Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-27-2004-1ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 27, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: County /OCS /CHCCS Discussion /Policy Issues DEPARTMENT: Manager /Budget ATTACHMENT(S): As listed in 'Background" PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link or Rod Visser, 245 -2300; Donna Dean, 245 -2151 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Chapel Hill Durham Mebane 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 336- 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To discuss various issues with policy and /or financial implications that are of current interest to the Orange County Commissioners, Orange County Board of Education, and /or Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board of Education. BACKGROUND: a. School Collaboration Update At the joint work session of the school boards and County Commissioners on April 26, 2004, there was extensive discussion about work that had been done with regard to collaboration initiatives in the preceding several months. Since the April 2004 joint work session, school and County representatives have been involved in two additional facilitated meetings related to the collaboration initiative. Meeting summaries are attached. The basis for discussion at the July 8, 2004 meeting was a list of priority collaboration topics developed from the discussion at the April 26 joint work session. Only three of the items from that list were able to be addressed on July 8, so discussion at the next meeting on August 24 picked up where the previous meeting had left off. The next meeting of the collaboration work group has been scheduled for October 4, 2004. School board members and staffs may wish to share information about progress that has been made on collaboration topics discussed during two joint school board meetings in March 2004. Attachment la -1 — 7108104 Draft Collaboration Meeting Summary Attachment la -2 — 8124104 Draft Collaboration Meeting Summary b. Educational Excellence Update In June 2004, the Board of Commissioners engaged a team from the UNC School of Education, headed by Dr. Madeleine Grumet, to provide a review of both Orange County school systems, investigating the educational resources available in both school systems and making recommendations for improvement and how these resources could become equally accessible to all Orange County students. The scope of work for Dr. Grumet's team is included as an attachment. Groundwork with the principal and staff of each school in both systems is being conducted in September. Data is to be collected and analyzed in October and reported to the Educational Excellence Work Group. The team's report should be completed in November, and the BOCC has indicated its expectation that it will review and discuss the report no later than their second meeting in December 2004, earlier if possible. Attachment 1b, UNC School of Education Study Scope of Work. Description and Analysis of Educational Resources C. School Efficiency Study (Orange County Major Issue) The County Manager and School Superintendents met in August 2004 and concluded that the most effective way to proceed with the efficiency initiative was to first outline measures already planned or implemented by both school districts (Attachment 1c -1) and to outline other potential areas that could be examined within certain parameters expressed by the Board. Of particular note is the work done in recent years for the County and both school systems by the Robert Segal CPA firm. The Segal firm identified hundreds of thousands of dollars in both revenue enhancement and expenditure reduction for all three entities. Commissioners Jacobs and Halkiotis, the County Manager, and staff met recently with Mr. Segal and concluded that there are probably additional dollar savings to be achieved by both school systems and the County. Mr. Segal will attend this September 27 work session to discuss with all three boards areas of potential savings that his firm would be willing to research, including cost sharing and reduction that might be achieved through collaboration among all three entities. Attachment lc-1 9116104 Report on School Efficiency Measures Attachment 1 c -2 4126104 Robert S. Segal, CPA Letter d. Middle School #3 (OCS Major Issue) As outlined in the accompanying letter and other background materials from Superintendent Shirley Carraway, Orange County Schools would like to discuss funding and outstanding issues regarding Middle School #3, and related issues about overall capital funding and fund balance. Attachment 1d -1 9122104 OCS Superintendent Memo Attachment 1d -2 9107104 OCS Presentation: Review of Middle School #3 Attachment Id-3 5114104 OCS Superintendent Letter Attachment 1d -4 9122104 OCS Superintendent Memo re: Fund Balance e. High School #3 (CHCCS Major Issue) Superintendent Neil Pedersen indicated that the major issue for the joint meeting for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools is High School #3 and to share the cost projections with the Commissioners. Attachment 'l e -1 9123104 CHCCS Superintendent Memo re: High School #3 Update Attachment 1e -2 9101104 Education Week Article: Costs Climb on Materials for Schools Attachment 1e -3 Architect Spreadsheets: Budget and Cost Reduction Options Attachment 1e -4 Architect Spreadsheets. Building and Site Reductions FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the discussion at this meeting. However, decisions that the school boards and BOCC will make at subsequent meetings are likely to have significant implications for future capital and operating budgets. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards discuss the issues noted and provide direction to staff, as appropriate. Facilitator's Draft Notes, revised 7/ 19/04 Chairs and Vice Chairs Meeting DRAFT County/Schools Collaboration July 8, 2004 2:OOPM -4PM County Goverrunent Services Center, Hillsborough Present: M. Brown, S. C- armway, E. Carter, B. Jacobs, J. Link, N. Pedersen, B. Stephens, L. Stuckey, A. Sachs (facilitator). Celebration Attendees began by listing the following cross - district and C'.ounty/Schools collaborative efforts made since the April 26 joint School Boards and County Commissioners meeting: • City Schools approved some student transfers into County Schools district. BOCC approved budget, including funding for both school districts. • BOCC adopted schools Capital Improvement Plan. • Resolution of Addendum B OCS Middle School • BOCC approval of summer capital projects • Nursing initiative • Resolution of SAPFO • BOCC met w/ NC DOT & Town of Carrboro to plan Smith Level Road improvements for CHCCS HS #3 • The three Boards met on April 26 • BOCC made sure that the two school board chairs and Superintendents were included on the Educational Excellence Work Group Debriefing April 26 Group members shared their perceptions of the Apra 26 joint School Boards and County Commissioners meeting. Ms. Carter said that she left the meeting somewhat dissatisfied bythe BOCC's reaction to the School Boards' progress report on collaboration. She did not hear support from the BOCC for the School Boards' efforts. Mr. Jacobs said that he too was somewhat dissatisfied and that the School Board members were quieter at the meeting than he would have liked. Dr. Carraway said that the meeting was too scripted. She expected an open conversation to follow each Board's presentation, but that conversation never tools place. Ms. Carter said that she wanted the 10 areas of collaboration identified by the School Boards to "come alive" that evening, but that they did not. Ms. Brown said that the April 26 meeting unfolded the way most meetings among the Boards unfolded. She reiterated her thanks to the School Boards for their work in developing areas of collaboration, and asked what structures were being put in place to implement the collaborative goals. In — School Mental Health Services The group then discussed opportunities mental health reform might provide for the "new paradigm" in funding school programs. The new paradigm relates to identifying school funding beyond the per -pupil allotment, and might be appropriate for services addressing student health, safety and welfare. Several models for providing school -based mental health services were presented at a Community Backyard conference, including one from South Carolina that Dr. Carraway and Ms. Stuckey said should be considered further for their school districts. Ms, Brown asked if the models had outcomes. Dr. Carraway said there was 12 years of experience and outcome data. Ms. Brown said that the local mental health system is in flux, including open questions regarding service definitions and funding, She suggested that a peer review group might evaluate the applicability of the South Carolina and other models to the two school districts within Orange County. If the School Boards agree on an in- school model, then the next step would be the practical considerations for moving forward. For example , what space would be required within the schools? There was general sentiment around the table that it would be worthwhile for the County and two school districts to talk about mental health needs within the schools, to not wait for "the hammer to drop" before having this discussion. Additional considerations raised in todays conversation included clarifying what Community in Schools was doing with respect to student mental health services, how mental health services are now managed and how they would be managed trader a new paradigm, post - reform, schools -based approach. Ttacking Implementation The group then began tracking implementation for each of the ten areas of collaboration agreed to by the two school boards March 22 and presented to the BOCC on April 26. Item # 1 ,Joint opportunities for professional development. The School Boards do not need anything from BOCC to move forward on this. Drs. Can-away and Pedersen have authority from their respective boards to coordinate and develop new opportunities across the two districts. Planning is taking place now, and implementation is targeted for the coming school year. A progress report can be made, if desired, the next time the BOCC meets with the School Boards, campus to the greatest extent possible. One big challenge to implementation of the middle college program is finding classroom space. DTCC's Orange County campus is not expected to be open until 2007, the Durham campus has no space for the middle college, and Alamance Commtmity College does not appear to be an option because of a prohibition against programs in one community college's jurisdiction using space at another community college. All present agreed that a meeting is needed among representatives from the two school districts, the County, and DTCC to resolve this and other issues (see the rest of the discussion within this Item). No structure currently exists for joint planning about the satellite campus across BOCC, DTCC and the two school districts. BOCC has some authority over how the Orange County campus will be designed, and its interests include adequate space for educational programming, ancillary services, and fulfillment of Smart Growth principles. Commissioners Carey and Halkiotis are BOCC's liaison to DTCC. Mr. Link will contact DTCC President Dr. Phail Wynn, Jr. to propose a meeting and initiate a four-way joint planning process. Drs. Carraway and Pedersen will coordinate with Mr. Link on this. Ms. Stephens distributed a draft (6/28/04) project