to be paid back. Numbers in the report we were provided put that total over $800,000.

CAPACITY IN PROPOSED PLAN

At 15 units, the level of capacity in the proposed in the long-range facilities plan far exceeds projected growth. (details at website listed at end)

Capacity (district) = ( 15 “units” x 143 ) + ( 15 “flex” classrooms x 24 ) = 2,505

Struxture’s report references a projected student count of 2,000 by 2030. That’s only 120 students in the next 20 years, yet we are proposing the addition of two full units of capacity. Given the elementary work is supposed to be done first, the capacity may well be in place prior to 2020 and we’d only be half way to the projected target.

Assuming 1,940 students (2,000 – 60) and adding 10% cushion, needed space is 2,134. Thus the proposed plan will create just over 370 “extra” spaces above and beyond projected counts and cushion.

CONCERN

My concern is that the board has not taken the time to examine the consequences of what is being proposed. As a board we have not set a “target” capacity, nor have we determined the capacities of the buildings being considered. In addition, boundaries have not been discussed to confirm the feasibility of the information in Struxture’s recommendation.

Per the CFO’s numbers, and comments from other board members, the district finds itself constantly dealing with financial issues. The rush to set referendum language before these issues and their impact on families are better understood is wrong.

As I stated at a recent board meeting, rushed decisions in the past led boards to close school only to find a few years later they needed space. I am concerned adopting the old rushed decisions methods will result in this school board in the near future having to consider closing a school.

RECOMMENDATION

I feel it is this board’s responsibility to examine the consequences of our actions. Not doing so may create the illusion of plausible deniability but it doesn’t remove the facts. To put it bluntly, the plan is too big and money is too tight – something will have to give.

I again ask this board to postpone these facilities decisions till this fall. If the board is not willing to do so, at the very least the board should consider reducing the amount of capacity being considered in the plan by one unit. I propose reducing the 4-unit school to 3-units.

Respectfully submitted,

David J. Putz – Member Ames School Board

In November the board received information on school finance. This included a handout on spending authority - ACSD School Board Mtg – 11-07-11 – School Finance Basics – Spending Authority

Regular Program Costs

Even with a 2% allowable growth rate (the increase in per pupil support), the reduction in the number of students results in bringing in $168, 757. The budget guarantee line shows a drop of $643,532. Putting these together, the net impact on the district’s regular program cost is a reduction of $474,775. (pg 6 of report)

Budget Guarantee

At a recent meeting, I asked the district’s CFO about the budget guarantee funds being provided to the district, she confirmed that the district will need to repay these funds. The sum of the two years worth of budget guarantee funds listed is $817,248.

To put that in perspective, using the FY13 projected per student cost of $6, 091, that would be the same as the support for over 134 students.

Unspent Authorized Budget

The board also received an updated Unspent Authorized Budget Report ( ACSD School Board Mtg – 11-07-11 – ACSD Unspent Authorized Budget Report ). The report carries with it a number of assumptions, including fixing the certified enrollment at 4,224.3 for FY13 through FY16, the state providing a 2% allowable growth rate all four years and the district working to pay back the budget guarantee starting in FY14.

With the assumptions in place, the unrestricted unspent authorized budget would be close to -$3,390,191 by FY16. This is not what WILL happen, just the projection if corrective action isn’t taken.

Settlement History

At the school board’s January 9, 2012 meeting, the superintendent presented information on negotiations. On the second page of the exhibit ( ACSD School Board Mtg – 01-09-12 – Exhibit I-3 – Board Learning Session – Negotiations Primer ) was a settlement history going back to the 1981-82 school year. (pg 2)

Over the some 30 years, the average increase in “new” money was 3.05%. One of the reasons the district continually seems to find itself struggling with funds is that the average increase in spending for teachers, support staff and administration all outpaced that growth: teachers: 4.67%, Support staff: 4.41% and administration 3.87%.

Because averaging tends to level things out, let’s look at the last 10 years or so:

Since 2001-02, the rate of “new” money is 1.63%. The percentages for all of the three other groups is – teachers: 3.97%, support staff: 3.81% and administration 3.11%. This puts the gap between growth in income and growth in personnel costs at about -2% a year.

This may not seem like a lot, 2% of $37,402,502 (FY10 salary & benefits listed in report) is $748,050. This equates to a little over 120 students at $6,091 per student (FY13 rate).

