Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-19-1993 - VII-A 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No VIA-/ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Non-Binding School Task Force Activities DEPARTMENT County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT Meeting Records County Manager, ext 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive a report on activities of the Non-Binding School Task Force. BACKGROUND: The Non-Binding School. Task Force was created in early 1992 to provide a forum for further discussion of issues raised during the school bond referendum development process involving the Board of County Commissioners and the two Boards of Education. Each Board selected two of its members to participate on this task force, along with the County Manager and the two school superintendents. The task force has met four times thus far. A brief summary of the major topics of discussion at each meeting is provided in this abstract. More detailed information from meeting records is included as attachments for the Board's information. February 11, 1992 Discussion of appointment of citizen School Bond Education Committee; development of lists of short-term and long-term issues of mutual concerns to the three elected boards. (see related information, pages 3-4) April 14 , 1992 Discussion of school funding equity; major roofing projects as part of CIP; cooperative efforts between schools and Recreation and Park agencies; joint high school planning; possible County ownership of school sites; impact fees. (see related information, pages 5-16) June 25, 1992 Discussion of school system categorization of funding requests; differences in school system program priorities; special district taxes; joint high school planning process. (see related information, pages 17-23) 2 September 3 , 1992 Discussion of categories of school funding; expansion funding requests; redirection of school funding; sharing of resources between the two school systems; plans to develop comparisons between the systems of four major issues/program areas. (see related information, pages 24-29) RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report for information only. pft. ,/,-,)f°93 1 1)- 2/20/92 OUTSTANDING SCHOOL CAPITAL ISSUES SHORT-TERM ISSUES (Pursued by County Manager and School Superintendents) 1. Parameters for joint planning of the third high school 2. Options for expediting planning/construction process for the three schools in the Nov. 92 bond package 3 . New facilities and number of new student seats needed 4 . School system capacity and current enrollment 5. How should capacity be calculated? 6. Everyone's accepted DPI methodology 7. Sequence the bond so that short term and long term growth can be met CIP RELATED (Issues to be Discussed as a Part of CIP Deliberations) 1. Funding policy for current capital outlay ($750, 000) and relationship to school CIP (e.g. charging major roof projects to CIP frees up current capital outlay, but eats up PAYG) 2 . Confirmation or revision of existing PAYG allocation throughout FY 92-97 CIP (currently on ADM basis) 3 . Comprehensive financial plan (bond, PAYG, impact fees, and any other revenue sources) for paying for agreed upon school capital needs 4 LONG-TERM ISSUES 1. Desirability of joint planning for all future schools in Orange County 2 . Review and approval of impact fee structure and levels County Manager and School Superintendents to pursue 3 . Confirm or revise definition of equity, both current expense and capital 4. Criteria for school replacement 5. Priority for science and technology in new and old buildings County Manager and School Superintendents to pursue 6. Standards for new school construction County Manager and School Superintendents to pursue 7. Priority for providing school facilities for community recreation and after school use County Manager and School Superintendents to pursue 8. Alternatives to immediate new school construction County Manager and School Superintendents to pursue 9. Clarify relationship between program money and bond issue money County Manager and School Superintendents to pursue 10. Voters need to understand implications of not having the bond Bond Education Committee 11. Look at economic situation: unemployment, fixed-income, families Bond Education Committee 12 . Unified system first 13 . One pot of money: both program and capital needs 14 . Needs exist: how other than a bond to fulfill? 1 D R A F T MINUTES NON-BINDING TASK FORCE APRIL 14, 1992 The Non-Binding Task Force met on April 14, 1992 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Library in Hillsborough. MEMBERS PRESENT: Moses Carey, Jr. , John M. Link, Jr. , Verla Insko, Mary Bushnell, Jim Ellerbe, Andrew Overstreet, Kay Singer, Ted Parrish and Neil Pedersen. Moses Carey stated that at the last meeting the issues were categorized. The superintendents and County Manager were asked to meet to address these issues. John Link distributed a memo dated 3/12/92 from Gerry House and recommended that the group deal first with short-term issues. Mary Bushnell questioned if equalized funding is expected to occur this Spring. John Link indicated his understanding of the BOCC's decision is that a budget will be presented for an amount per capita and the board will then address the district tax in a separate decision. Moses Carey indicated that they will probably do it the same way they did last year unless they come up with another way to deal with this issue. Verla Insko stated that the,Board has agreed to make an effort to move in the direction of equal funding because they believe that merger is in the_ long-term'' if not in the short-term. As representatives of the .whole county, the BOCC prefer to provide equal access to all programs for all children. Moses Carey stated that this has been approached by defining what the county can afford without focusing on this as an issue but focusing on it separately. Mary Bushnell stated that she understood that this task force would talk about what is involved in arriving at equal funding for each school --to look at the definition. Moses Carey stated that maybe there is a need to review the definition of equity. He asked if equal funding is something this group wants to address and if so when should it be done. Mary Bushnell indicated she would like to know the discrepancy in per pupil funding. 