Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-11-1991APPROVED MARCH 9 1992 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 11, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on December 11, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the matter of school capital needs, priorities and funding. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen H. Halkiotis, Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Budget and Management Analyst Donna Hamlet, and Budget Director Sally Kost. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Carey introduced everyone - at the Commissioners' table including Mary Bushnell, Chair of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board and Ralph Warren, Chair of the Orange County School Board. PRESENTATION BY JOHN LINK County Manager John M. Link, Jr. presented information on the projects that a 66 million dollar bond issue would include. He stated that the School Bond Advisory Committee appointed last summer by the Board of County Commissioners was charged with prioritizing $157 million in capital requests from the two school systems. The proposed 66 million dollar bond would include 50 million for a new elementary, middle and high school for Chapel Hill- Carrboro and 16 million for a new middle school for the Orange County system. The impact on the homeowner of a 66 million dollar bond would be $210 the peak year for a house valued at $150,000. He explained that the revenues from the two 1/2 cent sales tax are used for school capital. The cost of these schools are higher than those in other counties because the specifications are higher, technology is incorporated into the facilities, the cost of land is higher and an inflation factor is included. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT LINDA HAAC, representing the PTA Council for Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools and a member of the bond committee, stated that she understood there was a consensus that Chapel Hill needed an elementary, middle and high school and Orange County needed a middle school. The committee concluded that even if the schools were merged, they would still need these schools. She stated that new schools need to be built because the present schools have no other space. The district is growing rapidly. Each year there will be 300 more students. If these schools are not built there will be overcrowding conditions. The schools now are over crowded. She cited several examples and.stated that they are at capacity at the high school. She understands that in Orange County a new middle school is needed to replace A. L. Stanback. She believes that buildings should be built to last, be functional and adequate. She stated that the 66 million dollars represents cuts from the original figures for the elementary and high school buildings. She cannot support a bond referendum for any less than 66 million. She said if these schools are not built, the educational benefits will be lost. Good schools are the basis of good education. She urged the Board of County Commissioners to go forward with this bond referendum for at least 66 million and to place it on the May ballot. She pledged to work as hard as she can to assure its passage. MADELINE MITCHELL, parent and teacher in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School System, stated that when she thinks of school capital needs for the two school systems she feels there is a big problem that can be a big opportunity. She supports the 66 million dollar proposal. The school system has more needs than this will cover and difficult decisions have to be made. They opted for buildings over some of the other identified needs. She feels more students will be here than planned. The state projections are conservative. The trends projected by the state are supported by written documentation. She stated that Chapel Hill should receive more because they need the buildings. If and when merger occurs, it will not be in the interest of the students to have 2,000 students in trailers. She feels the citizens will support this bond issue. The people realize the importance of education. She is strongly in favor of this package and feels the citizens will support this bond. She favors taking this to the voters in May. NANCY SALMON from Chapel Hill emphasized the importance of building a new high school. If the school gets too large, the students don't know the other students. Two schools would provide additional opportunities for many students. In smaller schools many of the students can participate. In the long run she feels that all high schools in Orange County should be similar in size. She endorses building a second high school. NICK DIDOW, a resident in the Chapel Hill School District and a member of Citizens Advocating and Supporting Education (CASE), spoke in support of a May ballot. He feels that the funds should be allocated based on anticipated need. He noted that the real school capital needs total far more than the 66 million dollar bond package. A bond for too little money will mean that another bond will be needed. This bond would provide a moderately priced school package. RICHARD GURLITZ, member of CASE, questioned the bond amount the community would support stating that this County is growing. The community has always placed a high demand on the educational system. If money is there for a 66 million dollar bond, there will be money for an 80 million dollar bond. The needs should be identified and the money should be found to take care of these needs. He wants schools with lots of programs. He stated that if the voters see a need, they will vote for it; if the voters do not see a need, they will not vote for it. He offered services of his volunteer group to educate the citizens about the needs and the bond. JOYCE TENNISON, Frank Porter Graham PTA representative, stated her strong support for a 66 million dollar bond. LEON FINK, President of the Culbreth PTA, stated that the cost of school failure is more than the pain of a tax increase. Chapel Hill schools are very good because of the widespread support for them. With all this support, they have no luxurious schools. Culbreth is already 65 students over capacity. They can hardly meet the basic needs of their schools. The PTA has provided $60,000 in funds to help the school. Parents put in hundreds of hours to accumulate these funds because they are proud of their school. They see their school as something that works. They believe their school is their most important possession. He asked that the message be spread and asked that the Board of County Commissioner do the right thing. MAGGIE SLOAN of Chapel Hill stated she hates paying taxes but supports a 66 million dollar package to be put before the voters in May. CINDY CHEEK feels the increased tax is an investment in the future and a small price to pay to be sure the children get a good education. KATIE MCLAURIN, Chapel Hill School District, stated that the redis- tricting done last year can only juggle the number of students for a limited time. Sufficient infrastructure is needed. Also, the students need an education that will prepare them for the 21st century. She asked the Board to approve a bond referendum to allow the school system to move forward with their educational plans. DR. JOHN GRAHAM, representing TaxWatch, read a prepared statement which is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. In summary, he expressed reservations about the size of the proposed bond, the lack of evidence of hard planning, vagueness concerning the amount of money needed and lack of evidence that the proposed construction is linked to the curricular needs of the next decade. He mentioned several innovations that could be considered instead of spending money on bricks and mortar. WILLIAM OPPOLD, member of TaxWatch, offered to help the schools with their problems of overcrowding conditions. He stated that there are other retired individuals who would be willing to help as volunteers. (His entire letter is in the Permanent Agenda File) GRAINGER BARRETT, spoke in support of a 66 million dollar bond issue. He has three children in the school system. He stated that all children in the County are equal and need this bond package. He will pay those property taxes for children before he would get a new car. The need is there. Doors cannot be closed to the children. Maybe year round schools will come in the future but not now. This bond issue should not be delayed. He challenged the Board of County Commissioners to be active and vigorous leaders and be advocates of this bond referendum. He asked that his friends in Orange County not fight through the newspaper but meet each other and talk in a retreat and hash it out and go forward. The main danger is that of delay. In the end the product is what is important, not the bricks and mortar. SUSANNE KEY, Chapel Hill School System, stated that the other speakers have covered her thoughts. She represents the segment which is supportive of the upper level of the 66 million dollar package. She sees the need for the expansion now. The high school is at capacity and the increase in enrollment will mean things will not get better. SHANNON PACE, copresident of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Federation of Teachers, a member of the School Bond Committee and teacher at Estes Hills stated that there is overcrowding and many schools need roofs. Chapel Hill will grow by an average of 300 students a year and orange County by an average of 140 students a year. She stated that many teachers have no classrooms. She encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to support a bond to educate the students into the 21st century. The Federation supports the bond and will work for its passage. SARAH STEWART, reading resource teacher in the Chapel Hill Schools since 1978, stated she has only had adequate work space for one year. The schools have problems including inadequate space for teachers, roofs that need repair, etc. She urged the Board of County Commissioners to put the 66 million dollar bond before the people in May and begin the process to build new schools. She does not want to educate children in a trailer park or have a high school with 2200 students. She feels this is an opportunity to provide space designed to meet the needs of educating the students. She asked the Board of County Commissioners to support education. EILEEN MILLER, Principal of Estes Hills School, spoke on behalf of the parents and students. She stated that this projected growth indicates that three new schools are needed and should be placed where they are needed. Estes Hill's capacity is 500. Their current enrollment is 537. The schools in Chapel Hill are bursting at their seams. Their schools are antiquated with small classrooms. They lack space for creative movement. They have no space for a school nurse. They have inadequate lighting. Based on projections, it is anticipated that they will need one additional teacher but have no place for this teacher. Their current classroom space does not have updated computer equipment. The Estes Hill's community asked that the Board of County Commissioners consider a 66 million dollar bond package. TED PARRISH, Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board member, shared some assumptions. He stated that children are the County's greatest resource; the County values education and wants to maintain their educational edge. Because most of the taxpayers place a high priority on education, he feels the bond issue will pass. He believes the 66 million dollar bond will help the two districts meet their educational needs. Children deserve better and more must be done. He feels they should address merger. A new high school is needed by Chapel Hill - Carrboro. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners keep children as their main focus. RUTH ROYSTER, Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board member, noted she was surprised by the number of classrooms in mobile trailers. Already classrooms designated for music, science and art are becoming regular classrooms. She sees more mobile trailers in the future unless there is a bond referendum. For almost twenty years there have been no new schools built in Chapel Hill. She made reference to the growth of 300 students a year. The high school is serving more than 1600 students. The cafeteria is crowded and there is not adequate space for the school buses. She feels it is necessary to build new schools to meet the educational needs of the children for several decades. They need science labs, space for the teachers, etc. She stated she does not look forward to higher taxes. However, she feels that there is a responsibility to house and educate children. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners get behind a bond referendum and pass it. CAROL CANTRELL, music teacher at Carrboro Elementary, stated that they have moved students with redistricting and still only have one vacant classroom. Never in 38 years have the schools ever measured up to the needs demanded of them. She spoke of many needs and emphasized that these needs are real. She made reference to Money Magazine and an editorial on how to save the schools. She believes that the citizens will support a bond referendum. CHARLES FOSKEY, former member of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board, read a prepared statement which is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. In summary, he supports the bond referendum. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners go for the May referendum date. He emphasized that equality of facilities must be the goal, not equality of construction spending. He believes the projections are real and the students are coming. Not facing up to the problem now will force Chapel Hill -- Carrboro and probably Orange County as well, to spend heavily on expensive mobile classrooms which do not provide satisfactory classroom space during their relatively short life span. He stated that the modest tax increase required by this proposed bond is a much needed investment in the County's future and is mandatory if the schools are to continue the momentum for progressive education which the county has achieved in recent years. KAY SINGER, Orange County School Board Member, made several specific points. She is in favor of a school construction bond to support both systems in Orange County. She feels that in these current economic times that 66 million dollars is too high. She will not work for or support a bond issue that is not fair. This bond issue will not address the projected needs of Orange County Schools. The Board of County Commissioners has supported equity funding and although everyone supports some form of equity funding, Chapel Hill- Carrboro has indicated they are not for it if it decreases their funding. The money is not different because each penny that comes from a citizen for a bond is a penny that is not available for equal funding. She explained that even though Chapel Hill has two - thirds of the tax base, that most of those living in the Orange County system add significantly to the tax base in Chapel Hill. She questioned the definition of need. She feels there should be adequate facilities but that there must be money to support the teachers and programs. R.D. SMITH, former teacher /administrator in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School System, noted that last year taxes increased two cents. He asked that the bond not be based on the cost of his house. The issue deals with one aspect of the Board of County Commissioners' responsibility, namely, the schools. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners be fair to the citizens by letting them know what the tax increase will be to provide other services for the citizens of Orange County. He asked that they look at the fact that IBM and others are laying off people and some are citizens who live in Chapel Hill and who pay taxes. These families will be having children and they will be leaving. Chapel Hill High School opened in 1967. The students left for lunch then just like they do now so it is nothing new. He asked what effect the special tax will play when the bond comes into play. DICK CLIFFORD stated that Orange County is experiencing substantial growth in student population and it is a challenge for the Board of County Commissioners to meet these needs. Some efforts have been made for better student projections and the estimates are less than the actual figures. Orange County demands a lot from their schools. In general, voters have been more than generous to pay for education. The schools are very well maintained. The teachers make maximum use of the space that is provided. The high school facilities are used to the maximum. The media centers are much better than most in North Carolina. Smaller schools have advantages over larger schools. He urged the Board of County Commissioners to have a bond that is large enough to address the needs. The high school population needs to be decreased and a new building constructed. They also need an elementary and middle school. It appears unanimous that people support the schools and are willing to pay for them. WESLEY WALLACE stated that the schools are facing an increased student population. He wants the Board of County Commissioners to put it on the ballot for May at the highest possible level. He promises that if this money goes for education, those at Carol Woods will help pass the bond. EARL DAVIS, Chairman of the Orange County Tax Union, feels that good things have been brought out on both sides of the issue. He sends his children to school to learn. The Tax Union is very concerned about government spending. It affects the working class of people. A lot of people do not have high income. Their concern is that everyone is pushing for a May election and he questions why it needs to be rushed. He suggested giving people an opportunity to read and understand the issue. His main concern is that property taxes keep increasing. He is concerned about the three is and feels there is a need for basic education. He is not opposed but is concerned about the separation of Chapel Hill and Orange County. It is time for good responsible leader- ship. It is important that everyone work for the people and the children. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners look at other alternatives to a bond referendum. Let the citizens pay a little more and let it accumulate slowly. The year 1992 is a revaluation year and taxes will go up. It would be good to hold things steady. Schools are not an option. Maybe money needs to be set aside yearly. He is asking people in the County to lower costs and administrators to cut programs. NEIL PEDERSEN read a prepared statement which is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. In summary he spoke about the planning process which Chapel Hill - Carrboro used to formulate its capital needs request, cost and space estimates, and impact of different rates of growth in the two school districts on funding equity. He stated that although the School Capital Needs Advisory Committee had difficulty reaching consensus, the one clear conclusion was that the County needs four new schools to meet the demands of the student growth which has been projected by the state to occur from 1988 -1999. The State's projections indicate that 70% of the student increase which will occur between 1988 and 1998 will be in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro district. He urged the Board of County Commissioners to formulate a bond package which focuses on the critical needs and produces four schools designed to meet the educational challenges faced by this community in the 21st century. MARTHA DRAKE stated that a school building takes 60 BTU a square foot, a good school building 30 BTU and a great one 15 BTU. She stressed that $274,000 can be saved each year on electricity costs. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners consider these costs. BETSY BARROW from Chapel Hill spoke about the planning process for the new schools. When they added to the present schools, they realized that this would not provide space for increased growth. An educational specifications committee and the teachers designed the proposed schools. The buildings are designed to be functional for at least 50 years. There will be areas for preschoolers and senior citizens which will create a partnership between the schools and the communities. Chapel Hill needs three new schools and needs the support of the Board of County Commissioners. They need to look for the best educational design and support it. There is a need for actions to speak louder than words. Chapel Hill citizens want the very best for education. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners approve a minimum of 66 million for a bond referendum. ANN CRAMER asked how the schools can do better with less if they want to increase their ability to compete. The bond issue is a subsidy for maintaining education. ZUDY JONES of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Association of Educators stated she is uncomfortable because they only heard from a few people in the Orange County School System. She is concerned that there may be growth needs in Orange County before 1997 and feels these should be addressed. It is not fair to decide student cost on present population. She stated that there is major growth in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro city schools. Currently the schools are overcrowded. They are not overcrowded in Orange County. If there is a good job done with education, she feels a bond issue will pass. Needs will increase if they are not taken care of now. The issue is clear. The Chapel Hill Teachers Association supports a bond issue in May. There is no choice. DOCKEY D stated that she is a taxpayer, parent in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools, and a teacher. She spoke of the overcrowded conditions in the schools. In order to deliver quality education, they must have facilities. There are dedicated educators who are frustrated. They must be creative, resourceful and willing to compromise. Children are our future. She worked on designing the new buildings. If the needs of the children today and in the future are going to be met, something must be changed. She wants the Board of County Commissioners to help them get a bond referendum passed at the upper limits. EUGENE LAMMERS, current president of the Ephesus School PTA, spoke on behalf of himself and those who moved to Chapel Hill to get an education for their children. He emphasized that the overcrowding is here and stated he supports a bond referendum. BARBARA BORGER questioned the equity issue. She does not understand why Orange County Schools will only get 25% of the bond amount. She does not see how the voters will understand. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners remember that Orange County residents are struggling to make it on a daily basis. Everyday people wonder how they are going to pay the mortgage payment. WILLIAM GARGAN feels that no one is going to argue about money or the need for it. He referred to the 1986 school merger report. The projected numbers for Orange County are wrong but the numbers for Chapel Hill /Carrboro City Schools are correct. He stated that there is inequity between the two systems and this bond issue is a continuation. The decision needs to be based on what is right. He sees growth in northern Orange County. BONNIE YANKASKAS feels that the need for schools in Chapel Hill is clear. A lot of people move to Chapel Hill because it has a great school system. They need a new high school. Every student needs a chance for a good education. She helped with designing the three new schools. She wants the bond referendum to be large and held in May. VICKIE BROWN lives in Efland and has two children in the Orange County system. She and her husband support education for all students but need to be convinced that the request for 66 million dollars is fiscally reasonable and that what is requested is needed instead of expected by the parents. GEORGE GRIFFIN of Chapel Hill strongly supports a May bond referendum for 66 million dollars. He is troubled about the two school systems getting together and resolving the equity issue. CHARLES STEWART, Principal of Culbreth Middle School, urged the Board to support the bond referendum at the earliest possible date. It is critical to the quality of education they can offer. He asked that they build good facilities that will last 20 - 30 years. MARVIN KOENIG, Principal of Chapel Hill High School, stated that children at risk become more at risk in a large school. Chapel Hill High has 1,670 students. Next year 13 or 14 teachers will be without a classroom. He will vote yes for children and asked that it be done in May. BOB REEBER, Chapel Hill, spoke in support of the schools. He stated that now is a good time to build a school because the interest rates are low. This will also help the economy. If schools are not built now, prisons will be built in 15 years. He asked that the Board do it in May and do it for more than 66 million. He asked that every school be brought up to specification. He supports 12 month schools. GEORGE KINGMAN indicated he does not want to pay taxes but the cost of education is one that needs to be confronted. Scrimping on education will mean more funds on social programs. He pledges as a retired person on a limited income that he will support the bond issue. MIKE BROWN, Orange County Schools, feels the figures are what they should be but asked if people can afford a bond referendum. He wants the money spent wisely. There is disparity between the two systems. They both have honest -to- goodness needs. The County does not have the programs that are offered in Chapel Hill. The needs are there. He wants both to get what they need. He doesn't know if May is the right time. There are a lot of businesses cutting back. He would support 66 million. He asked if these figures are where they need to be. He recognizes the need for facilities for the students but stated that the real process takes place in the classroom between the student and the teacher. MARY BOBBITT- COOKE, member of the Orange County School Board, stated that the dollar numbers are not based on numbers that are realistic but exaggerated. There are counties that are building excellent schools for much less money. The committee did not deal with other creative ways than brick and mortar. Year round schools were not considered as a more creative way. She questions if people can afford this bond issue. The university is downsizing because of the state's shortfall and there are layoffs in the Triangle Park area. She asked if the 1990's will mirror the 1980's as far as growth. She feels the county taxpayers will ask these questions. She is concerned that the Board of County Commissioners took out the technology package. The districts recognize each others need. She will support a bond package that will include technology and real figures for all students. BILL DORSETT stated that he opposes this bond as proposed. He would support doing this through sales taxes. MAX KENNEDY stated that the bond package is in deep trouble in both ends of the County. There are people out there who will not support this bond package because there are a lot of people who are not insulated against economic insecurity. He believes that any bond is going to be in serious trouble. The people will be voting against higher taxes and not against education. The referendum will stand a better chance in May than November. The growth in northern Orange County will not catch up with Chapel Hill because of the inadequate supply of water. With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chair Carey adjourned the meeting at 11:03 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on December 17, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the OWASA Community Room, Jones Ferry Road, Carrboro, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk c: \Wp50 \min \12 -11 -91 Remarks of Neil Pedersen, Asst. Superintendent, CHCCS to . the County Commissioners on December 11, 1991 Regarding the Upcoming Bond Referendum My name is Neil Pedersen. As the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services for the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools, I chaired the committees which developed our long -range facility master plan and the educational specifications for the proposed elementary and middle schools. Tonight I would like to speak to three issues: (1) the planning process which our district used to formulate its capital needs request; (2) cost and space estimates; and (3) the impact of different rates of growth in the two school districts on funding equity. I will begin with the planning process. The information provided to the School Capital Needs Advisory Committee is the product of a two -year planning effort. In 1990 a Long -Range Facilities Planning Committee was convened in anticipation of the severe overcrowding that the district was expected to face in the near future. It recommended that four new schools be constructed in our school district in order to meet the anticipated growth in student enrollment. The Long -Range Facility Plan for the Nineties was presented to our School Board in November of last year. As a result of this effort, funds were included in our Capital Improvement Plan to begin planning for the elementary and middle schools. We considered it imperative that substantiated cost estimates for each school be provided to the bond study committee based upon the program requirements of the facilities. Consequently, facility and educational planners were engaged to work with a broad -based committee of more than 50 members to develop educational specifications for these schools. Last summer this committee produced a 400 page document which our architects have translated into a schematic design. In light of time constraints, I will simply distribute to you some clarifying information concerning the second issue of space and cost estimates for our proposed schools. I contend that the reason our schools look different from those to which they are being compared is that teachers and other community representatives were integrally involved in their design from day one. The facilities are not elaborate. Instead, they are functional and have additional space for small and large group instruction, storage, professional work spaces, and exceptional education programs. They are designed to meet the educational challenges of the 21 st century, not simply to comply with minimum state standards. The Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District has not constructed a school in over twenty years. The last three which were built to accommodate the baby boom were seriously flawed due to unrealistic budgets. Hopefully, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past and attempt to force fit school designs into inadequate budgets. equity. I would now like to turn to the impact of student enrollment trends on funding The School Capital Needs Advisory Committee had difficulty reaching consensus, but the one clear conclusion which it drew was that the county needs four new schools to meet the demands of the student growth which has been projected by the state to occur through 1998 -99. Although both districts had other legitimate needs in the areas of technology and building renovations, most committee members concluded that the new schools must take priority over these other needs, especially in light of the fact that voters would be hard - pressed to support the funding required to construct these fours schools. As is the case in most counties, growth is not occurring at a uniform rate in all portions of Orange County. Your own planning department has prepared a comprehensive study which documents that most major, recently constructed or approved housing developments are located in the southern portion of the county. Obviously, the challenge to planners and to you as commissioners is to build new schools where the greatest growth has occurred or where it is projected to occur. Past enrollment trends, as well as projected enrollments, are quite clear about which of the two school districts is growing. Eight years ago membership in each school district was approximately 5000 students.. Last year Orange County had 4991 students in membership, only 32 students more than in 1983 -84. Chapel Hill's membership was 6005, an increase of 980 students. These enrollment trends continue today. Kindergarten enrollment is an excellent forecaster of total enrollment during the next decade. Orange County's kindergarten enrollment this year is 400 students, 4 students fewer than were enrolled five years ago (1986 -87). Chapel Hill Carrboro, on the other hand, enrolled 515 kindergartners this year, a 31 % increase during this same time period. The State's projections indicate that 70% of the student enrollment increase which is projected to occur between 1988, the year of the last bond referendum, and 1998 will occur in the Chapel Hill - Carrboro district. If almost three - quarters of the additional students enroll in our district, is it not reasonable that three - quarters of the available funds should be used to construct the schools which their presence demands. In closing, I urge you to follow the advice of your advisory committee. Orange County needs to construct four new schools if it is to avert the facility crisis which Wake and Durham Counties face today. The data support the conclusion that the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools require three new schools to provide classroom space for its projected student population. Orange County needs a new middle school to replace Stanback and to relieve overcrowding at Stanford. I urge you to formulate a bond package which focuses on these critical needs and produces four schools designed to meet the educational challenges faced by our communities in