Closing Thoughts

For those wondering why the district is facing as much as over a million in cuts this coming budget cycle, it is a matter of increasing costs and income that is not keeping pace.

In the longer term, the CFO’s report, the settlement history, inflation for non-personnel costs all suggest the school board will need to keep a tight rein on finances for many years to come.

Dr. Dave

Timing of Work on Elementary Buildings

That said, the primary document being used as a guide for the concepts of organizing the work is the facilities directors outline – ACSD School Board Mtg – 10-24-11 – Exhibit D-2 – District Long-Range Facilities Plan. This outline of work shows work on the elementary buildings coming first, ending in 2019.

The community facilities committee saw another version of the plan, with the site of the 4-unit school places at George Washington Carver – ( Long Range Facilities Concept – Carver Avenue Option – CFC Jan 02 2012 ). It has work on the elementaries completed in 2018.

KEY POINT – Though there may be too much going on to get a sense of capacity need and availability while work is being done on the elementary buildings, we should be able to look at the time frame when they are projected to be done. With the elementary work projected to be done prior to the half-way mark of getting to 2030, the level of capacity needed may be different than we think.

Target, Proposed & Extra Capacity

The table below pulls from the previous posts and puts the “Target” capacity desired and the “Proposed” capacity in the same chart. The difference is what is labeled “Extra”

NOTE – The “proposed” capacity number is not estimated until after the elementary work is projected to be completed.

For every year, the capacity created at the end of the proposed long-range facilities plan is greater than the “target” capacity. The “extra” capacity ranges from 305 in 2030-2021 up to 380 in 2019-2020.

Closing Thoughts

The numbers show the capacity generated in the proposed facilities plan far exceeds what is needed. Remember, the “extra” capacity is above and beyond the projected enrollment AND a cushion.

Important Note – Using the numbers provided in the certified enrollment count ( ACSD School Board Mtg – 12-05-11 – Certified Enrollment Count – Oct 03 2011 ), there were 289 students enrolled in Mitchell Elementary & 278 in Edwards Elementary.

This means that if the elementary buildings were completed in 2018-2019, 380 “extra” spaces would be in the system.

As proposed facilities plan will create ”extra” capacity in excess of a 2-unit school. This means the board should re-examine the proposed long-range facilities plan and make adjustments.

The last thing this community needs is to build new schools only to have to close another one.

Next, I think we should look at financial information.

Dr. Dave

To recall, this is arrived at by using the projected enrollment of 2,000 by the year 2030 and adding 10%, or 200. 2,000 + 200 = 2,200

Estimating Growth

From the 2011-2012 school year, the estimate is that in 19 years (2030-2031) the elementary student population will reach 2,000. Using the Nov 14 building-grade counts showing 1,883 elementary students this year ( ACSD School Board Mtg – 11-14-11 – Elementary Building-Grade Counts 2011-2012 ), that’s approximately 120 students in the next 20 years – or about 6 elementary students a year.

To be a bit more precise (which is misleading since enrollment fluctuates greatly),

• Change in Elementary Students = 117 (2,000 – 1,883)
• Change in Time = 19 years (2011-2012 to 2030-2031)
• Average = 6.2 Elementary Students per year

The table below uses the above “rate” of growth in elementary students (always rounding to a whole student), adds a 10% cushion, and presents the rolling “target” capacity for 2011-2012 through 2030-2031.

As you can see, the simplistic model takes us from the 1,883 reported in Nov (see link above) to the projected 2,200 “target” capacity for 2030.

So how does this match up with the capacity being created in the proposed facilities plan?

Dr. Dave

Critical in this conversation is the ability to determine what the capacity of a given elementary building will be. As discussed in recent posts, the capacity of a building is based on the number of “Units” and the number of “flex” classrooms.

Capacity of a Unit

A “unit” of school is a set of K-5 classrooms, or 6 classrooms. Now we could just take 25 (the highest cap) times 6 to get 150, or we could use the current “caps” (maximum students we would like to have in a classroom). Not to inflate the capacity, let’s use the current caps:

 This means the capacity of a “unit” is approximately 143. I’m saying approximately because caps are guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

“Flex” Classrooms

One of the purposes for addressing our elementary buildings is because they were not designed for all of our current programming needs. This translates into dedicated spaces for many of the activities that now compete for our “flex” spaces. So how many “flex” classrooms are being considered?