schedule for the Proposed Orange County Satellite Campus. There was concern around the table about the fast pace at which design and programming decisions could be made by the DTCC Board of Trustees without adequate attention to the BOCC's and School Board's needs. All acknowledged that a written plan for the middle college program is needed to clarify for ourselves and for DTCC what the County and school districts need with respect to space and programming, and to begin a process for gaining tangible, well- informed commitments from DTCC for the middle college program Drs. Caraway and Pedersen said they would work together to generate a plan. IB oroeram. The Superintendents pointed out that some of their decisions on this item for the coming school year, such as course approval and catalogue development, will be made before Dr. Grumet of the UNC School of Education generates her findings in November 2004, Some cross - district transfers are taking place as a matter of routine, as families move or request transfers, but no new systems have been put in place since April 26. Dr. Can -away said that any systemic or programmatic work on this issue would be contingent upon Dr. Grumet's findings. However, the Superintendents and Dr, Grumet have not been in contact. Ms. Brown encouraged the Superintendents to contact Dr. Grumet if they feel they are waiting too long for her, Dr. Pedersen said that since the study was initiated by the County it is more appropriate for the County rather than the Superintendents to motivate her work, if the County thinks this is necessary, Mr. Link agreed to ask Dr. Grumet to initiate a meeting with the Superintendents and other members of the study's steering committee, Wrap Up The group determined that it did not have time remaining today to discuss Items # 4 - # 10 on the list of areas of collaboration, nor to address the additional areas of collaboration generated on April 20 by the Board Chairs, Superintendents and Manager. The group agreed to meet again on Tuesday. August 24 at the County Government Services Center in Hillsborough from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM in order to complete its first pass at tracking implementation of the areas of collaboration. At the next meeting the group will begin with Item # 4, "New paradigm for SRO's," and will not go back to review progress on Items # 1 -# 3, Mr. Link shared some preliminary thoughts on Item # 4, to be taken up when we meet again on 8/24/04. After noting that school nurses are funded outside of the per pupil funding structure (and that this was achieved after several months of planning), he asked what other services might also be funded in this way (e.g., social workers, after school programs, security officers) and what new revenue sources might be used in providing this funding. He said that this item and item # 9 on the list ( "Guidelines for using any additional funds that would be generated if new revenues were created (`new paradigm')" might be addressed together when we reconvene. Feedback on the meeting • If all of the remaining items on the two lists are to be completed at the next meeting then we need to move more quickly, • We should talk less. • We started slowly today; next time we all should arrive on time and jump into the task, • After the next meeting we should be fair and meet in Chapel Hill, because this and the next meeting have been in Hillsborough. • The 10 areas of collaboration are now beginning to "come alive." Meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM Areas of Collaboration agreed to at the April 26 Assembly Item Plan Do r. Joint opportunities for professional development Now 2004-05 2. Coordinated implementation of middle college Now 2005 -06 program and /or more extensive dual enrollment programs with local community colleges, taking advantage of Durham Tech's Orange County campus to the greatest extent possible 3. Measurable opportunities for students in each Now 2005 -06 district to participate in programs in the other district that are not now currently available to them; e.g. CHCCS AP courses, OCS vocational courses, OCS IB program 4. New paradigm for SRO's Now 2004-05 5. After School Pro rammin Now 2004 -05 6, Working relationship: ensure that communication Now Now is healthy, o en and trustipR. 7• Create more early childhood programs 2005 -06 According to schedule developed in Tannin 8. Explore creating a middle school athletic Now TBD conference 9, Guidelines for using any additional funds that Now Now would be generated if new revenues were created ("new paradigm") lo. Alternative school programming, other than a 2005 -06 According to single alternative school for students in both districts schedule developed in Tannin Additional items identified by Board Chairs and staff on 4/20/04 as needing joint attention by the three Boards OCS central office expansion /providing work space for OCS Central Office staff OCS alternative schools Smart Growth policies as they relate to school planning /OCS Middle School #3 ,Joint use /co- location of schools and recreation properties Identification of future school sites Twin Creeks Addendum B CHCCS HS #3 and Elementary #lo School Boards' involvement in Durham Technological Community College satellite campus. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO), especially school building capacity determinations DRAFT Draft Summary of August 24, 2004 Meeting County /Schools Collaboration Chairs and Vice Chairs Orange County Government Services Center Present: S. Carraway, E. Carter, B. Jacobs, L. Hough, J. Link, N. Pedersen, B. Stephens, L. Stuckey, R. Visser, A. Sachs (facilitator). New Paradigm for SRO's The group continued its discussion from .July 8 of the ten areas of collaboration agreed to by the two school boards. It sought to clarify the authority and sources of funding for school resource officers (SRO's) in each school district. Mr. Link said the challenge is to find a method for funding the school districts' needs above and beyond the funding that is allocated on a per pupil basis. He reviewed the process followed by the County and school districts to help "catch up" on school nursing services, through a Health Department contract. He noted that the Manager and Superintendents had just spoken about taking a similar approach to helping the schools meet their needs for social workers, If there were a countywide district tax, he said, then it might offer the County and schools a possible funding source for this or other needs. Ms. Stuckey noted that SRO's are an area that might need a creative finding mechanism. As D.A.R.E. funding has diminished, both school districts have increased their share of the cost for SRO's. Although the SRO at Carrboro Elementary School is a Canboro police officer funded through a D.A.R.E. grant, all the other SRO's in the City Schools are paid for by the school district with funds received from the Board of County Commissioners. The SRO's in the Orange County Schools are Sheriff's Deputies, funded by the school district (from its County allocation and from outside grants) and by other County support. A Hillsborough police officer serves on the County Schools' Safety Committee. The group noted that there is value in having officers from the closest local law enforcement agency in the schools. A local officer's understanding of what is happening in the surrounding community helps him or her to monitor and provide assistance within a school. The officer's awareness of what is happening among students during school hours also can aid law enforcement in the community at large. Police Chiefs are supportive of SRO's and safe school crossings, and also are concerned about their departments' budgets. For example, Chapel Hill and Carrboro have stepped back from funding and hiring school crossing guards and have stepped back from finding the SRO's assigned to the City Schools. Dr. Pedersen said that the 17,000 citizens attending schools throughout the County deserve adequate public safety services. The ultimate responsibility for safety and security in and around a public school belongs to the municipalities in which the school is located or, for the unincorporated areas, with the Sheriff. Alternative models exist in Durham, Wake, Cumberland, and perhaps other North Carolina counties, where the Sheriff's Departments are responsible for school safety through arrangements with the affected municipalities. The meeting participants agreed to initiate a deeper discussion of school safety among the elected boards within the County. All agreed that the schools should provide a briefing for the Board of County Commissioners on school security (including crossing guards) and funding at the next joint school districtsBOCC Assembly (September 27). All requested that this issue be on the agenda of the September 29 Assembly of (municipal and County) Governments. Mr, Jacobs offered to raise the issue with the Mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro at a September 2 breakfast meeting. Mr. Link said that following a request from Mr. Jacobs and the Mayors, the Sheriff and lead staff from each jurisdiction (school Superintendents, Town Managers and /or Police Chiefs, and himself) would have the appropriate mandate to proceed with talks about the best way to provide for school safety countywide. "New Paradigm" more generally The group next turned its attention to the "new paradigm" for funding schools, beyond its specific application to SRO's. Ms. Carter said that the school districts and BOCC should try to find a way to meet the districts' needs without diminishing the resources available to County departments, such as Public Health and the Department of Social Services, She noted that the school districts are already getting a "large slice" of the County budget, and suggested that the group consider the larger implications of any changes in finding patterns. She added that the "new paradigm" needs to be better defined for the community, and perhaps not applied separately across different needs (social workers, SRO's, nurses, mental health) but instead be pursued as a single package to address needs comprehensively. The group then sought to clarify "new paradigm." It is a way to supplement the funding that the County would provide in any year to each school district on an equalized per pupil basis. It means developing new revenue sources to help reduce the finding disparity that exists across the two school districts. One example of a new paradigm revenue source is a supplemental county wide tax that also reduces the City Schools district tax, New paradigm funds would advance the BOCC's and school districts' shared priorities. The method by which a new paradigm is carried out should be "iimovative and legal," perhaps an agreement across the three boards implemented after the regular budget process is completed. Funding for school operations would continue on a per pupil basis, and care would be taken so that competition with other County needs for the new funds against does not result. Mr'. Link asked the group what kinds of programs or needs would provide a community `rallying cry" for such a new paradigm revenue source. These ideas were generated by the group: • Mental health, more fundamental • After school, beyond 3:30 than substance abuse • (Public) safety • Nursing • Social workers • Middle or early college • Economic development— expand • Pre - school programs and diversify the tax base • Unfunded mandates Contract for Library Services at McDougle Middle /Elementary Schools