the 21 st century. A REVIEW OF SPACE AND COST ESTIMATES DEVELOPED BY THE CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS How were square footage estimates determined? The long -range facility planning committee developed preliminary square footage estimates prior to completing its report in the fall of 1990. The State's facility standards were reviewed, statistics were collected from neighboring school districts, and the committee visited several schools. The committee's original estimates for the elementary and middle schools were 91,250 and 120,000 square feet respectively. The committee believed that high expectations of our parents and staff, combined with an expanded instructional program and a popular after - school program, would lead to somewhat larger schools than were being built across the state. The high school estimate was based on 215 square feet per student for a high school with a capacity of 1000 and core facilities for 1500 students. This estimate was derived from an article written by David Carter et. al. in the Building Education journal. It was stated at the time that these were preliminary estimates which would need to be revised once educational specifications for the buildings were developed. The educational specification committee met in June, 1991 to work with nationally recognized consultants to develop the program for the elementary and middle schools. The committee worked for six full days and produced a first draft of educational specifications. As a result of this process, the elementary program called for more than 150,000 square feet and the middle school for over 200,000 square feet. These space estimates reflected what professional educators truly believed to be necessary to deliver a high quality educational program. It was clear, however, that they were drastically out of line with conventions and, in all likelihood, would be unaffordable. Consequently, a steering committee, working in conjunction with our architects and design consultants, whittled this request down by approximately 30% to 111,000 square feet for the elementary school and 148,000 for the middle school. What are the primary areas where the proposed CHCCS elementary school differs from the state recommended standards? Pre - kindergarten Classroom 59. Ft. 1200 Larger Classrooms in Gr. 1 -5 (15 %) 3600 Covered Patios for Outdoor Learning Centers 2640 Small Group Rooms 2250 Exceptional Children's Program 3450 Student Commons 1500 Community Resource Area 2000 Conference Rooms 1260 Professional Offices/Work Spaces 6440 Storage 7930 Resultant Space Overhead (28 %) 9038 Total 41,308 2 What are the primary areas where the proposed CHCCS middle school differs from the state recommended standards? Larger and Additional Core Classrooms �. Ft. 6650 Exceptional Children's Program 2380 Auditorium 8800 Auxiliary Gym 5100 Larger Cafeteria 1000 Teacher Offices/Workrooms 4980 General Storage 9800 Resultant Space Overhead (32 %) 12507 Total 51,217 These additional needs relate to several long- standing priorities of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools: -A commitment to support pre - school programs, especially for at -risk children -A desire for more active, hands -on, developmentally appropriate instruction and a corresponding decrease in teacher presentations. This requires more room for student movement, interaction, and project work and space for outdoor leaming areas. -The provision of an appropriate educational program for children with exceptionalities. CHCCS has a very large population of academically gifted students and a high percentage of other children with special needs, some of whom are attracted to this area by the high quality services which are offered. - Schools should be community- centered in several respects: (1) They should provide public facilities such as auditoriums, gymnasiums, cafeterias, and media centers which should be designed to be accessible to the community; (2) support space should be provided to volunteers, including the PTA and the school governance committees; and (3) space should be provided for social service agencies which provide services directly to children. - Children need appropriate spaces for them to work in large groups and small groups and to work quietly on their own. - Teachers deserve a professional work place which includes conference space for private meetings and offices with telephones and other appropriate technologies. - Almost every new school is deficient with respect to adequate storage. Storage is necessary if teachers are to abandon a worksheet and textbook oriented mode of instruction and replace it with hands -on instruction. 3 Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools needs to provide schools which are larger than those of other districts in the state because of the expanded offering of programs required for children with exceptionalities. For example, Carrboro Elementary School employs the following professional staff in addition to the 22 K -5 classroom teachers (some are part- time): 1 Principal 1 Assistant Principal 2 Guidance Counselors/Family Specialists 1 Media Coordinator 2 Physical Education Teachers 2 Academically Gifted Teachers 2 Spanish Teachers 1 Music Teacher 1 Art Teacher 2 Reading Teachers 2 Learning Disabilities Resource Teachers 2 Speech /Language Pathologists 1 BEH Teacher 1 LD Self- contained Teacher 1 Primary Resource Teacher 1 ESL Teacher 23 TOTAL There are also 25 teacher assistants who support the program. The total staff includes 83 members. State and local mandates, especially for children with special needs, demand enhanced programs which require more instructional, support, and professional space than is normally found in many schools being constructed today. How were cost estimates developed? Cost estimates were developed by the school district's construction management consultant, Construction Control Corporation, located in Columbia, South Carolina. This firm has wide- ranging experience in managing public sector construction projects in the Southeastern United States. It used a sophisticated cost estimating model to project square footage costs for each room of each school. The average cost was projected to be $80.00 per square foot for the middle school and $78.34 for the elementary school, based on a bid date in the winter of 1992 -93. This model generated new construction estimates of $8,714,613 for the elementary school and $11,872,077 for the middle school. From this point, CCC used the same cost estimating model that was used in the long -range facility plan. This model was borrowed from the journal article referenced earlier and is outlined below: ►� Elementary and Middle School Cost Estimate A. New Construction TOTAL PROJECT COST $36,109,632 The cost of the high school was estimated in the long -range facilities report and has not been revised because educational specifications have not been developed for this facility. A similar model to that outlined above yielded an estimated cost of $27,296,375 in 1990 dollars. These costs were inflated by 6% per year through 1996 to produce a projected actual cost of $38,720,000. How firm are these cost estimates? It was our intention when these estimates were generated that they should be conservative at the outset of the planning process because of the large number of unknown variables. It is difficult to estimate costs when a site has not been selected or tested and the nature of off -site improvements is not known. Although these issues have not been fully resolved, we certainly hope that these estimates will exceed the final bids. It should be noted that this is a very difficult market in which to project construction costs. The construction market, obviously, is depressed at this time to the extent that bids are coming in today lower than they were two years ago. The critical question is whether this climate will exist for the next several years or will the market turn around, causing bids to escalate at a higher than inflationary rate in order to adjust for the present depressed conditions. These two extremes could result in costs which vary as much as 20 %. Again, the CHCCS district has taken a conservative approach, projecting that the market has bottomed out and will recover before these three projects are bid. Elementary $8,714,613 Middle 11,872,077 B. Site Development (10 -15% of A) 2,088,004 C. Fixed Equipment (8 -12% of A) 1,250,000 D. Team Sport Facilities 750,000 E. Technology /Comm. Equip. 1.500.000 F. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $26,174,694 G. Site Acquisition 1,200,000 H. Movable Equipment (5 -20% of A) 2,500,000 I. Professional Fees (5 -10% of F) 2,617,469 J. Administrative Costs (1 -2% of F) 500,000 K. Off -Site Improvements 500,000 L. Contingencies (5 -15% of D) 2.617.469 TOTAL PROJECT COST $36,109,632 The cost of the high school was estimated in the long -range facilities report and has not been revised because educational specifications have not been developed for this facility. A similar model to that outlined above yielded an estimated cost of $27,296,375 in 1990 dollars. These costs were inflated by 6% per year through 1996 to produce a projected actual cost of $38,720,000. How firm are these cost estimates? It was our intention when these estimates were generated that they should be conservative at the outset of the planning process because of the large number of unknown variables. It is difficult to estimate costs when a site has not been selected or tested and the nature of off -site improvements is not known. Although these issues have not been fully resolved, we certainly hope that these estimates will exceed the final bids. It should be noted that this is a very difficult market in which to project construction costs. The construction market, obviously, is depressed at this time to the extent that bids are coming in today lower than they were two years ago. The critical question is whether this climate will exist for the next several years or will the market turn around, causing bids to escalate at a higher than inflationary rate in order to adjust for the present depressed conditions. These two extremes could result in costs which vary as much as 20 %. Again, the CHCCS district has taken a conservative approach, projecting that the market has bottomed out and will recover before these three projects are bid. Estimating Building Costs Guesstimates won't do when it comes to building high schools, so plug space and construction requirements into this tested formula to arrive at a realistic estimate of what it will cost to build and equip your facility. By David Carter, Timothy K. Scarbrough, and Syd Spain Smart, cost -ef- fective budgeting is a matter of eco- nomic necessity in all areas of con- struction —and public projects such as new schools are no exception. Dwindling community tax bases, fewer taxpayers with school -age children, and growing public re- sistance to increased taxation pose a problem for many school systems: With fewer financial resources, how can you build the high - quality schools you need? In the early stages of budget plan- ning for a new high school, school board members, school administra- tors, and architects have to juggle total costs, area requirements, and construction quality to accommo- date the carefully considered needs of the school district's students and residents. The