6 2 Neil Pedersen stated that Orange County is 93% of Chapel Hill and this does not include federal child nutrition figures. John Link indicated that he can get where the two systems stand now. Verla Insko suggested a new section for the budget showing five year funding for schools. One recommendation that could be made would be to review the formula every two years to see if it needs to be revised. The Task Force agreed to address the short-term issues first, the long-term issues second and the CIP third. John Link stated that he will be making a recommendation that roof projects be under the CIP instead of recurring capital. This moves some of the most expensive projects from the $750, 000 and takes it from sales tax revenues. Neil asked John Link if a dollar amount has been set and he indicated it will depend on the sales tax revenues. John Link distributed a memo from MaryAnne Moore on "Cooperative Efforts Between Schools and Park and Recreation Agencies" . Neil Pedersen summarized the Joint Planning of the proposed new high school. He asked how far they should proceed with site selection noting that there may be a way to delay it until after the bond referendum. They have identified three sites. They don't all have city water and sewer. Andrew Overstreet stated that his view is that this site selection should be approached as if the schools were merged now and not limited to the CHCCS area. With regard to the program committee, Dr. Overstreet feels that for something this important that the committee is too small and he would like to expand the representation from parents and teachers to a representative from the University and a representative from the business community. With regard to enrollment on page 4 -- involvement depends on the student population that it will serve. He feels that an agreement is necessary. John Link stated that he feels that this memo outlines a great start on the process and commended the Superintendents. He feels that a theme that needs to be projected is an efficiency theme - - in terms of space, energy, proposed limits for future merging/cooperation. He suggested an efficiency assessment process. Verla Insko stated that she has the same concern with efficiency. 01'" 3 The building as presented in the plans did not appear to be energy efficient. Building designs have never been the focus of educational decisions in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro System. It is important that the community think about the schools as an educational process. Kay Singer feels that there are two issues: (1) the programs drive the design of the school and (2) what she saw were lots of outside walls and right angles which are expensive to build. Mary Bushnell emphasized that it will be energy efficient. Dr. Ellerbe stated that the technology now exists to be sure the building is energy efficient. Children learn better in natural light. This can be accomplished by using censors whereby the lights automatically turn off when a certain brightness is reached. John Link proposed that the BOCC request from this process statements that efficiency has been examined - energy, transportation, etc. Ted Parrish stated that not only should efficiency be examined but any other conditions that may cause concern should be examined. Moses Carey asked if this is a process this group would like to recommend to both school boards for them to follow in developing the new high school. Moses Carey indicated that another issue is whether either one of the school boards should purchase the property and own it or should the BOCC purchase and own the property until it is decided that there will be one system. Mary Bushnell asked for the advantages of doing it this way. Moses Carey stated that this can be further discussed before making a recommendation or the committee could be requested to discuss it and bring back a recommendation. Kay Singer stated that the question of ownership needs to be checked with an attorney on legality of BOCC owning the property. Ted Parrish indicated he knows of at least one instance where a local jurisdiction had some school property and it caused headaches. Short-term County ownership of new high school site - refer this to the location committee was added to the short-term list as #8. Verla feels it is smart to take a look at the County as a whole and see if the siting decision would come out differently. She asked why the new school could not be located in the Rural Buffer (RB) . 8 4 Moses Carey suggested that this become one of the criteria for location -- look at it as one system Kay Singer asked how much it would cost to hire a demographer. John Link stated he felt this was a good idea. Verla Insko feels there needs to be some rationale for people voting for the bond issue. Moses Carey suggested adding two members to the program and location group. Public Education will be a part of all three issues. Moses Carey feels that the public must understand the programs first. Verla Insko made reference to the recreational facilities at the new schools and asked if the school would own the facility or RPAC. She feels an issue is access to the facility when school is not in session. Moses Carey emphasized that the large group wanted this Non- binding Committee to make a recommendation to them on this issue. He asked how they wanted to proceed. He feels this needs to be started right away. Verla Insko suggested going to the boards separately. It was decided that the school superintendents would produce a final product for all three boards to consider. Neil Pedersen raised one question as to location of the new high school. They thought the site would be in their school district. Moses Carey stated that everyone needs to think of the two school systems as a unified school district and think about a site that will be feasible for everyone. Ted Parrish feels that one heck of an educational process would have to be done if the site is to serve a merged district because that issue has not been resolved. Moses Carey stated that maybe this issue should be resolved in peoples minds first before moving ahead. Verla Insko stated that some people in the Orange County district are saying that this school is supposed to serve their kids also. j® -1 039 D t 5 Mary Bushnell feels that this process is to result in the location making sense. Verla Insko asked if the Chapel Hill-Carrboro representative understood that the agreement in the big group was that it would be in the CHCCS boundary. Mary Bushnell replied that was their understanding. Moses Carey indicated he believed it would be jointly located but is not sure there