The short answer is that it hasn’t been determined. That said, the number of these has a significant impact on the capacity of a building. So let’s try to find an estimated number.

• Originally, the number of “flex” classrooms was to be 1 per “unit” – that is, a 2-unit building would have 2, and so on. For the proposed plan of 15 units, that would mean 15 “flex” classrooms.

OR

• Current wording that addresses the number of “flex” classrooms states there will be 2-4 of  them per building. With 5 buildings, this means between 10 and 20, or using the middle value of 3 we would have 15.

So it appears 15 is a pretty good estimate for the number of “flex” classrooms being considered. With current caps between 23 and 25, it seems safe to use 24 as an average.

Building Capacities

So, to determine an estimate for the capacity of one of the proposed elementary buildings, one should be able to add the capacity of the “units” and add to it the capacity of the “flex” classrooms.

Proposed District-Wide Capacity

Capacity (district) = ( 15 “units” x 143)  +  ( 15 “flex” classrooms x 24 ) = 2,505

Building Capacities

• 2-Unit = ( 2 x 143 ) + ( 2 x 24 ) = 334
• 3-Unit = ( 3 x 143 ) + ( 3 x 24 ) = 501
• 4-Unit = ( 4 x 143 ) + ( 4 x 24 ) = 668

So, to confirm the District-level capacity by using the number of each size school (see chart below) the capacity of the plan being proposed is 2,505 students.

Closing Thoughts

Had we used 25 or 23 instead of 24 for the number of students in a flex” classroom, the capacity would increase or decrease – respectively. Had we used 25 and the cap for “unit” classrooms, the capacity would have been higher.

With that understanding, the above method brings the estimated capacity in the proposed long-range facilities plan to 2,505. With the number in hand, we should now go back and compare that to the “target” capacity.

Dr. Dave

In the notes at the bottom of the page of the latest cost by building size ( Incremental Operating Costs – Updated 01-05-12 ) , there is specific reference to two types of spaces – educational and non-educational.

The non-educational spaces include:

• Gymnasium
• Cafeteria
• Kitchen
• Offices
• Mechanical

Educational spaces included classrooms/space for:

• Special Education
• English Language Learners
• Accelerated Learning Programming
• Art
• Music

With the addition of these dedicated spaces, the “flex” rooms will be available to be used to handle “bubble” classes. That is, grades where there are significantly higher numbers of students within a building. For example, we currently have 3-unit schools with enough kids to have 4-sections of a grade.

Currently, there is competition for the “flex” rooms created when the 6th grade moved to the middle school . Classroom space is at a premium, as witnessed by the addition of two modular classrooms this past year.

As shown in the Nov 14, 2011 student count, there were 8 “bubble” classes. With 13 units of school, this means 5 classrooms are now being used for other purposes. These 5 classrooms alone could provide an additional 125 ( 5 classrooms x 25 students ) seats of capacity.

The use of dedicated spaces in new/newly remodeled schools should free up of these spaces and greatly add to both capacity and flexibility.

Dr. Dave

Being similar in format, the primary changes in the document with costs by size are: a) costs for instructional coaches and guidance are not shown, b) costs for an assistant principal have been removed, and c) categorical costs have been removed.

NEW ISSUE – Size of Buildings

One of the important things to note is the inclusion of a 4-unit school in the current proposed facilities plan. The previous board asked the size of elementary schools be capped at 3-units.

Currently, our two 2-unit elementary buildings average 39,125 sq ft (Ed 40,450 & Mitchell 37,800). Struxture’s October report shows a proposed size of 61,438 – a 55% increase is size. Similarly, our three 3-unit elementary buildings average 50,100 sq ft and Struxture’s report proposes a size of 73,330 – a 46% increase in size.

Given the district doesn’t have any 4-unit schools, for comparison, Struxture’s proposed 82,566 square feet is almost 30,000 sq ft (56%) larger than our largest current school (Meeker – 52,900 sq ft).

It is clear the size of the buildings being proposed will be significantly larger than the schools currently in the district.

IMPACT OF SIZE ON STAFFING

This issue was the subject of past entries – if the number of students increases, I believe the number of staff supporting those students should also be increased. This does not happen (with the exception of 6 hours of educational assistant time) in the outline of operating costs.