success of the fin- ished product is critically influenced by these early decisions. Working with school officials in the design of more than 1,000 high schools and other educational facili- David Carter is an architectural pro- grammer for CRS Sirrine, Inc., Houston. Timothy K. Scarbrough, also an architec- tural planner with CRS Sirrine, Inc.. cur- rently is program manager for capital im- provements in the Dade County (Florida) Public Schools. Syd Spain, formerly a re- search specialist with CRS Sirrine. Inc., is assistant dean, School of Architecture. Auburn University, Auburn, Ala. ties, we have developed a way to analyze estimated costs and explore budget options when planning the construction of a high school. The chart on page Al2 shows how this approach to cost- estimate analysis can be applied to a hypothetical building project —a 2,000 - student high school. (This analysis excludes the costs that might be associated with acquiring construction capital through bonds or loans.) Estimating your budget In our model, as in any real -life building project, the total budget is, to a large extent, a function of space requirements and quality of con- struction. To show how we arrive at a final budget estimate, let's walk through the model step by step: 1. Estimate the needed build- ing area. How big should your new school building be? That depends on whether you want a superb facil- ity, the bare minimum, or something in between. It depends, in other words, on how functionally ade- quate you want your building to be. Functional adequacy is a measure of the amount of service and sup- port a school provides in relation to the number of students and school programs. Most measurements of this type are made in gross building area per unit. Schools with austere functional adequacy have no voca- tional /technical areas and minimum central facilities such as auditoriums or gymnasiums. Schools with excel- lent functional adequacy, on the other hand, provide for a broader curriculum and more satisfactory central and service facilities. The list below illustrates the necessary gross square feet (csr) per student for different levels of func- tional adequacy. For example, mod- erate functional adequacy calls for a GSF per student of 120 in a 2,000 - student high school and 140 in a 1,000 - student high school. Because area efficiencies increase as high school sizes inCtease, the GsF per student is smaller in the larger school. The first step in our model is to select the desired level of functional adequacy from the following list and multiply it by the projected student enrollment: • Superb: from 179 GSF /student in a 2,000- student school to 230 GSF/ student in a 1,000 - student school • Grand: from 155 GSF /student in a 2.000- student school to 195 GSF/ student in a 1,000- student school 0 Excellent: from 135 GSF /student in a 2,000- student school to 165 GSF /student in a 1,000 - student school • Aloderate: from 120 OF /student in a 2,000 - student school to 140 05F /student in a 1,000 - student school • Economical: from 105 GSF /stu- dent in a 2,000- student school to BUILDING EDUCATION — May 1989 Al 1 125 GsF• /student in a 1,000 - Student school • Austere: from 90 GAF /student in a 2,000 - student school to 105 GnF/ student in a 1,000 - student school. Estimated costs for the hypotheti- cal 2,000- student high school in the chart are based on a desired func- tional adequacy of excellent, or 135 GsF /student. We then multiplied 135 GSF /student by 2,000 students for a building area of 270,000 GSF. 2. Determine construction quality. Construction quality, ex- pressed in dollar cost per gross square foot, is a measure of the qual- ity of the building —its materials, systems, and construction. Austere construction quality often features concrete blocks, tilt -up concrete walls, or prefabricated steel build- ings. Superb and grand construction frequently includes such materials as marble, brass, high - quality woods, copper, and brick. The choice of construction qual- ity —like the choice of functional adequacy —is up to you. Determine the desired level of construction quality from the following list and multiply it by the needed building area from step 1 to arrive at the building cost (line A): • Superb: 5116 /(:,F • Grand: $89h.,F • Excellent: S72h..r • Moderate: $61 /(:.F • F,conotnical: $50/,,,F • Austere: $39/(;sF To return to our hypothetical example, the desired construction quality is excellent, or S72 /6,F. Multiply the needed school area of 2 -0,000 G,F by 572 /6,F for an esti- mated building cost of $19,440,000. (Costs are in January 1988 dollars.) 3. Estimate site acquisition/ demolition cost. The cost to ac- quire an appropriate site and de- molish any existing structures will vary. Factors that influence the cost include location, topography, soil and mineral types, utilities available, access roads, zoning, and . special considerations such as lakes, historic monuments, wildlife, water table height, and the site's influence on aquifer recharge. Base your estimate on previous site acquisition and demolition costs Chart Your Costs This cost - estimate analysis chart' shows the total budget required (line J) to build a hypothetical school (excluding the costs of acquiring capital). Before you can use this model to estimate the total budget required for a building project, you must know line A, the building cost —that is, how many gross square feet (G`3F) per student and the cost per GAF —and line E, the estimated cost for site acquisition /demolition. For information on calculating lines A and E, see the main article. A. Building cost 270,000 GsF• at 572 /G,F $19,440,000" B. Fixed equipment 8% of A 1,555,200 C. Site development 15% of A 2,916,000 D. Total construction A + B + C 23,911,200 E, Site acquisition /demolition 500,000 F. Movable equipment 8 %, of A 1,555,200 G. Professional fees 6% of D 1,434,672 H. Contingencies 10% of D 2,391,120 I. Administrative costs 1% of D 239,112 J. Total budget required D & E through J $30,031,304 ' William Pena, Problem Seeking, 3rd cd. Washington: A.I.A. Press, 1987 " All costs in this model are based on January 1988 dollars, Al2 BUILDING EDUCATION — Moy 1989 in the same area, or seek the help of a professional who knows the site and the surrounding region. The example project has a site acquisition /demolition cost (line E) of $500,000. 4. Estimate other project costs. Estimate the costs of fisted equipment (line B), site develop- ment (line C), total construction (line D), movable equipment (line F), professional fees (line G), contingen- cies (line H), and administrative costs (line I) using the following calculations: • Line B, fixed equipment: 8 -12 %, of line A • Line C, site development: 10-15% of line A • Line D, total construction costs: lines A + B + C • Line F, movable equipment: 5 -20% of line A • Line G, professional fees: 5 -10% of line D • Line H, contingencies: 5 -15% of line D • Line 1, administrative costs: 1-2% of line D The chart shows these costs as estimated for our hypothetical high school. Note that line C, site develop- ment, does not include special ath- letic facilities, such as large stadiums, tennis courts, and swimming pools. Recent trends for funding these spe- cial athletic facilities include joint participation with city recreation departments, private and corporate contributions, and project phasing over several years. These costs should be treated as lump -sum costs in addition to the project budget, 5. Estimate the total budget required. Add up lines D, E, F, G, H, and I to calculate the total budget (line J) required ---in our example, $30,031,304. Controlling variables As our cost estimate model shows, many of the costs associated with building a high school do not vary appreciably. That means the factors that do vary are especially important when you're planning your building project budget. Those factors in- clude functional adequacy, con- struction quality, and site costs. Most school board members and school administrators fbcus on re- ducing construction quality to loner the project budget, but it is equally effective to reduce functional ade- quacy, Recognize, though, that either decision will have an impact on the kind of school building you construct and how well it supports -our educational needs. When you choose a lower Icvel of construction quality, your decision will affect the building's appearance and its operat- ing and maintenance costs. When you decide on a lower level of func- tional adequacy, you will have less space for educational programs and central service facilities. The third variable —the cost of the site --can range from land do- nated at no cost to high -cost urban sites. Be sure to establish the site cast early to eliminate adverse impacts on your total budget. And remem- ber that you cannot accurately esti- mate site development costs until site soil tests have been made. Un- usual site conditions do occur- Ad- ministrators at one recently com- pleted high school had to spend twice as much on site development as on building costs because of un- usual site conditions. (Superb out- door athletic facilities added to the site development costs.) Although fixed equipment costs, movable equipment costs, profes- sional fees, contingencies, and ad- ministrative costs are usually less variable than other budget costs, they are frequently underestimated by school officials. Using our cost estimate analysis model" can help you avoid unpleasant budget sur- prises —and get the school facilities that support your educational ob- jectiyes. i] CRS Sirrine has incorporated the high school budget planning model itlto a High School Expert System for schools with enroll- ments of between 1,000 and 2,000 students. The program includes calculation models for predicting the size of a school, an enrollment formula for forecasting areas, and budget summaries. For information, write CRS Sir - rine. Inc.. 1111 West Loop South, P.O. Box 22 -+27 Houston 7 -277; 713/552.2000. Elementary School Design Why are today's elementary schools so much bigger than the ones built in the 1960s? Smaller classes are one factor, but the main reason is additional programs and services —all with their own space requirements. f your school sys- tem is gearing up for a bond referen- dum to finance a new elementary school, you'd better be prepared to face a questioning public. In the last five years, my firm has designed ap- James E. Rydeen, A.I.A., is president of Armstrong, Torseth, Skold, and Rydeen, Inc, an architecturefirm in Minneapo- lis, He is the former chairman of the American Institute of Architects' Na- tional Committee on Architecture for Education and Cultural Arts Spaces. By James E. Rydeen proximately 20 elementary schools. And we've found that, across the U.S., in school systems large and small, rural and urban, rich and poor, the same question arises time after time: "Does our new school really need all that space, or are you just providing fancy frills ?" This persistent question reflects dramatic changes in what we re- quire in an elementary school in 1989 compared to what was ex- pected of a typical elementary school constructed in 1969. Twenty years ago, a four - section K -6 school with four classrooms per grade typically housed 840 students in a 50,000- square -foot building, which works out to 60 square feet per student. Here's the arithmetic: • Grades 1 -6: 24 classrooms x 30 students = 720 students • Kindergarten: 2 classrooms x 30 students x 2 (two half -time ses- sions) = 120 students * Total number of students: 840 • 50,000 square feet - 840 = 60 square feet /student Now, let's look at a typical four. section K-6 school designed in 1989. Today's buildings tend to be larger and student - teacher ratios tend to be BUILDING EDUCATION — May 1989 A13 :I gu i i� a a 'o v > t' r F Vi S�Fm�ubia���xww� V FaF�6 V,4¢ V a•-e V TLS �dmssao�w°•�o J j 1 0 j /• al � U� Im-j �� OW ai a leg IL 0 Ali z g� kr E51 � \ �1 IT.: LU Wir Y tip !U ° t; : rt �,WDI = O ZI '1JiJ._i; iii .rEt +i:hli. i.il lliiTi�'�if;cL jj w J: ;J... I J� J; rJ W LL` LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN 311 EAST EDENTON STREET * P.O. BOX 27963 it RALEIGH, N.C. 27611 k TELEPHONE (919) 832 -7024 GENE CAUSBY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JAN HOLEM CROTTS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON Published as a Member Service November 19,1991 Vol. V1, No. 26 LOCAL INITIATIVE A MUST FOR FUNDAMENTAL REFORM (.OVERVIEW II. REVENUE STATUS 111.1992 NCSBA LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM IV. PREVIEW OF 1992 LEGISLATIVE SESSION A. Adjournment Resolution B. Bills Eligible V. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES VI. GENE CAUSBY'S CONFERENCE PRESENTATION I. OVERVIEW We now have our chance to pick up the pieces from 1991 and make plans for 1992. You have heard many versions of what happened in the 1991 session. There are many similarities and there are many differences. We have included, for your information and reading pleasure, the two presentations Gene Causby made at our NCSBA Annual Conference. Many who attended the Confer- ence requested a copy. You will find on page 2 of the Thursday presentation a call for local school systems to convene your own education summit. You are called upon to "reach out to school personnel and beyond - -to the business community, chambers of commerce, county commis- sioners, parent groups, civic leaders, agricultural leaders, media in your area, candidates, members of the General Assembly and others that might need to be included." Gene urges you to concentrate'on things that are "doable" not "pie -in- the - sky ". We will soon provide you with suggestions and information to help you in this process. "Fundamental reform occurs when it happens at the school house, not the state house." Please read this Bulletin and then save it for future reference. You will need this information now and as we approach the session in May, 1992. 11. REVENUE STATUS Unsettled Economic Outlook Public schools are as vulnerable to the ups and downs of the state and local revenues as anyone anywhere. Everyone is tired of reversions and cutbacks. We watch the general fund outlook very carefully as we're sure you do. Here is a brief summary and some excerpts from a very recent General Fund Revenue Outlook as it was presented to the members of the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations on November 14, 1991. Basically, the 1992 economic outlook availability is very unsettled and the best forecast for the year continues to be the existing budget forecast which assumes an anemic recovery (.8% real growth). A major concern about the uncertainty of the economy is We thank the Institute of Government, UNC -CH , for use of its Daily Bulletin for summaries of legislation as it is introduced. r.. 1 REMARKS BY GENE CAUSBY NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION 22ND ANNUAL CONFERENCE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7,1991 STRONG MESSAGES FOR NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS SCHOOLS I have always been proud to be a North Carolinian. I still am. We have recently received some messages that speak volumes about the state of our state that are most troublesome. This is not by any means a complete list, but some examples: p Last week we had our first bank failure since 1943. We were told that 9 other N. C. banks were on a "watch" status. a We learned two weeks ago that N.C. is the first state OSHA has taken over the monitoring of work place safety in the 21 -year history of OSHA. a We learned recently N. C. finished dead last in a multi -state math achievement test. a We've risen from dead last in SAT scores to a less than lofty tie for 48th. p Recently ranked worst in the nation for infant mortality. ra We have the dubious distinction of having the most out- houses of any state in the nation. [> We have just experienced the biggest revenue shortfall in our history. In Raleigh- -like most state capitals - -there have been well- intended efforts to craft sweeping school reform. Governors, lawmakers, state boards, state departments, the North Carolina School Boards Association and many others have been involved in these efforts. If you looked long enough and hard YOU cot id h -some good that has cunit; f om these effort_ l3ottoin line, though, they have been largely ineffective. They have failed to produce the dramatic school improvement that was intended. NCSBA has always had a legislative program for which you and I have worked hard. There has been a measure of success to show for those efforts. We have one now. It is a good one. It will not, in and of itself, produce the dramatic school im- provement we need. The State Superintendent and the Department of Public Instruction have their 20 points. Generally speaking, they are good. They will not result in the kind of school improvement that is wanted and needed. Governor Jim Martin convened an education summit. He was considerate enough to include NCSBA as a part of the summit. We, along with the other participants, gave it an honest effort. To my knowledge nothing came of it. The Legislature also convened its education summit. They, too, were thoughtful enough to include us. Again, I do not question their intent or sincerity, but I can't tell you one thing that came out of it that improved schools. 1 There are valuable lessons to be learned from these experiences. Among the lessons are: I. Regardless of how important and needed any of these reforms might be, if they are classroom immune, they will not result in school improvement. r> It is fine for teachers to have great salaries, dues check -off, lots of holidays, high morale, and what they call "empower- ment." But, unless it translates into better achievement for students there is no real school improvement. <> The state governance structure is broken and it needs to be fixed. But, unless it impacts positively a classroom full of alienated, bored students, there is no real school improvement. a Local school systems can have total flexibility and complete autonomy. But, unless it translates into increased student learning there is no real school improvement. II. It is time for local communities to seize the initiative for school improvement. a We've tried top down initiative and it has not been effective. ca Local initiative is already working. Right now, both near and far away from Raleigh a revolution is taking place. In Granville County, Mooresville City, Haywood County, Vance County, Richmond County, Davidson County, Gaston County and others, school people, parents, students, business leaders - -all local people, are demonstrating that true, fundamental reform occurs when it happens at the school house, not the state house. I, today, call on every local school system to convene your awn education summit. I urge you to do so between Februa ry 25 and May 15. As you plan your summit, I urge you to reach out to school personnel and beyond - -to the business community, a chambers of commerce, county commissioners, parent groups, civic leaders, agricultural leaders, media in your area, candi- dates, members of the General Assembly and others that might need to be included. We will be offering you suggestions and infotniatioiy bu, it must be your summit. We will provide you with results of the Governor's summit, the Legislative summit, our legislative program, the State Superintendent's 20 points, America 2000 goals, the State Board of Education priorities and other information. All of this is purely for your information. It is imperative that the summit results reflect the priorities of ygmrr community. I would urge you to be very selective. Concentrate on things that are "doable" not "pie -in- the - sky." Select just a very few things that in the collective judgement of your community would do the most to improve your schools. Then network with any and everybody you can to accomplish those things. Grassroots decision making is efficient. It rarely requires prolonged studies and lots of pilots. It happens NOW. It is also sometimes wrong. But, feedback and assessments is quick. When you're flattened by a mistake you can get back up. When you're flattened by conformity, you're down for good. It is our conviction that school improvemer, will occur only if local communities take the initiative. That's our only motivation for this effort. Ow K 1 !�� aiu rls�,�� ;�'tei al:i �I•7:1ii:9-3'i NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION 22ND ANNUAL CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 9,1991 It seems safe to say North Carolina has had better days. To turn this unflattering series of events around will require high quality leadership. It behooves us all to'examine as carefully as possible the men and women who are, and those who will be offering themselves for service in decision making offices. It further seems to me that those of us who serve in leadership positions in public education commit ourselves anew to providing the best leadership possible. If N. C. is to regain some of its lost prestige and build a more promising future it is imperative that we have high quality schools. There is ample evidence that state efforts, despite the best of intentions have not been effective in improving public schools. It is time for local communities to take the initiative. If local communities are to be more effective, as I believe they will be, we must understand some things success will require: n SUCCESS WILL REQUIRE AN ATTITUDE THAT SAYS WE WILL SUCCEED "IN SPITE OF." An attitude that says "we can't," "They won't let us," We could if," is destined to fail. "IN SPITE OF ": a A Legislature that has been unwilling or unable to follow through on their major commitments. (BEP, salary schedule, Senate Bill 2); > Being drzgged.through an econo —;c kt, v hole ^ °sou-ces are most crp.uirly essc w schc(,l irn0roveme- but we have an obligation to do our best with whatever resources we have. I'm not an econwaist. I'm sure we're in a recession, but its a strange recession. > Last Sunday - -golf tournament in Pinehurst paid $2 million in prize money to 30 golfers. The guy who finished dead last got $32,000. Funny recession isn't it? > Last Wednesday night the Charlotte Hornets signed a contract for almost $20 million with a kid who has never played a game of professional basketball. Funny recession isn't it? isn't it? > According to USA Today, $400 million was spent last week on halloween costumes for adults. Funny recession a We have needy - -even hungry-- children in a country where diet dog food is a huge seller. It's not a very funny recession is it? n SUCCESS WILL REQUIRE A NEW EMPHASIS ON RESPONSIBILITY- -OURS. There has been much success in Vic] spreading the blame. There's plenty to go around. That hasn't improved schools. > School systems are resl2grisible for the quality of employees they hire and keep. We must quit accepting perfor- mance that is less than satisfactory. > School employees are responsible for the quality of the program they develop and implement. You can tell when people know what they're doing (and when they don't). You can tell when people are motivated (and when they're not). You can tell when people are proud of what they're doing (and when they're not). What's wrong with using results as a basis for recognition? Compensation? Go or no 'go on a program? What's bad about measuring classroom achievement? Doesn't it make sense that a day (or even an hour) of school is important? Is it unreasonable to expect a year's growth from a year of school? When there is no real reward for improvement and no ear 1 consequence for failing to improve, there will be no e� `al improvement. What would happen to a football game if there was no goal line, no end zone and they didn't keep score? Motivation? Interest? Support? > Parents are responsible for the children they send to school. Schools don't have drug problems, communities do and they send them to school. Schools don't have race problems, communities do and they send them to school. > Students are resRonsible for their behavior and learning. When all the players understand and accept their responsibilities we will improve our schools. Until we do, we will continue to spin our wheels. 