was a consensus. Verla Insko commented that even if they were looking at the entire county, it may be very well be in the CHCCS district. John Link stated that the committee could agree to (1) pursue a demographer to validate where the growth is occurring, and (2) look at the options for locating the school. The committee would have to agree on the best option. Moses Carey - we have got to pursue all options. Verla Insko asked that the RB be listed as an option. She asked if the site was already selected and Neil indicated no --they have identified several sites in their district. She asked if this will be a magnet school or a regular high school. Neil Pedersen indicated that a decision will need to be made because the programs will dictate the design of the school. Moses indicated that a decision needs to be made before the location committee can get to work. Verla questioned the short time frame on determining the program. Mary Bushnell stated that their only thought right now is that it will be a comprehensive high school. Neil Pedersen indicated he will produce a clean copy of the working document and have it to the County Manager the first week in May. John Link distributed the memo on Impact Fees. He stated that the developer wants the fee to be assessed at the time of occupancy. In talking with town officials and developers, they feel comfortable with an assessment of $500 to $1, 000 per unit. Staff will probably recommend from $700 - $1, 000. Ted Parrish asked if it is legal or advisable to waive fees for affordable housing. John Link stated that it is better for the County to subsidize affordable housing outright instead of waiving fees. Neil Pedersen stated that the average citizen may feel that the impact tax will take care of the schools. 10 6 John Link made reference to the memo about cooperative efforts from MaryAnne Moore and highlighted certain items. Ted questioned if the schools would charge anything unless there is an expense. Moses Carey indicated that it would be logical to charge if the agreement is worded that way unless the expenses are shared out of a separate fund. John Link stated that he told MaryAnne Moore to focus on agreements between Orange County and BOCC. They already have agreements in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The first school would be New Hope. Verla Insko indicated that all three boards need to meet together to determine if they have a problem with it. John Link stated that he would like to take this conceptual approach and work out agreements with the Orange County School system. Moses Carey stated that both school boards and the BOCC will have to agree. He asked that the proposal be sent to the two systems for their feedback. Mary Bushnell does not feel there will be any problems. Ted Parrish asked what do the BOCC do here. They help to provide funds to purchase land. Is there a dollar amount driving this. John Link stated that he is talking about working out an agreement. All monies come from the county citizens. Ted Parrish asked if the County is also considering manpower issues. John Link indicated that if the County wants to use the facilities they will provide the manpower. Moses Carey made reference to the planning document for the new high school. A revised copy of the proposal will be sent to each Board for comments. With regard to the impact fee - comments have already been solicited from the school boards. With regard to the cooperative agreement with recreation and parks, the document will be sent to each school board for their comments and recommendations and at the same time the County will work with the Orange County system to create a model. Ted Parrish asked if it is absolutely determined that the Impact Fee will be implemented in July if there are signals the bond is in jeopardy. Moses Carey answered that July 1 is the target date. The comments from the community will be considered in that decision. 11 7 The next meeting of this Non-Binding Task Force will be June 25 at 7: 00 p.m. at Homestead. - 12 PROPOSED PROCESS FOR JOINTLY PLANNING A THIRD HIGH . SCHOOL IN ORANGE COUNTY During discussions held in January, 1992 , the Orange County Commissioners, the Orange County Board of Education, and the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Board of Education agreed to include a new high school in the bond issue which will be placed before the County' s voters in a referendum on November 3 , 1992. There is agreement that the new high school will be constructed and administered by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. The facility should be designed, however, with an eye toward the facility offering programs which are open to OCS students immediately and the school, possibly, being part of a merged Orange County school district some time later in the future. Consequently, suggestions and reactions to proposals should be actively solicited from the Orange County Schools during the planning process. The goal is to design a high school which, in conjunction with the two districts ' present high school facilities, will have the potential to meet the educational needs of the County's high school students during the first half of the twenty-first century. Five major issues have been identified which must be addressed in conjunction with the planning of a new high school: 1. Where will it be located? 2 . Will the school provide a comprehensive program which generally parallels that of Chapel Hill High school, will it replicate all of the programs which are already offered at CHHS, or will it function as an alternative or magnet school? 3 . How will the design of the school reflect the response to the above question? 4 . Who will attend the new school.? What shared programs will be made available to Orange County Schools' students? Will the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools end its moratorium on out-of-district high school transfers and will the OCS Board respond positively to requests from potential transfers to be released to attend CHCCS? 