Comment Feedback FINAL

Laura

Informations

• Publié par: Nuzong
• Nombre de lectures: 12
• Langue: English

Extrait

June 2010



Dear AISD Friends and Family,


As representatives of the Community Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC), we are pleased to
share with you the results of the recent Bond Programs Surveys. Thank you to those who
responded to the survey – your feedback is important to the implementation of current and
future bond programs and we truly appreciate your participation.

The annual surveys, administered to parents, teachers and staff at campuses with recently
completed renovations and improvements, allow us to receive feedback from the community
on the progress of the 2004 and 2008 Bond Programs at an individual facility level.

Once the survey is complete, AISD staff, contractors and the CBOC go through a deliberate
process to review and respond to the feedback provided by the community. The results are
first compiled into a report for the review of a subcommittee of the CBOC. After reviewing, the
committee meets with AISD staff, including AISD Construction Management Director Curt
Shaw, to analyze and discuss on a campus-by-campus basis the specific feedback addressed
in the survey. AISD project managers for each facility are informed of any concerns and work
with contractors and staff at campuses to resolve the issues.

The feedback from the surveys is being used not only to address any current issues but to
also know what to be aware of as we continue to work on bond program projects and plan for
future renovation and improvement projects.

Please take time to review the following documents, included is a comprehensive report on the
number of responses per campus, results of quantifiable data, and feedback from AISD on
your comments organized by campus.

For more information on the 2004 and 2008 Bond Programs, visit www.TheAppleAtWork.com,
and for any questions or concerns related to the bond programs, please call the hotline at
512.414.BOND (2663) or use the form available at www.TheAppleAtWork.com.


Thank you,

AISD’s 2004 and 2008 Bond Programs Community Bond Oversight Committee


Willis Adams Staley Gray Mary Ann Neely
Ramon Alvarez Jackie Hawkins Sarah Price
Margarito Aranda Lawrence Huang Jim Recek
Mary Ann Auster Bobby Jenkins * Steve Rogers
Mark Boyden Cindy Lara Arthur Turner
Cari Clark Rashaanne Lewis Jeff Walker
Kennard H. Wright Nan Clayton Eliza May *
Ashton Cumberbatch* Beverly Mendez Peck Young
Janet Dewey Carolyn Merritt

* Denotes tri-chair June 2010


AISD Bond Programs Surveys Participation



Faculty/Staff Parent TOTAL
Surveys Surveys SURVEYS
Completed Completed COMPLETED
RENOVATIONS
Allison Elementary School 19 3 22
Bedichek Middle School 21 0 21
Burnet Middle School 66 2 68
Doss Elementary School 23 0 23
Eastside Memorial High School 10 2 12
Lamar Middle School 49 0 49
Lanier High School 35 0 35
Mathews Elementary School 13 0 13
Menchaca Elementary School 22 0 22
Nelson Field Bus Terminal 40 6 46
Saegert Bus Terminal 3 1 4
Webb Middle School 21 5 26
Wooldridge Elementary School 29 68 97
TOTAL 351 87 438

June 2010

AISD Bond Programs Surveys Results
 
Level  of  Satisfaction  
100%
91% 90%
88% 87%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Community involvement Process to solicit Interaction with AISD bond Quality of AISD
community opinions personnel communication
 June 2010

AISD Bond Programs Surveys Results
 
Level  of  Satisfaction  
100%
81%
79%
80%
71%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Safety Efficiency Quality
 
 June 2010

AISD Bond Programs Surveys Results
 
Level  of  Understanding  
100%
80%
58% 60%
53%
40%
20%
0%
Know about design and construction Know who to contact with questions
 
 June 2010
AISD Bond Programs Surveys Feedback
LANIER HIGH SCHOOL
 
The following issues were identified in the Bond Programs Survey concerning the renovations at
Lanier High School. To maintain confidentiality, these issues have been compiled without using any
participant’s exact comment. The feedback on specific issues outlined below was provided by AISD
staff and the project manager for renovations at your campus. Comments relating to topics outside
of the scope of the bond programs are not addressed in this feedback.

Survey participant comments are identified in bold and are immediately followed by AISD feedback
on each comment.


Construction Issues

• Some construction decisions resulted in inconveniences for campus staff such as
classroom doors in new wings cannot be kept open because it would violate fire code.

Since 1990, the City of Austin Health and Safety Code requires that doors in all new school
construction have door closers because the walls along the corridors have to be one-hour fire-
rated in accordance with the code, and the fire-rated doors have to be closed to preserve that
fire rating. The code, under which the old building was built, did not require door closers.

• The parking lot damage caused by the construction work has not been fixed.

The project manager visited the campus to assess the parking lot where damage was reported.
The reported damage was not a result of the recent bond program work. There was damaged
paving in several areas unrelated to the construction that took place. The repair of these areas
should be requested by the school administration through the AISD Service Center Work Order
System.

• There have been problems with the construction of the new science building.

The project manager conducted a follow-up visit to the campus and concluded that the addition
was constructed in accordance with the project construction documents. If problems still exist,
the school administration should contact AISD project manager Terry Wadsworth at 414-8944.

• We understood that the barn would be built at one end of an athletic field but it was
constructed in the middle.

This work was not part of the 2004 Bond Program scope of work. It was, however, relocated
with input from the program coordinator and the Lanier administration. The barn was
constructed in the far southeast corner of the campus, at the southern end of the football/track
practice field.

• The new PE and athletic lockers do not include locks and are already breaking.

The installed lockers are the lockers specified in the AISD Educational Specifications for High
Schools, and are performing well throughout the District. Locks are not provided. Locks must be
provided by students or the school administration. The contractor is not responsible for damage
that may be caused by misuse or abuse.

16 June 2010
AISD Bond Programs Surveys Feedback
LANIER HIGH SCHOOL
 
Safety/Security Issues

• While the issue has been resolved, school property was stolen after classrooms were left
unsecured by workers.

To our knowledge, no construction personnel were in the classrooms where items were reported
missing and no construction work took place in those classrooms. Personal items that become
missing in areas that are under construction, if reported timely, are usually replaced by the
contractor or the Construction Management Department using project funds. Because it is often
difficult to determine specific responsibility, the contractor usually makes restitution as a gesture
of good will. If there continue to be concerns over purported missing items, the school
administration should contact the AISD project manager.

Not Meeting Needs/Additional Needs

• The floor of the stage was supposed to be reinforced in order to serve as a weight room
and it did not happen.

Prior to the start of any bond project on a campus, a Campus Task Force (CTF) is established.
The CTF is a five- to six-member committee, appointed by the principal, with representation from
instructional staff, administrative staff, parents, and community. The CTF acts as the campus
oversight team for the implementation of the bond project scheduled for that campus. The CTF
meets regularly with the AISD project manager, the project architect/engineer, the construction
manager or general contractor, and a maintenance department representative. The CTF is
provided with information and updates on the projects and asked to disseminate that information
to the CAC, PTA, and other staff, parents, and community members.

The decision was made by the school administration and the CTF to continue to use area at the
south end of the mini gym as a weight room, rather than relocating the weight room to the stage
in the large gym. This mini gym weight room area was partitioned off from the dance area at the
time that the mirror and ballet bar were installed.

• Why were only two restrooms renovated?

A total of ten restrooms were renovated: five boys’ restrooms and five girls’ restrooms.

• Why weren’t the o