Though not all districts operate 4-unit schools, those that do typically have additional administrative support in the form of at least a ½ time principal. This is not considered.

I would think that if nursing support is increased going from a 2-unit to 3-unit school, that an increase in nursing support should be considered from going from a 3-unit to a 4-unit school. This is not considered.

Custodial help is increased when going from a 2-unit to a 3-unit. Given both the building and the number of kids increases one would think custodial help would increase when going from a 3-unit to a 4-unit school. This is not considered.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Operational costs are clearly impacted by the size of building, the number of students they are designed to hold and the staffing levels determined necessary to serve the students attending the school.

Remember, the current board has not discussed these numbers. There has been no discussion regarding the actual size of the buildings in Struxture’s report and no discussion of whether a 4-unit school at 82,566 sq ft can be operated with the same support staff as our average 50,000 sq ft 3-unit school.

More importantly, there has been no discussion of boundaries or the number of students a building will hold. This is something I hope to explore soon.

I find it interesting the outline of operating costs suggests adding staff to take care of the building, but doesn’t add staff to take care of the kids? Which is more important?

In these tight financial times, operational costs directly impact the level of facilities the district can operate. I believe the operating costs, especially staffing levels, are issues the school board should review and discuss prior to approving any facilities plan.

Dr. Dave

Once at the district’s home page, under the dark blue area where the district’s mission is listed is the white area where a running list of updates is given. At the top of this white area are three links in orange -  the first of which is Facilities Documents.

A search feature has been added, which is currently toward the top of the page to make it easier to find.

Links under the search feature group the documents. Current groupings include:

• School Board Documents
• Community Facilities Committee
• 2011 Community Forum
• Struxture Architects
• Chronologically ordered documents page

Hopefully this will help members of the committee and the community find information.

Dr. Dave

As you can see below, the formatting doesn’t transfer well so you can find the agenda here as well – Community Facilities Committee – Agenda for Jan 12 2012 Mtg

Dr, Dave

Community Facilities Committee

Agenda

 Ames Community School District  – January 12, 2012

 Cafeteria Conference Room

1921 Ames High Drive. Ames, IA 50010

  (The Committee respectfully requests that all cellular phones be turned off during the meeting.)

 The public is welcome to observe; however, the audience will not participate in the discussion.

 Item:

 6:15   Call to Order.

1.   Approval of Minutes from January 2 and 9, 2012.

2.   Feedback from Sawyer, Mitchell and Fellows PTA/PTO meetings and Ames Rental Association meeting.

3.   Financial update.  Karen Shimp.

4.   Next steps for Board.  Karen Shimp.

5,   What’s next for this Committee?

      Beginning of next phase, what can members of this Committee do to help.

8:30     Adjournment.

Potential reasons why the Ames community voted “no” to the school district bond issue:

• Cost…it just cost too much money for our current times
• Selection of “any” of the school sites
  • Miller site too far out and fairly land-locked, Roosevelt rebuild, Fellows/Carver/24th St. sites, or leave and rebuild, etc.
• Senior Citizens concerned with increase in taxes, especially those on a fixed income
• Size of the schools…too large, concerned with # of kids in a class, success of students at the elementary level and concern with how our middle school is struggling (watch list)…is there not a correlation here perhaps?
• School board/administration hasn’t done enough research and been open-minded enough to other ideas
• Timeline of which schools would potentially renovated or rebuilt
• Inaccuracy of numbers shared with the community …e.g. how much to renovate a school vs. rebuilding, building costs, etc.
• Lack of trust in the board, administration
• Media reported in an unfair and unbiased manner
• Confusion of having two plans…one from the board, one from directors Talbot and Woodin
• A need for more information….e.g. impact of larger schools on performance of students, like the idea of re-purposing, etc.
• Busing costs…$25,000/route. Should we try to reduce this rather than add to it?

 In talking to many people since the last referendum, I have heard a long list of other potential reasons people were skeptical of supporting the referendum:

• There was not comprehensive facilities plan in place – just something for the elementary schools.
• There was no mention of boundaries – Where would my kids end up going to school?
• With repeated years of cuts, is now the time to expand our facilities?
• There was no explicit plan for how to used abandoned properties, especially those where school buildings have been centers of neighborhoods.
• There never was an identified target set for space needs – it was impossible to determine if the plan was inadequate, sufficient or over-blown.