5. When will the new high school be opened? Background information, as well as a process for addressing each of these issues, are provided in the -remainder of this report. LOCATION There is some lack of clarity over the final decision which was made by the three boards in January concerning the location of the new high school. The CHCCS Board left with the understanding that the school would be located within the district' s boundaries but with a sensitivity to accessibility to OCS students. Some Commissioners, however, did not feel that a fir irrevocable decision was made on the location of the high school. In late Pk 1-` A3 meetings of the Non-Binding School Task Force, it was decided that, although sites within the CHCCS district would most likely be the most suitable, potential sites near the district line, but in the OCS district, should not be ruled out at this time. Consideration must be given to the fact that, initially, the high school will be a part of the city school district but, in the long run, might be one of three high schools serving students throughout the county. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools investigated possible high school sites last year. Basically, there are three general areas where there are a limited number of sites which are large enough to support a high school facility and reasonably accessible to public utilities, but are not in the watershed. These three areas can be defined as follows: a. A Southern Corridor in the general vicinity of Culbreth Middle School b. A Northwestern Corridor along Homestead Road extending north to Eubanks Road c. A Northeastern Corridor bounded by Weaver Dairy Road and Whitfield Road In discussions with the Non-Binding School Task Force, it was agreed that sites in the rural buffer to the north of the district boundary also might provide possibilities if they are reasonably close to public utilities. A site selection committee will be convened consisting of both superintendents, a board member from each district, a representative from the County Manager' s staff, the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services for CHCCS, and the Director of Facilities for CHCCS. This committee will be charged with responsibility for recommending the purchase of one or more sites to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board. The CHCCS Board of Education will discuss the purchase in executive session. The chairs of the County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County .Board of Education will be invited to attend and participate in this meeting. After the site is selected the Board of County Commissioners will be requested to approve the purchase. The issue of whether Orange County Government should own the land until we have a unified school system in the County needs to be addressed by the Non-Binding Task Force. Before evaluating sites in the areas defined above, one major issue needs to be resolved. It is understood that the third high school in the county is being constructed in the CHCCS district because its population is projected to increase substantially through the end of the decade while the OCS high school population will remain relatively stable. It also is understood that if and when the OCS high school facility becomes overcrowded, relief is available as a result of the temporary excess high school capacity in CHCCS due to the construction of the proposed school. The question that needs to be addressed is whether or not the new facility must be conveniently accessible to OCS or since Chapel Hill High School already is located in the northern section of our district, could the present high school serve the overflow from OCS. If this is agreeable, it opens up the possibility of locating the new high school in the Southern Corridor. This location would 14 provide a better geographical balance for the three high schools than wouJ.0 a site in either of the northern corridors. This issue needs to be addressed, at least initially, by the Non-Binding School Task Force. PROGRAM The construction of a new facility provides a rare opportunity for those involved in the planning process to take a fresh look at program offerings and service delivery. It would be a mistake to assume at the outset that the new high school's curriculum will be identical to Chapel Hill High School ' s in all respects. A long-range facility planning committee presented a plan to the CHCCS Board of Education in the fall of 1990 which not only recommended that a new high school be constructed but that it provide a comprehensive program similar in scope to that offered at CHCCS. As this project draws closer to a reality, the CHCCS Board may want to revisit this issue, especially in light of the need for some degree of joint planning with the OCS Board. If the new facility will be significantly smaller than the present one, perhaps the new high school cannot be as comprehensive in its offerings or it might be designed to complement the CHHS program, offering alternatives which are not available to high school students at this time. A program committee will be identified consisting of the following members: Both districts' superintendents or their designees One County Commissioner Two CHCCS board members One OCS board member Two CHCCS assistant superintendents One OCS assistant superintendent Three CHCCS staff members Two OCS staff members Two parents from CHCCS One parent from OCS Two students from CHCCS One student from OCS Two community representatives (at least one representing senior citizens) Two representatives from area businesses One faculty member from UNC-CH One representative from the County Manager' s staff One representative from the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department This committee will be charged with responsibility for developing a set of recommendations to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools ' Board of Education regarding the type of program to be offered at the new high school, including whether the high school will be an alternative or magnet school or a comprehensive high school with its own attendance zone. The CHCCS Board of Education will be expected to schedule a public hearing on the proposed program prior to its adoption. 