0 `:3 4 c . .... ..... . - - -�_. _J <. _ -.. /:� -- [, cat . � sZ `� _. -.... � �� � � � ..._ 5 le c V-1 --- ---- ... r f To: The County Commissioners From: Charles Foskey Subject: County --wide School Bond Date: December 11, 1991 I write from the perspective of a past member of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board and a member of the School Capital Needs Advisory Committee, but this letter represents only my own views. I do not purport to speak for the School Board or the Advisory Committee. I commend you for the selection of $66 million as a bond target, because any lesser amount will leave the two systems with significant shortages in classroom and support space and overcrowded conditions for our students. I am keenly aware that a bond of this size will represent a significant, but I believe reasonable, tax increase for the citizens of Orange County. Massage will require political courage and leadership from each of you. As you make your final decisions I ask that you consider the following points. o Go for the May referendum date for the school bonds. The two school systems need early funding approval to maintain current momentum to get the schools built when the students need them. A November date for the referendum means construction delays and that the citizens` education campaign would be diluted by presidential, congressional and other campaigns which would be running simultaneously. o Equity in funding for physical facilities does not mean that each year the two systems would spend the same amount per pupil for construction. It means that at the end of each new project, the two systems should have approximately the same quality of physical plant and approximately the same square footage per student at each of the three levels - elementary, middle and high school. In order to maintain physical plant equity among the two systems it is highly likely that the system with the greatest growth will require the greatest gross and per pupil expenditures. Equality of facilities must be the goal, not equality of construction spending. o The projections are real. The students are coming. Not facing up to the problem now will force Chapel Hill- Carrboro and probably Orange as well, to spend heavily on expensive mobile classrooms which do not provide satisfactory class room space during their relatively short life span. m o The $66 million is a compromise. The documented needs of the two systems exceeds $140 million over the next seven Years. The proposal is by no means a Cadillac solution. In closing, I wish to emphasize that I appreciate and respect the views of those who have voiced legitimate concern about property taxes in Orange County. However, I believe that the reasonable and modest tax increases required by a bond of the size proposed is a much needed investment in our county's future and is mandatory if we are to continue the momentum for progressive education which the county has achieved in recent years. TaxWatch's Position on the School Bonds GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN TaxWatch is grateful for this opportunity to speak to you about public schools. It believes in public education of high quality, and most of its members attended public schools. We hope that present and future generations will profit from them as much as we have. The future of our country and its economic welfare, as well as that of each child, depends upon the success of our school system. We acknowledge that buildings are required to provide space for teachers to teach and students to learn, and we expect in due time to support a bond referendum for the construction of schools. However, we have grave reservations about the proposal entitled "School Capital Needs Advisory Committee Report to Board of Commissioners" which was presented to you on December 2, 1991. Our reservations concern the size of the proposed bond, the lack of evidence of hard planning, vagueness concerning the amount of money needed, and lack of evidence that the proposed construction is linked to the curricular needs of the next decade. We think there will be strong opposition to any bond issue in the forseeable future because of the depressed economy. Also Duke Power has asked for a rate increase, car insurance is going up, and there has recently been an increase in the sales tax. Many people are fed up with taxes, and those on fixed incomes are reaching the end of their ropes. The young people not directly affected by better schools -- and some retired people -- are unable or unwilling to continue to pay more and more taxes. In spite of these obvious facts, the school boards have decided in their collective wisdom that more schools are needed, and soon. Unfortunately bricks and mortar alone will not produce scholars. A broader picture must be painted if we plan to ask the public to go further into debt by making a large capital investment. A recent issue of NEWSWEEK (Dec. 2nd) and the current issue (Dec. 9th) of US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT contain long articles on our public schools. We find nothing in them about bricks and mortar! They remind us that it is teachers interacting with students and home environments which control the final product, not the sizes, types, or layouts of school buildings. The obvious conclusion is that how and what we plan to teach should dictate the amount of space and its arrangement, i.e. the size and types of buildings. 7 J We have concluded that the report you have received is not a committee report in the true sense, i.e. one which has been argued over and hammered into a consensus document. Rather it appears to be a collection of miscellaneous and contradictory numbers, ideas, and opinions of an advisory group many of whom were interested in an extensive building program. The range of numbers presented makes it impossible to ascertain how they were arrived at. These ranges were so great in fact that a skeptical citizen might question their validity. Nor were we able to determine whether the numbers included the cost of land and the furnishings. We may have missed the point, or these items may already have been taken care of, but it would be helpful for voters to have a complete picture. We would like to mention certain principles concerning school bond referenda which we think are important. The first is that it is very expensive to have an unsuccessful one, in more senses than the mere cost of printing and counting the ballots. Failure would also cause loss of faith in our political leaders. Second it is crucial to decide accurately how much the public is willing to approve. (How much we need or would like to have is not pertinent to a bond issue in bad economic times!) Will the public go for $90 million, $70, $50, $30, or is $20 the upper limit? There is no obvious rationale for the $66 million figure except that it lies between $70 and $50. We believe that to 4 ask for $66 million would cause the referendum to fail decisively. Third we need a plan which is clear and in sufficient detail that the people can understand and believe in it. We propose that the County Commission now change its procedure. You have heard what the schools would like to have. We suggest that you now turn to the problem of what we can afford. The first step would be to obtain the land. Let's not quibble about how much acreage to buy and whether it should contain one school or two or three. New land is not being produced anymore, and if we over -buy we can sell it or reserve it for the future. It is always good to have extra land, and land will be cheaper before a decision is made about location that afterwards! Once the land is in hand, it becomes possible to estimate the cost of building. The shape of a site, the contours, the drainage, the soil, and subsoil have direct impacts on the cost of construction. While the search is on for land, a planning committee should be formulating a realistic idea of what is needed. The issues of NEWSWEEK and US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT mentioned earlier describe many curricular innovations which should be considered. We should remember the famous architectural admonition , "form follows function ". Our 5 curricular plans will define what kinds of buildings we need. It may become necessary for the Hoard of Commissioners to be arbitrary and tell, not ask, the school planners which innovations are to be adopted. (Perhaps the most stimulating thing the Commission could do is to set an arbitrary monetary ceiling based upon what it views as passable.) Innovations which might be considered include: I. Rotation of lunch hours to reduce the cafeteria size to one which holds 1/3 or 1/2 of the student body. 2. Adoption of year -round school terms which worked in the US during WW II. Mr. Oppold went to school 6 days a week, year - round, with a few days off at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and there are already schools in the U.S. which have adopted similar practices. During WW II our medical schools adopted a year round schedule, producing between 1942 --46 an extra 5000 M.Ds. for military service. 3. Avoid building "high tech" schools. The Problem in North Carolina is that too few of our children can read, write, and calculate. What needs catching up is the three "Rs "! Our limited funds should be used to pay teachers better salaries and have more of them on the job, 5 not to build fancy buildings containing the latest technologic tools. 