And I’m sure many of you could identify others.

I have repeated struggled with the notion that the board-approved timeline does not allow sufficient time to seek out the opinions of those who voted to better understand how to craft the next attempt to seek public support. Given the importance of the work that needs to be done, I think we’ve (either intentionally or inadvertently) chosen to put blinders on.

I shared the following example at the board table – If a parent tried to feed a child peas and the child spit them out, it doesn’t automatically follow the child will love the next thing the parent tries to put in thechild’s mouth.

Some will say the Community Facilities Committee (CFC) played the role of collecting input for the public. If so, it would be helpful for the public to see what the CFC has learned. But I’m not talking just the CFC’s final recommendation. I think the citizens of Ames should be able to see the community input and other information that  leads to the final recommendations. I think this would also help the CFC as a whole because not all of them attended all of the various small group meetings.

Given the decisions that need to be made it is seems obvious not everyone will agree on every aspect. They should, however, all have the same valid and reliable information on which to formulate their views.

Dr. Dave

• ACSD School Board Mtg – 01-09-12 – Student Quadrant Counts 2010-2011
• ACSD School Board Mtg – 01-09-12 – Student Quadrant Counts 2011-2012

In the 2011-2012 map, there are two numbers. As initially explained to me, E stood for elementary and S stood for secondary (MS & HS). It didn’t take very long for a reader to identify an issue with the elementary count.

Totalling 2,130, the elementary student count was considerably higher than the approximately 1,880 reported to the board several weeks back. As displayed, the total of the E’s does not represent the number of K-5 elementary students.

I passed on the concern to the board president, superintendent and CFO. The CFO informed me that the counts included preschool students. Understanding the new map was to go to the Community Facilities Committee (CFC) yet this week, I sent the following email to the superintendent, board president and CFO:

Dr. Taylor,

 Is it possible to get the preschool numbers separated out? Given the CFC is working to consider elementary school placement, including the preschool numbers in the elementary count distorts any attempt to judge elementary student location. It also means the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 quadrants counts are not comparable.

Again, should these be updated, please include the board.

 Thanks!

So, be careful reviewing the 2011-2012 quadrant map and understand an apples-to-apples comparison to the 2010-2011 quadrant map is not possible.

I certainly hope the numbers can be adjusted prior to being given to the CFC prior to their meeting and the final decisions regarding their recommendations. I also hope the board has the elementary counts prior to determining its next steps.

Dr. Dave

ACSD School Board Mtg – 01-09-12 – District Long-Range Facilities Master Plan – Schedule of Events (updated)

To identify differences, you can review to exhibit D-1 from teh November 14, 2011 meeting.

ACSD School Board Mtg – 11-14-11 – Exhibit D-1 – Facilities Discussion

Below is a brief comparison of the remaining dates. You will see that the actual referendum date has been maintained. Moving the date signed petitions were required by the Story County Auditor has required a need to condense the schedule.

Even if you have been following this process you may not be aware of the condensed timeframe in which decisions and actions are being taken.  Should you have any interest in offering any input on the facilities plan, please provide you input to the Community Facilities Committee or the School Board as quick ly as possible – thanks!

Dr. Dave

Determination of Referendum Language: Now January 23, 2012 (was Feb 26, 2012)

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Dr. Dave

At the school board meeting October 24, 2011, Struxture Architects made their final recommendations related to a long-range plan for the district.

• ACSD School Board Mtg – 10-24-11 – Exhibit D-1 – Presentation by Struxture Architects
• ACSD School Board Mtg – 10-24-11 – Struxture Facility Recommendation for Long Range Plan – Presentation

The first of these is the actual report provided to the school board (exhibit D-1) and the second is the PowerPoint presentation that was made to the school board that night.

EXPECTED NUMBER OF STUDENTS

In the actual report, on page 6, they discuss district demographics. Most of the time is spent referencing work done by a demographic firm RSP. Struxture used RSP’s numbers in their report:

After discussing the numbers presented, Struxture wrote the following:

The projections indicated by the RSP report that enrollment will increase by 6.5% in the next twenty years, although modest, seems somewhat optimistic, but not enough data is available to dispute the RSP report. (pg 6)

So even though Struxture wasn’t totally convinced, it stuck with the estimate of 2,000 as the number of elementary students that would be in the district in the year 2030.