01'4-3 1) 15 DESIGN The selection of architects and educational planners will be the responsibility of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. An educational specification committee will be formed to provide direction to the architects regarding the design of the facility. This committee will consist primarily of CHCCS staff members with appropriate community representation. Meetings will be open to OCS staff members to attend, listen to the discussions, and provide the committee with their reactions; however, OCS representatives will not be formal members of the committee. ENROLLMENT The superintendents will convene a committee to discuss program collaboration between the two school districts once a new superintendent has been appointed for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. Discussions in which the committee engages could extend beyond the programs which would be offered at the new high school. At this time it might be best to leave membership undefined because it could change depending upon the specific program areas being discussed. The superintendents could agree at a later date upon the appropriate membership with the understanding that both districts would be equally represented. It is important, however, for this committee to meet initially to determine the districts ' receptivity to allowing OCS students to enroll in the CHCCS district once the new high school is constructed. Recommendations might need to be made by the superintendents to their respective boards. TIMETABLE • After reviewing the feasibility of opening a new high school in 1995- 96, the Non-Binding. School Task Force concluded that the high school could not open until August, 1996. The following timetable has been prepared: 1996-97 OPENING June 1992 - November 1992 Select architect Convene Enrollment Committee Convene Site Selection Committee Convene Program Committee March 1992 - November 1992 Select site and acquire option August 1992 - December 1992 School Boards agree upon program offerings at H. S. (e.g. compre- hensive, magnet, scope of voc.ed. program, etc. ) December 1992 - August 1993 ' Convene Ed. Spec. Committee Develop ed. specs. and schematic drawings September 1993 - May 1994 Complete design and development April 1994 Bid site package 16 June 1994 Bid construction package July 1994 - March 1996 Construct building April 1, 1996 Begin moving in to new building August 1996 Open school for students and staff CONCLUSION The process described above provides for joint collaboration with the degree varying on the type of decision to be made. It also clearly establishes roles and responsibilities, recognizing that, form a practical standpoint, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools must assume the major responsibility for designing and constructing the new high school. The process is intended, however, to be receptive to the concept of a merged school district and provides opportunities to plan the high school such that it will meet the needs of CHCCS in the short-run and of the entire county in the long-run. • frr/A44)9317 044 MINUTES NON-BINDING TASK FORCE JUNE 25, 1992 The regular meeting of the Non-Binding Task Force was held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 25, 1992, at the Homestead Community Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT: Moses Carey, Jr. , Neil Pedersen, Ralph Warren, Verla Insko, Mary Bushnell, and John Link. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ted Parrish, James Ellerbe, Kay Singer, and Dr. Andrew Overstreet. STAFF PRESENT: Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners. REVIEW AND UPDATE: Verla Insko stated that the issue of potential merger needs to be discussed. If merger is not a probability she would be suggesting separate planning for the school systems rather than joint planning. Mary Bushnell indicated that regardless of merger, joint planning is important because this is one county with one tax pool. Even if merger never occurs, open lines of communication are still essential to the future of the children. Ralph Warren mentioned that the voters need to be assured that the elected officials have taken a hard look at priorities and are not inflating their requests for money. Moses Carey stated that perceptions are as important as facts. This dialogue is important because resources are scarce and efficient spending requires open lines of communication in order to avoid waste and duplication. He also mentioned that it is inevitable that there will be one system sometime in the future. The Board of Commissioners' goal is to close the funding gap so that a merger will be less painful to the citizens. Mary Bushnell mentioned that perceptions are not the same everywhere in the county. Some of the citizens may feel that they are not spending enough whereas others feel that they are spending too much. 1 18 PROCESS FOR SCHOOL SYSTEMS EXPANSION FUNDING REQUESTS: Verla Insko asked if -broad categories, such as salaries, vocational programs, or social services could be identified and used as a basis for discussion. Ralph Warren indicated he believes the difficult part of this issue is the district tax. John Link mentioned that in listening to the parents and teachers it became apparent that there are different goals in the two systems. There is a need to develop general categories for discussion. If the school systems merge while spending different amounts of money, a plan to handle the discrepancies needs to be in place. He also commented that if parents want a better system they need to understand that they will have to increase taxes to pay for it. Ralph Warren reminded the group that at recent public hearings citizens have indicated a willingness to pay more taxes for a better system. Moses Carey noted that there is a need to assure the citizens that the gap will not increase as a result of differing priorities (increasing salary supplement or handicap classrooms) in the systems. In response to a question, Neil Pedersen indicated that Chapel Hill is not expanding this year except where the expansion is a result of increased student enrollment. John Link indicated that he would like to see the Board of Commissioners re-address exactly what is meant by "continuation" and "additional continuation" and look at the equity needs of the school systems. Equal opportunity, not having the exact same school systems, is the goal. Each system needs to have the autonomy to set their own priorities and communicate them to the public. He indicated that a tax can then be set for the expansion items or they could continue with the district tax. In response to a question, John Link indicated that the systems need to look at differences, such as teachers' supplements. He pointed out that if merger occurs all teaches will be paid according to the same scale. Moses Carey commented that the Board of Commissioners need to see how the systems are setting priorities so that they can visualize what the future budgetary issues will be. He stated that it was not going to be possible to cut salaries and withdraw services in order to stay within the overall budget. 