Members of the group next resolved a delay in finishing the contract renewal between Orange Comity and the Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools for the operation of the Carrboro branch of the library located at McDougle Middle and Elementary Schools, Ms. Stuckey noted that this sort of contract is "the nuts and bolts of collaboration," and stated that explicit contracts should always precede implementation of joint efforts, so that the boundaries of the partnership are clear and clearly agreed upon, "like good fences for good neighbors" Money has been budgeted for all of the items in the contract. The contract will be on the City Schools' September 2 consent agenda and on the BOCC's September 9 consent agenda. Ms. Stephens will coordinate with Mr. Visser to make sure that Dr. Pedersen receives the final, agreed upon version of the contract. Budget Process Mr. Jacobs asked the group to listen to his concerns about how the City Schools had communicated about the Manager's and BOCC's proposed budgets this past Spring. His goal in raising the issue is to move beyond these concerns, and toward a working relationship that feels good for everyone. However, he said, he felt judged and blamed, and thinks Mr. Link was being attacked, by the May 25 "Budget Alert" distributed by the City Schools and in memoranda from Dr.. Pedersen and Ms. Carter. He views these as efforts to exert political pressure on the Board, and said that such tactics undermine his good will and subvert their collaboration. Ms. Carter agreed with Mr. Jacobs that it is very important for all to be mindful of how they communicate. She said that she and other School Board members were frustrated by the BOCC's response to the City Schools' requests for funding for the third high school, Rashkis Elementary, and Twin Creeks, Dr. Pedersen said that he reviews the Budget Alerts (he does not write them), makes sure they are factually correct, and tries to take out language that might be offensive to others. He acknowledged that a memorandum referred to by Mr. Jacobs reflected frustration being experienced during the budget process by school personnel. Ms. Stuckey thanked Mr. Jacobs for letting the group know how he was feeling. Dr. Pedersen added that his own frustration would diminish if the BOCC would place school board business early on its meeting agenda. He also asked that information relevant to those items be shared with school board members and staff in advance, or at least during the BOCC meetings. September 27 joint Assembly Ms. Carter expressed hope that the September 27 Assembly of the School Boards and BOCC would be relaxed, without 3 raised voices, and conducted so that the three Boards would relate as equals. Dr. Caraway noted that the Boards tried to do too much during the last Assembly, and so unfortunately lost the opportunity to have a conversation. Next Meeting The next Collaboration meeting of the Chairs and Vice Chairs will take place at Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill, on Monday October, 4, 2:00 PM — 4:00 PM. -- End -- U I. III. Orange County/Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Study: Description and Analysis of Educational Resources Goal This research will describe the resources of the two school systems and propose areas where some form of collaboration would enhance the education of all the children in the schools of this town and this county. Report and recommendations to be given to sub - committee of the Orange County Commissioners in November 2004 Tasks A. Review materials gathered by districts describing curriculum, extra- curricular programs, teacher recruitment, development, and retention. B. Develop questions and secure more information and interpretation C. Draft report for Sub - Committee D. Revise report and submit Study Team A. Project Leader, Dr. Madeleine Grumet (grumet @unc.edu) B. Project Team Members: Dr. Rita O'Sullivan: (ritao @unc.edu) Dr. Martha Hudson: (mlbhudson @aol.com) Dr. George Noblit: (gwn@email.unc.edu) Kim Pyne: (kpyne @unc.edu) Amy Anderson: (aanderso @email.unc.edu) IV. Description of Study's Theme Investigations Themes and questions generated for the study are presented in the table that follows. Evaluation Questions: 1. How are districts preparing students for post- secondary education? a. technically oriented students — including non- and community college students, military b. special needs students — including special education, ESL, low - achieving /at -risk students c. academically able students d. academically very able students 2. What are the characteristics of teachers and administrators in each district? a. Who is hired? Education? Experience? b. Retention? c. What role does compensation play in retention? d. Capacity for and access to additional funding sources — including rants etc. 3. What do districts believe they are doing well? a. Central administration /district b. School administration c. Teachers d. Parents 4. What characterizes the instructional environments? a. Classroom environment: class size, team teaching b. Parent & volunteer processes: involvement, communication c. Connections to external resources 5. How is the curriculum organized and delivered? a. Subject area curricula; presentation strategies b. Before school and after school programs c. Other programs d. Expertise & currency of practices 6. What is the organizational culture of each district? a. Perceptions of stakeholders: critical needs b. Visibility of procedures, issues of autonomy 7. What Is the nature of student support services? a. Social work services b. Psychological services 8. How do the facilities support instruction? a. Computer support b. Physical plant c. Teacher space & resources d. Current/projected enrollment needs Possible Data Sources 