FINDING THE “TARGET” CAPACITY

So, if we use 2,000 as the expected elementary student enrollment in the year 2030, and incorporate a desired 10% additional capacity for wiggle room, the math works out to be fairly easy.

“Target” Capacity = Expected Enrollment + Wiggle Room

2,200 = 2,000 + 200

So, at least based on the data available, an estimate for a target elementary capacity to design into the long-range facilities plan is 2,200.

Dr. Dave

At the November 14, 2011 meeting of the school board, the superintendent provided a “current” count of students in our elementary buildings. It was broken down by building and grade level – ACSD School Board Mtg – 11-14-11 – Elementary Building-Grade Counts 2011-2012  “Current” is in quotes because the exact number of students varies day to day.

A quick summary table (below) shows there were 1,883 students in the five elementary buildings across the district.

You can also tell from the sheet that there are several grades across the district that are “Full.” What that means is that the number of students in the classes at a particular grade are at or over the “caps” placed on the grade level.

At this point, the caps are

• 23 for grades K through 2
• 24 for grade 3
• 25 for grades 4 and 5

You can also get a sense for the use of “bubble” classes. These are spaces, or ‘flex’ classrooms, above and beyond the typical number of units. For example, Meeker has 4 sections of Kindergarten and is a 3-unit school. The extra Kindergarten class is sometimes called a “bubble” class.

Theoretically, with the moving of the 6th grade to the middle schools years ago, each elementary school should have available one “bubble” classroom for each unit – a three unit school would have 3 “bubble” classrooms (one for each 6th grade classroom left vacant). Due to space needs these “bubble” classrooms have often been assigned uses other than a regular classroom. This is something the new building designs should address.

With that as a base, the work turns to determining a ‘target’ capacity to create.

Dr. Dave

COMMUNITY FACILITIES COMMITTEE SETS GROUND RULES

AMES–The charter for the Ames School Board-appointed Community Facilities Committee is a call to action, says its chair, Duane Reeves.

“Your job is to evaluate, engage and solicit (input),” Reeves told the committee at the close of its first meeting Thursday.

Patrick Hall and Kathy Hanson have created a central site for all community members to visit and have access to updated information on the Board’s Long-Range Facilities Plan progress. Ms. Hanson will be creating nearly daily updates relative to specifics of the Board’s proposal and currently, the work of the Community Facilities Committee. Ms. Hanson will also be employing the District’s Facebook page and tweeting information from the District site about progress and specifics of the Board plan.

Directors are encouraged to visit the district web page and the “Facilities Documents” link at ames.k12.ia.us.

The Community Committee will be meeting again this Monday, December 12 at the Crawford Educational Services Building at 6:15 PM in Conference Rm. B.

What I was able to find where agendas for the first two meetings at the previously posted facilities site  - link

Hope this helps those who are interested in following what is going on.

I also received an email from the chairperson of this committee, Duane Reeves. He provided an email (see below) that community members could use to provide comment on the plan or share their thoughts.

Community Facilities Committee Chair – Duane Reeves:  duane.reeves@rocketmail.com

I would certainly encourage those with thoughts to share to do so.

Dr. Dave

Per the exhibit originally posted (ACSD School Board Mtg – 12-05-11 – Exhibit A-3 – Community Facilties Membership and Charter ), the board hadn’t received the list of potential members.

As of Friday (12/03/11) afternoon, the board received via email the list of prospective members – see link below:

ACSD School Board Mtg – 12-05-11 – Proposed Community Facilities Committee

Dr. Dave

The district had posted a link on the scroll screen on the district’s web site home page, but that link has since been removed.

A page titled – AMES COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES PLANNING DOCUMENTS – can be found among the links (left side of page) on the Facilities and Planning Management page as well as the School Board page.

The direct link is – http://www.ames.k12.ia.us/SchoolBoard/FacilitiesDocs.html

Hope this helps those who are interested in available information. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to inquire.

Dr. Dave

Dr. Dave

To help with that, district staff recently sent board members a list of acronyms used by the district.

ACSD Acronyms – Alphabetical and Categorized (2011)

To help, the acronyms are arranged to different ways – alphabetically and by categories.

Hopefully, this will help crack the educational soup!

Dr. Dave