2 W 19 Neil Pedersen asked what the Board of Commissioners response would be to an increase of 40 students in the Exceptional Program. Those students would need to be served regardless of predetermined priorities. He asked how the Board of Commissioners hoped to bring the systems together. They have had different goals for many years and it would take years to have each difference arbitrated. Moses Carey asked if anyone had information on how the merger in Durham was accomplished. Was the school board required to spend money in a way that meets the letter of the state law? Verla Insko suggested that through the review of the mission and goals, they could get a broad picture of categories and services that were being offered. Identifying the program areas would be difficult, however it would lead to much greater understanding. Verla Insko asked if the school systems were clear about their similarities and differences. Moses Carey mentioned that school systems may meet similar needs in different ways. Ralph Warren suggested that the school boards meet together to determine where the similarities and differences are and to see where each system is with their program overall. Neil Pedersen identified the following issues for discussion. *How the expansion budget will be funded *How equal funding for separate districts will be accomplished *Anticipating merger - How can districts be made similar *What future dialogue will be necessary to determine where each system is now Ralph Warren indicated that he believes that the Board of Commissioners wants to see that the entire population is being served effectively. He suggested documenting the population breakdown within each system and clearly stating where the population growth will occur. Mary Bushnell indicated that she wanted to be sure that the Chapel Hill/Carrboro system was not going to be constrained by the results of a study such as the one mentioned above. Moses Carey stressed that it is important to explain and justify the differences in the systems if they expect to pass the bond. If that cannot be done the job of passing the bond will be extremely difficult. Diversity will be respected by Orange County citizens, however, each School Board needs to be able to justify their priorities. 3 20 Mary Bushnell suggested that these reports compiled by the school systems be presented at one or more Saturday morning meetings. Ralph Warren stated that it would be much easier to justify what they are doing in their schools after such a report is given. John Link agreed that this information would help the Board of Commissioners understand the needs. They would be in a position to explain why each system receives the amount of money they get and why those amounts are meeting the defined needs. He questioned the practice of requesting money from the Board of Commissioners based on defined priorities and then not sticking to those priorities when the money is being disbursed. Mary Bushnell stated that the School Board feels that it must make the final decision concerning disbursement after the total allocation has been decided upon by the Board of Commissioners. Moses Carey believes that the School Boards need to come to the Commissioners with their needs ranked in priority order. The citizens who have lobbied their elected officials expect the money to be spent on the identified priorities. He is not comfortable with the School Board partially funding the top six priorities after the Board of Commissioners have fully funded the top three priorities. This leads to including all six items as continuation requests in next year's budget. Verla Insko asked to have the terms "continuation" and "additional continuation" explained to her. John Link indicated that at a 1989 meeting with both Superintendents these terms were clarified. "Continuation" is defined as the cost of continuing present operations, including the increases associated with inflation. "Additional continuation" is defined as the cost of responding to maintenance needs or student growth while continuing present operations. "Expansion" is used to describe new initiatives or programs. John Link suggested that these definitions be reviewed. It is important that both systems use the same definition. Moses Carey stated that he is committed to funding continuation and additional continuation. He believes that established priorities need to be followed. Verla Insko asked if a category could be created for "one time expenses" so that those expenses could be funded but would not go into the next year's continuation budget. Neil Pedersen stated that he believed the Board of Commissioners should review and approve the overall budget for the school 4 system. After final approval the School Board needs to have the flexibility to decide how to actually allocate the money. John Link indicated that he believed budget increases should be based on percentages. The guidelines by which the budget is presented and reviewed needs to be clear so that unrealistic expectations are not generated. He indicated that he expects the Boards of Education to describe their needs and their strategies for meeting those needs. How compatible or divergent those needs are can be discussed after they are clearly defined. Moses Carey indicated that the consensus seemed to be that there is a need to create a picture so that the differences and similarities are clearly defined for everyone. They are not striving for sameness. The common goal is to overcome the gap between the two systems. Verla Insko mentioned that the issue of district taxes needs to be discussed. There is a need for a countywide tax or a separate tax for each district. Mary Bushnell indicated that a referendum would need to be held and Ralph Warren indicated that his Board would be in agreement with that. Ralph Warren commented that if Orange County had a comparable district tax it would raise taxes $.35. Moses Carey indicated that the following items need to be discussed as a part of this school board communication process: -Budget definitions (i.e. redefine continuation/additional continuation) -Budget categories and how they could be structured. -Differences between the systems in areas such as Pre- Kindergarten; Early Childhood; Teachers Salaries/Supplements; The Superintendents and the Manager will review these issues and report back to the non-binding committee in early September. UPDATE ON ELECTED BOARDS APPROVAL OF NEW HIGH SCHOOL SITING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: Moses indicated that the Board of Commissioners have reviewed the document "PROPOSED PROCESS FOR JOINTLY PLANNING A THIRD HIGH SCHOOL. " Mary Bushnell indicated that she has received a memo from the School Board's attorney stating that it was illegal for the County to own land for the High School. 