'The study team believes that it is essential to collect data at the school level to answer the research questions. Every effort will be made to use existing information sources to answer the research questions, rather than collect additional data. To further minimize data collection requirements, the study team will attempt to answer the research question using the following data source sequence: 1 = Documents in hand 2 = Web data 3 = District data 4 = School site visit data 5 = Focus group data 6 = Individual Interviews V. Timeline May — June 2004 Preliminary meeting to frame study • Identification of Study Team members • Preliminary review of documents July — August 2004 Study teams meets to review available information and draft research questions • Meet with Superintendents to review plan and identify operating procedures • Meet with committee to review plans • Contact principals to notify them of the study • Use current documents and web resources to begin answering research questions • Identify & request information still needed that might be available through school districts central offices Sept. — Oct. 2004 • Develop school site visit protocol • Engage additional team members as needed • Conduct school site visits, focus groups, & interviews as needed • Summarize information collected • Draft report November 2004 • Meet with Sub - committee to review report • Revise report as needed • Submit final report Prepared: 09/16/04 REPORT ON SCHOOL EFFICIENCY MEASURES Efficiency Measures Taken to Date Orange County Schools (OCS) Hired Robert Segal in, CPA, expense reduction and revenue enhance specialist, in 2001 to review several areas of operations. The Segal company's findings for the OCS are summarized as follows. Sales tax refunds were reviewed and analyzed for the potential for additional funds due the school system from the State and other counties. This work resulted in the school system receiving an additional refund of approximately $130,107 which covered a three year period 1998 -2001. The OCS has agreed to allow the Segal company to review additional sales tax information for 2002 and 2003. 2. Contracts for copying services were also reviewed and analyzed by the Segal company. The end result was a formal request for proposal for this service which according to the Segal study could potentially save $220,000 over a three year period. The Segal company reviewed other potential areas of additional revenue as well as operating expenditures. Approximately $24,500 in additional revenue was discovered and requested from the Department of Public instruction related to students housed in group homes. 4. Other items review by the Segal Company included expenses such as banking services, electricity, gasoline and diesel fuels, maintenance contracts, paging services, telecommunications and waste disposal. Segal noted that these areas appeared to be well managed. Prepared: 09/16/04 Energy Management Program —The OCS has adopted and energy management program, that includes staffing with an energy manager position. It is expected by the school system that this program will reduce utility expenses significantly through education of staff and system -wide oversight. Custodial Services — OCS has implemented pilot program for privatized custodial services and has redistributed existing custodial staff around the district to increase efficiency. In addition school staff have been trained in the cleaning and maintenance of HVAC systems which is expected to also reduce costs. • Telecommunications — OCS used Spiller Consultants to review phone bills for potential erroneous charges. The Company's work resulted in savings of $1,392.21 in federal excise tax elimination. • Program Elimination — OCS eliminated a year -round middle school program when it was determined that the program was not self supporting as originally planned. Banking services are consolidated with one bank for improved interest rate and no service charges. Banking services include free checks for local funds. • Benefits are managed by Colonial Life. These included a Flexible Spending Account with a debit card that alleviates filing claims. The savings included reduced dental, vision, a disability plan, cancer policies and various riders. • Program Funds Transfer — OCS transferred $400,000 from the enterprise fund (School Community Relations) in 04 -05 and $55,684 in 03 -04. • E -rate has been utilized by the district since 1999 to ensure that the district is receiving the maximum discount for telecommunications and internet services. This resulted in an average savings of $140,000 yearly. Prepared: 09/16/04 Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) Audits and Reviews • Hired Robert Segal, CPA, expense reduction and revenue enhancement specialist, in 2001 to review sales tax refunds. Similar to OCS, tax refunds were reviewed and analyzed for the potential for additional funds due the school system from the State and other counties. This work resulted in the school system receiving an additional refund of approximately $380,477, which covered the three -year period 1998 -2001. Telecommunications - CHCCS hired Tele Adjust to review phone bills for potential erroneous charges. The Company's work resulted in $15,372 in credits and reduced monthly costs going forward. Had an electrical rate audit completed to ensure that each meter used by the District was at the lowest available rate, The District had the lowest rates available. During the past three years utilized an E -rate consultant to ensure that the district is receiving the maximum discount for telecommunication services within the district. Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (ECTS) works with our staff throughout the complex E -rate process and follows up with our telecommunications service providers to make sure that we receive the appropriate discounts or reimbursements. During the past year, this association resulted in $188,522 in savings. • OWASA is conducting spot water audits to determine water use efficiency. • The Finance Office plans to engage in a no -cost accounts payable audit later in the fall. Services Private custodial services are provided at two high schools, one middle school, two elementary schools and Lincoln Center. Payroll savings are generated at the high school level. New schools are added to the contract as they are completed. Savings extend to reduced payroll responsibilities and benefits. High school savings are estimated at $90,000 per year. Prepared: 09/16/04 Banking services were changed to lower fees and allow consolidation of funds to get an improved interest rate on school - based funds. Savings have exceeded $50,000. Cafeteria Services are managed by Sodexho. The corporation manages and pays new employees thus generating labor savings for the District. The labor savings this year will exceed $40,000. Copier services were consolidated under one district wide contract, thus guaranteeing price stability for a five -year period. Savings have been substantial. Overage charges alone have been reduced by over $8,000 per month and price increase stability has resulted in a two to three percent savings per year, Benefits were put out for bid and companies forced to compete, While District savings would be minimal, employee costs were reduced. These savings include reduced dental costs, guaranteed issue term life and a new vision plan, The District joined NC Secure, a food buying cooperative expressly for schools to reduce food costs in the school lunch program. The initial year projected savings exceeds $70,000. Construction and Renovation Board Policy 9040 address issues including day lighting, water use, and utility efficiency. The policy is the foundation of the new construction program in the district. The last two buildings built are considered some of the most energy efficient buildings in the country. A study completed by Innovative Design confirms the overall savings and can be provided upon request. The window replacement program uses double glazed high e- panes that reduce heating and cooling loads and increase classroom comfort. These have been completed at Glenwood, Carrboro and Estes Hills, All new schools are built with the energy efficient glass. HVAC replacements have used high efficiency units that use less electricity and reduce maintenance costs. Computerized HVAC controls at 8 of the 15 schools allows the central office to control thermostat ranges and HVAC setbacks thus generating utility savings, Prepared: 09/16/04 • All irrigation systems have rainfall - monitoring units that reduce over watering of fields and comply with new OWASA guidelines for irrigation. • Gray water reuse at Smith and Rashkis uses rainwater collected from the roof to irrigate fields, landscaping and to flush toilets. Water savings for the past year were 700,000 + gallons. • Both Smith and Rashkis are outfitted with photovoltaic units to provide for nighttime lighting or to provide electricity to the grid. • Solar hot water collectors are used at several schools to preheat water thus reducing natural gas demands. Budget Reallocations • Reduced teacher assistant contracts by two days to generate a savings of $87,096. Funds were used to offset impact of state budget reductions. • Reduced Central Office administrative supplies and travel budgets by $50,000 to offset impact of state budget reductions. • Reduced the Board of Education's contingency fund by $83,274 for unfunded budget priorities. • Reduced substitute teacher budget by $50,000 for unfunded budget priorities. Procedural improvements in the payroll assignment of substitute teachers will generate the savings. Potential Additional Areas for efficiency improvements. • .Joint Food Service Contracts. • Joint maintenance /software enhancement agreements with financial software vendor (Both districts use Isis Software) • Bid Audit Services Jointly. • Combine contracts for copier services. • Banking services ROBERT S. SEGAL, CPA PA EXPENSE REDUCTION & REVENUE ENHANCEMENT April 26, 2004 Mr. Kenneth T. Chavious Director of Finance, Orange County P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 -8181 Dear Ken: I IC 1912 EASTCHESTER DRIVE SUITE 206 HIGH POINT, NO 00 FAX 336.886 -2101 www.segalepa.osm You have recently requested my thoughts about opportunities for savings if two school districts were to collaborative purchasing, Please remember that Robert S. Segal, CPA PA does not perform personnel related analysis. it is our understanding that school districts are required to purchase all products and services off of State Contracts unless the district can document that the alternative vendor has equivalent quality and service. Because of the documentation, many districts concentrate their purchase through State Contract, However, we believe there are some opportunities to reduce the expenses by collaborative purchasing in the following areas: Copying services — This is a volume driven expense (more copies, lower cost) and we would assume that a larger the contract with more volume/copies would have a lower cost per copy. Waste disposal — if the waste is picked up by independent contractors (and not the municipality), this is also a volume driven expense. A larger volume of business would entice more bidders and should result in a lower cost. Wireless phone services —This is also volume driven and may be an opportunity under an aggregate minute plan. 101 a sea gce 7V03s s ld390a h0?JA PId9a' c vooz;_9z -r Audit fees — It seems that if both districts made the audit a package deal (one auditor would