4.We should avoid paying complete architectural fees for a new school. Custom -built schools are ver expensive!. We should use plans developed by others which can be adapted to our use at minimum expense. And there is no law that a school must be a single and complete architectural unit on the day it opens. It would be much cheaper to build a central core containing administrative offices, auditorium, library, gymnasium, and cafeteria and place the classrooms in individual double -wide trailers connected to the main building by a series of covered runways. This was very feasible for military hospitals and in industry. Its great virtue is that it provides the needed space rapidly and cheaply and can be replaced by permanent structures when the economy allows. Once the Commissioners decide the size of the bond which the public will tolerate, the School Boards must decide how to use the funds. When this has been acomplished, preliminary engineering must be done to firm up the numbers and be certain that the plans will fit within the budget. (NO COST OVERRUNS ALLOWED!) If necessary the needed space can be divided into two packages, obtained by sequential bond elections held at different points in time. In any case the public must understand what it is voting for and what it is going to get. Again the most important thing is to have a SUCCESSFUL bond referendum. Failure would mean serious loss of public confidence and a set -back of months if not years (in addition to wasting everybody's time and money.) To summarize the steps: 1. Buy the land 2_ Plan not for what we need or want but what the taxpayer will accept. 3. Have firm preliminary cost estimates for what is proposed. 4.Prepare the public with "hard" data which are unassailable. 5.Come forth with a proposal which will succeed. Personal Statement from William 0 old: Bill Oppold asked that I make this statement and plead with you to accept his offer. He points out that Orange County now contains many retired persons with all kinds of experience who could help You with your problems, specifically the school- building problem, but also others. He knows many retired engineers, accountants, writers, public relations experts, etc. who now KI live here. Many would be happy to help you as volunteers, COST FREE. We do not understand why we should have to recruit costly consultants when we have equally good experts who will work for nothing.. He also emphasizes that they will be objective, having no interest other than efficiency and the success of your projects. TaxWatch agrees with Bill that consultants' fees can be used for better things. Bill is an example of those who are available. He retired to Chapel Hill from the presidency of a multi- billion dollar corporation where his experience had been in management, engineering (chemical engineering in college), and construction of billions.of dollars of projects in all parts of the world. He has never built a school, but he has built parking decks, hospitals, office buildings, research buildings and entire chemical complexes and has been active in civic affairs wherever he has lived. Robert Foley is another such retiree and member of TaxWatch known to some of you. Mr. Chavious will remember him. Bob is, incidentally, also a volunteer reading teacher at the Ephesus Road School. I suppose that you are aware of this resource in our county and, if you have ever thought about calling on it, have been puzzled about how to do so. Bill would like to volunteer to become your Recruiting Agent. He would be pleased to try to find any type of volunteer talent that you want. I would add that I was mightily impressed last year during the budget hearings at the way Orange County utilizes volunteers. I hope that you will add the retired community to the list of those on whom you can call. THANK YOU FOR HEARING US OUT. 0 l December 9, 1991 Ms. Verla Insko Orange County Commissioner P. - 0. Bob . 8 -18.1. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Insko: I am writing to you in support of a $70 million bond to support the facility needs of Chapel Hill - Carrboro City schools and Orange County. I am founder of CASE (Citizens Advocating and Supporting Education) and it is CASE's strong position that a new elementary, middle and high school are all needed by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City schools. I apologize for not being in attendance the evening of December 11, 1991, but I will be out -of -town on business. Nevertheless, other members of CASE will be in attendance and present our views to you. Thank you for this opportunity. Sincerely, oe2--� Barry S. Roberts cc: Dr. Gerry House 107 �EEZeLd �2a�L �,•^ °. .` l i �'ae++�#aer 1991 75 $ '1'o the Count j Y C�orw+rr.imeriesr�er= e r The hour •ram lAt", and .in way ha=te to be +short Xepetitive, I n'- gjected to make and non - ° i waited 2 i/2 h�aur= to the 2 maj=r peoi.ntrs that make. Thin \ 1 j hour, I ave writing you. r at this even cater tq y Ass Y�nu conmider the level e� "omt a=me101taed with th,a neM the bond, and review the =q:3M 1ttee mohololm dewlq yed by khi= muw��r. thingg� about throe eahool�aathatodriYeYery �;, which mhouid not li st up, t the court u,, but glatly be d,i.n�aax�ded. F13rmt, the mchool includes tea'vher•m erred Pjr'm&wmmional m other prc�eesmionalm who F+ec'e i�or mtudentm in our m'ahoo.Les, merv'�ce our t treatin tea' are io:lg o"Kesdue in mettin g tesvhwrm am pro emmionalm. In an 1 9r thw pr•taiem€vionai Y other. 'Q"Owt�'iloned. Student=, o #ice mp "QB WCtuld Keay pest�ra#e ®rod twaeshw.ry not be b'e'nt'!it - flox -m aliowin will N4,19 . env�.rons" --nt. g $!�e kea�ahery a �+or w psc enmional � $scored the maheolm have been demigrigd a= 'aoe►+euraity kv vohcolia, to Ae used by the csov"mun1ty a= a +Thole. In thi= way, all tax pa+�res•m Mill bene�ik bui3dingm, rhvy ersil be iravikln �ron� the and on 'r'aehe -ndm. 'g for all, after hour=, Thies mghe= 9ccd =enure. comnruniky 'owner•mhi ra There will be PBrti�a- .pat -,on !.n makInd h'op wily full lCmMs"unIty '� =uarseed. ' #tiE prs•og;•a�A= in the =erh+ooles nixain• am I =recd toni Other, g"m we are a iiagmhi gds °s � =Ymte+hm l�o�oiz to um aE�er � $7rmiee, �7 afford to �guldanee. y/e 1=0nnot yudt lcwwr up, we ter the yq•m Tared tv bw planning mt+hsyc.lEa then. Guv 'ahi be walling tom, lds^an ary' oux' erevk vaivabie re=ource� for � �-ek um build them m'ahooly ;€ that =tote that b-1 W. Thanlr ycu for in every way ' =gyre the Your consaideratalen. leleame bond am large am pammed you can. Ii we loan get It , nc on= will be merry. z Sin�aereiy. *91, DonniF- C. Tankaskas, J �t. L16. f�%2R`2EL C�7 LLL, C/ V 27516 � alI � 11 Qrcrmbwr 1991 To thw County Co�n�wirsaj onwres a t v The hour war iatr� and in MY hafrtr to be rhox -t and non - r'ap+t'tlt3ve, i naglratwd to mak% -- thr 2 major. �c�� nry that ' X vaikrd 1/� heurm to mftkw. !'hues, aft thYa rvwn latwr hour, I am writing {�, yc,u. t you c'onsaidrr thw It vwl c khw bored, and rrviww thr cart amarclterd vikh thr nww m=ft'O=lm dwri camm4ttwr them vummwr• >`leaee .� gnc�d by thin !]c�tQ i. SreSy 1mlt+rir•i•Hrat gr about khwrw vchoolr that dx-Yvr thee. coeat up, but wh:l.rsh ehculd riot lightly iyr dirscardwd. � �Yrmt khw >e�chool 1ncluda+a #rf c•r�emional mp. ®cr Sor traohwrm and iothax p•raSrrmionala who sv�or our s rtudrrftM In cur rohoolr. lily arm long overdue in trwaking to ®cehrrr as prnfrrrloraaly. in any ethwr, netting, thw p�rcySrdrlonai oSi1c,G xf pace Would not bw jwwrtionwd. Studrntr, Pelr•ento and traclarrse will benvzf1t r'O -m aliowIng the twaohwra a ��. rnv� ronmwnk. r'w �+rt?frraionaI "e'c'ond. the rohooim hour been dr,aigri.d as t�amrnuriji t,y a�chcola r ko bw urwd by the community ar a whglw. I thYie way, all tax �.a wrr n y,r$11 kwnw�it from thw buYid Yngea They will br YnaritIng Son alb, aster Isaurr, $� and on wrwlswndnr. Thin nraierr I 9 gcic�d wv nor. Thwrr wi i 1 bw y ar# 3ci ty ovr�rx'rshipi, and hcpeSully full community I a .Y(r ' iL�akYon in making the Prcgr ®n►ftr in the aohooler d mu Qorwd. ��. Age3ra, ar i Bald teani e qht, wr are a Siftgmh&pe wyetwm. i3khrr rsyptwmv look ko um See 9uidancP&. wannt aSford to jurt irwt+F' up. �►c++ e cannot nod to bw Scx^ the 9Q'e and br and Plann -.ng �aohoola Y • aand musrt br wIlling to pay S'or thwm. Clue oh3l$drrn arc Lwt um build thwm mohr31oiauthratatwuthak inarvrary• way �ajlblw. Thank s , you Son your conraidwratlraq. !r`lra�vr ss x+ahe the blond ars large am you can. IS ww can get It POW—rd, nee. cne will br rorry. 1 � f;i n'ar rw i y, Q rot !2)cEz /iE d INC 27516 i Tic+ the Cous�k y Con�mia��eivri�rer r The hr31ur wao later Brad in my ha=te to be mhcort and non - 9 Y^rpet- i•tivr. i »egJeoted to make the i waited ^.c i /.-c h'Oure to make. Thum *�a pceinty that �. h houar x am w . at thins even later r ritiraiq to You. { A° "u coranider the± ir±vel of the± bOndr and review the =Drat aoe�itaed with the new mslaooiv de-& gnod by aommittre thin esummevP pleamr mate 2 vex-y imPCer•tant thingtr lg!]ovt the=n +echools which rataould ntat 11q- tIt.iy betdiacarded. the oovt up, but ? '� F'irat, the eohool inoiudee pr•ea�rxsoi.�onal � raze for tr±a=herrs a »d othea+ pr•ze�cverioraalss •►ho oervior our s`" eatude�nto in vur +acshoc+ic. Me arc Inng Cver -due- in 34 . treating tc•dohern am >. xsemttimgr ttae p�rrfee�verieonaly. In any otheer s pea evvieo »ai o�fioc� ep4,ae would Mot be , , questieonrd. Staadv -agar Pas"ente and ttpsoher•s VAJ-1 "�;, beane�Eit lean= a1J.oe►ineg the teaaoherra � moa ^� sr eanvireanme »t. p�C'Cexavimnal evondr the ��hoedlt� have been de mIgned am comewunit Mcheoolttr y • to l umpard by the Wcommunity airs a wholes. In thi,a weyr a13, taae will brrar�it prom the laviJ dingo, They will be inviting on a11, after, he umx Mr and on reeeende. Thin mekes good rae »ve. There wi11 be :`;` eaoeemunity eowrae±reahi Pr and hppei'uily -full community R partI=1pat.ion in Maki» t Y 9 the Pr'Cgr•amrs in the �aohes�o3 v oueaoeed. Againr am i =aid tecaraiglat, we are a i'la d�a` tither oyntrmes look to um .tor 9 9eaaiP e�+F3tQm. to aides »�. Mr oa »not i uvt kre�e up, we eon taed to be planning mchoaly the ' o and beyond. rand muest be willing them. flue chi3drera tom' pay for � are rove moat vesluabie ra'source. Lest uv build them eaeaheoale4 that estate that in every way 7 pCe�ibJe. Thank yeou �eor your oo »�idrration. Fleave make they bond acs 1ar ire am yv" Dan. ii we can ? P91nE�t�dr no ore Will be veor -ry. get I*- r if � 0tMAJ� STATEMENT BEFORE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION ON BONDS FOR NEW SCHOOLS DEC. 11, 1991 BTU's per sq. foot in average buildings built 1974 -1979 built 1980 -83 built 1980 -85 average school built today best schools built today great schools built today - Four Oaks in Johnson County Mt. Airy Library Three buildings proposed - elementary 91,250 sq. ft. middle 120,000 high 2152000 total 416,250 sq. ft. 167,000 120,000 62,000 60,000 30,000 15,000 13,500 416,250 sq. ft. X 60,000 BTU = 2,497,500,000 BTU /3413 = 7,317,000 kwh X $0.05 kwh = $365,880 ar yr for electricity if average buildings 416,250 at 30,000 BTU per sq ft = 182,940 a yr for good buildings 416,250 at 15,000 BTU per sq ft 91,470 a yr for great building such as Four Oaks It would save Orange County $274,410 a year in electricity costs if schools are built to a specified energy budget of 15,000 BTU's a square ft. It is important to specify at the outset that the building shall take no more than 15,000 BTU's a square foot. Consider awarding bids not on cost of constructing the buildings alone, but on the life cycle costs of building, heating and lighting, and maintenance. Over the 50 YEARS THE BUILDINGS SHOULD LAST, THE SAVINGS OF $274,000 A YEAR COMES TO $13,006,000. Martha Drake, President, North Carolina Consumers Council 210B Spring Lane,Chapel Hill, NC 27514, 919 933 0831