5 22 Moses Carey stated that he does not believe this issue is as clear cut as the School Board's attorney has suggested. Ownership of the site will not necessarily determine who will manage the school. They need to decide what is in the best interest of the county and then go to the Legislature if necessary and ask them to clarify what they can do. In the meantime, the planning process for this new school can be continued. They need to search for a site now. Verla Insko asked if the school would be a magnet school. Moses Carey mentioned that it is conceivable that a separate school district could be created for the new high school or for all three of the high schools. However this is approached, both School Boards and the Board of Commissioners need to approve the process. He also mentioned that it could be of importance symbolically to the citizens of the county if the land was owned by the County rather than a specific school board. Regardless of who owns the land the administration of this school will be in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro systems for several years. Verla Insko stated that the issue of who administers the school is much more important than who owns the land. Mary Bushnell indicated that this could be a magnet school but it would need to be administered by the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board. John Link stated that the Site Selection Committee needs to be able to justify why they select a particular site. Its important that the selection be made for rational, and explainable reasons. They could enter into a written agreement which acknowledges that the land will be acquired by the Chapel Hill/Carrboro system and is intended to serve that system, but may at some future time serve a unified system. It would also need to be clearly stated that the Board of Commissioners would need to be included in any land purchase or building plans. In response to a question from Verla Insko, it was stated that sites in the Rural Buffer are being considered. In response to a question from Verla Insko, Mary Bushnell indicated that the Chapel Hill School Board would be opposed to creating a special district for this new school or for all three high schools combined. Moses Carey indicated that he wanted reference to the County owning the land to be left in the Proposed Process Report. 6 01, / 9) 3 /j 23 Mary Bushnell indicated that would be satisfactory if the statement "initially the school will be administered by the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board" remains a part of the report. Moses Carey indicated that the Board of Commissioners will meet to consider approval of this proposed process on June 29. The Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board will meet on July 6th and the Orange County Board of Education will meet on June 30th. All three Boards need to publicly approve of .this.r j 7 24 DRAFT MINUTES NON-BINDING TASK FORCE SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 The regular meeting of the Non-Binding Task Force was held at 7 : 00 p.m. on Thursday , September 3 , 1992 , at the new Government Services Center in Hillsborough , NC. MEMBERS PRESENT: Moses Carey, Jr. , Ralph Warren , Neil Pedersen, Andrew Overstreet, Mary Bushnell , Barbara Terrell , and Verla Insko. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Link, Ted Parrish , and Kay Singer. STAFF PRESENT: Rod Visser and Kathy Baker . REVIEW AND UPDATE: Rod Visser indicated that staff has reviewed the issues which were raised at the Non-Binding meeting held in June. After much discussion, the consensus of the staff was that the current budgeting categories of Continuation , Additional Continuation .and Expansion are accurate. However, more attention needs to be paid to the individual items which are placed in each category . In the past, items have been placed in expansion which more accurately belong in additional continuation . A closer look at what is placed in these categories next year will greatly increase the effectiveness of the budgetary process. It was also suggested that new, more current examples for each category be determined to facilitate understanding . Appropriately and consistently categorizing funding requests is an important tool in understanding the nature of the schools financial needs. A memorandum, dated September 3 , 1992 , outlining the discussion held by John Link, Neil Pedersen and Andy Overstreet is attached . DISCUSSION: Moses Carey stated that prioritizing expansion requests and relating them to the goal of having one school system does not mean agreeing to prioritize according to that goal today . Each district needs to prioritize "within" their district at the present time. When the expansion items reach the Board of County Commissioners as funding requests they need to be prioritized and related to the goal of one day having one school system. The voters need to see how these expansion items will not increase the existing gap between the school systems. 1 25 Ralph Warren indicated that the expansion items need to be related to the long range goals of the individual school system rather than to the goal of merger. Moses Carey asked if staff discussed the concept of having expansion requests related to specific system goals . Neil Pedersen indicated that it had been discussed , however the difficulty is that the systems may have different standards and those standards may be appropriate for each system. For example , Orange County may want to reduce class size and Chapel Hill- Carrboro may not have the class rooms for that to be an option . Moses Carey indicated that the consensus of the group at the last meeting was that the goal of having one system doesn ' t require that both systems agree on current educational priorities. The important issue here is that we be able to articulate and explain each system in a way that the public understands that the "gap" is not increasing . Expansion items need to be presented to the Board of Commissioners in priority order with an explanation of how they relate to the goal of the merger of the systems. Mary Bushnell commented that as each system moved closer to excellence the gap between the schools should automatically lessen . Ralph Warren illustrated the difficulty the systems are faced with by using the example of technological improvements. The outcomes might be expected to be quite different in Chapel Hill- Carrboro where the level of technology is quite high , than in Orange County where currently less is being offered to students . Moses Carey mentioned that adding new programs causes people to want to see the potential long-range result. They want to see how these programs are going to help prepare us for one system in the future . Explaining the need for a 52 million dollar bond requires that we be prepared to explain the reasons for the differences in the two systems. He pointed out that we will always have increasing numbers of exceptional children in this community because we have created a climate which encourages people to come to Orange County to live and educate their children. Neil Pedersen indicated that it may not be critical that each program be in the most appropriate category , unless the Board of County Commissioners agree to fund all of priority #one and #two categories . Verla Insko stated that correct catagorization is very important to her. In voting for the school ' s budget, it is very important that it be clear if the final approved budget will fund the schools at the current year' s level or below that level . 2 • 26 Andy Overstreet indicated that the Orange County Schools are anticipating an increase in growth greater than projected in recent years. He mentioned that if he was going to suggest a change in category it would be to include a "redirected funds" category . That would include funds from programs which have been ended or have been determined to be a less important priority . Verla Insko indicated that when the budget is presented , the Commissioners have no effective way of seeing where funds from last year ' s budget have been redirected . Creating a mechanism to highlight those funds would be helpful . Moses Carey indicated that the differences in each system, as well as the reasons for these differences , need to be clearly articulated. The job of educating the voting public about the proposed bond requires answers to these questions and to the questions about what is being done to close the gap where it is clear that it needs to be closed . Mary Bushnell indicated that she believes that the public is more interested in the systems cooperating and not duplicating efforts than they are in the systems merging . Andy Overstreet mentioned ways in which the systems are currently cooperating in the sharing of resources. He indicated that as those cooperative ventures are firmly established the public will be made aware of them. He also commented that the current trend is to do more decentralization of education which will lead to greater differences in schools even within the same system. Neil Pedersen suggested that each month an attempt be made to inform the public about one of the issues confronting the two school systems . He also pointed out that the School Boards need to be responsive to their students ' parents . If there is a need for certain courses in Chapel Hill , it would be inappropriate to deny that request based on the fact that Orange County does not have a need for that particular course of education . Verla Insko asked that the superintendents and managers discuss how to keep the Board of Commissioners informed when the school • systems redirect money, either at the time of the budget presentation or during the course of the year. Moses Carey asked that an education Impact Study be included when proposals for new programs come to the Board of Commissioners. Questions about the impact are sure to be voiced and being prepared will streamline the process. The Task Force agreed to compare several areas in both systems. The consensus was to investigate the Pre-Kindergarten programs , Vocational Education , Exceptional Education, and the Salary and Supplemental Salary scales. 3 )9-4\3 27 It was also decided to include within the category of "continuation" the new subcategory of "redirection of funds . " The meeting was adjourned . Submitted by , Kathy Baker , Deputy Clerk 4 28 • MEMORANDUM TO: Non-Binding Task Force Members FROM: John Link, Neil Pedersen, Andy Overstreet DATE: September 3 , 1.992 RE: . Categories of School Funding Last week, we met to discuss a topic from the most recent Non-Binding Task Force meeting that required followup before tonight' s meeting - categories of school funding . We had a thorough and productive discussion about the use of "continuation" , "expansion""additional continuation" , and expansion as the categories of funding we use in preparing school budgets . We recommend that we retain these three categories of funding in discussing future school budgets . We reviewed the general definition of each category established several years ago and • agree that the definitions remain appropriate and useful . We discussed the need to take a closer look at how items are categorized in next year' s budget. Some "expansion" items in the 1992-93 school budgets may have been more properly categorized as "additional continuation" in that the requested funding was related to the increase in student enrollment. While we recognize there can be no upfront commitment to fund a certain percentage increase in the overall school budgets or to fully fund any or all categories of requested funding , we think that appropriate categorization can be helpful in understanding the nature of school funding needs . We plan to prepare an updated paper on school funding categories with new examples of each category based on actual experience. • • 29 ,0)-,,;6-9/3/92 CATEGORIES OF SCHOOL FUNDING Continuation Funding required to maintain existing services , positions , programs, and facilities for the existing student population. Total continuation should generally be limited- to an increase of 5% to 6% . Additional Continuation Additional funding required above normal inflationary increases to maintain existing services, positions," programs , and facilities for the existing student population. Funding required to extend existing programs and services to students projected to be added to the student population. Costs associated with the operation of new facilities , to the extent that level of service provided is equivalent to that at existing facilities . Expansion Funds required for new programs, positions , or' services - whether mandated or locally generated - and to extend services and programs to student populations not previously served. •