get both audits); the total audit fees may be lower. outside services — If both districts were using different outside service providers for the same service, a competitive bid process in which the number of vendors was reduced, could result in a lower cost. For example: If both districts were using outside yard maintenance contractors and the district decided to reduce the number from two to one, it seems that the combined cost should be lower. Neither current vendor would want to lose the business, and hopefully, both would bid aggressively for the larger contract. Telephone and computer hardware maintenance — It would seem that the price for two districts doing a combined request for proposal would be less than for two separate proposals. Outside printing expenses — More volume should reduce the costs. Banking services — It seems that if both districts made banking services a package deal (one bank would get both accounts), the total banking services expense may be lower. Internet Service Provider (ISP) expense — If the two districts agreed to access the internet through one ISP, the second expense could be eliminated or reduced. I hope this list of opportunities helps you evaluate collaborative purchasing for the school districts. We would be pleased to help in any way that sense. If you request, we could perform a detailed review of paid invoices and make a better list and a projected dollar saving. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact hie at 336 -886 -2100 or at bob @segalcpa.com Sincerely, Robert S. Segal, President I M 17 OOP ap'r lvnaS S 18380d WO�Jd HdL©` Z; MOF -9c -V f Orange Count-1 orbootz 200 &5t Ring .6treet t .tom. n :ii i i I °1 Dr. Shirley Carraway (919) 732 -8126 Telephone Superintendent (919) 732 -8120 Fax www.orangeAl2.ne.us TO: John Link County Manager FROM: Shirley Carrawa;5r - Superintendent DATE: September 22, 2004 RE: Joint Meeting As our Board has discussed potential topics for the joint meeting between the Board of County Commissioners and the two school districts, it has determined that the most important topic at this time is middle school #3 /funding. As we discussed issues surrounding that topic, they include: • Specific questions related to middle school #3 • Capital funding for middle school #3 • Capital funding for Cedar Ridge High School • Fund balance /funding for specific projects Attached you will find documents that will be referenced during the Orange County Schools' portion of the meeting. /pmc cc: Rod Visser Attachments: Orange County School Board Meeting 9/7/04 Review of Middle School #3 May 14, 2004 letter to John Link September 22, 2004 letter to John Link and BOCC Orange County School Board Meeting September iii Review of Middle S #3 1 , _S y - Site Development Notes ® • 41 acres FYNK perk S """' • 123,000 square foot, f" t � L ?i one-story building Fwd "�' • 120 parking spaces and 1, ��� y, � 4�0 '� 12 bus parking spaces _tf A�}1 - n • Separate entrances for r /� • I . tP f.=a \If ` ni parent drop-off and bus nflddlc School#3 drop-off _ w 000 . ,t • Athletic Stadium with srxer P(10 -t'�•� s,.,,°Y � ' _ 400m track • Baseball and Softball fields nm ur • Multi-purpose fields zrri-: Academic Classrooms Exc.Ed.and Resource Rooms Exploratory Classrooms The School will contain the Administration x Student Support I i r following program spaces: Media Center • 24 Academic Classrooms Physical Education ' Cultural Arts Education 'k • 3 Self-contained Exceptional Cafetcria/Food Service Staff Support Areas }-�}, . ...F_•y Education Classrooms Circulation . =-; �� • Media Center with 4y McchanicaVStorage 15,000-volume capacity 7 • 4 Foreign Language lassrooms --r • 3 Workforce Development Classrooms .. rr • 300-seat Auditorium • Visual Arts, Theatre, Vocal and Instrumental Classrooms '" • 8,500 sf Gymnasium with 600-seat bleacher system • 250-seat Cafeteria r J _yxn ,two; ?ixu ?nn; zuur S O A' 1) 1 1: M A M 1 A S u S 1) I F si .A AI 1 1 A S 0 ;d D 1 P SI A M I I d S r) A D i P M .4 )I I A D Site 's x Procurcmcnr :1l r fl Option End I tc:March 14, 004 Sur%cc and ' SUIT Bmings Orange Couny: ' APPrnrd prows, ' �—Februmv i,2004-1i terlucal Coven mental agreement for Water n icwcr Semler het ceen Orange County and other parties complete 4�—February-23,2014-Orange Cc my Board of Commissioners Public Hearing ; J'ne 23,2004-Orange Couny Board of Commissioners Regal ir\fectmg(Decision) Document Preparation Eadr Sitcwork Bidding Earle Sitctynrk ?P Contracts t:adv Jitc)curk Bidding ' Contracts ' C0n5truCn0n ' Punch list and ' Sub;amul Complcunn Furniture ' Dchvm ' Principal i^ Opens Office ' Final Completion and Occupancy ' �1 Then Now % Sitework Construction 2000 2004 Difference Heavy-duty asphalt roadways (9,000 sy) $153,000 $171 ,000 + 12% Light-duty asphalt parking lots (21 ,000 sy) $252,000 $277,000 + 10% Concrete Sidewalks (38,500 sf) $106,000 $145,000 +37% Asphalt Sidewalks (6,750 sf) $67,500 $78,300 + 16% Concrete Curb & Gutter (10,900 If) $109,000 $122,000 + 12% Ductile-iron On-site Water Pipe (1 ,500 If) $31 ,000 $39,000 + 26% Concrete Stormwater System (5,000 If) $100,000 $120,000 + 20% Sanitary Sewer System (1 ,500 If) $37,500 $52,700 + 44% $856,000 $1 ,005,000 + 17% Then Now • . Building Construction 2000 2004 Difference Structural Steel Column Steel including erection (220 tons) $404,500 $595,200 + 47% Roof Steel including erection (464 tons) $871 ,200 $1 ,170,800 + 34% Steel Floor Decking (83,400 sf) $119,300 $233,600 + 96% Steel Roof D- • (140,000 • : 1 ! $234,900 1 ' . Steel Reinforcing Bars : tons) $62,300 $98,400 : ' • Welded Steel Wire Fabric (248,600 Ii $92,000 • : ' . Concrete . • • 111 $233,600 Masonry r • • • • • (39,500 '.4 111 ', • : : 11 ' • Interior Metal • iii $42,500 $61 ,900 •' . •" Exterior Metal • 11 • ti $112,600 • ' • • Metal R• • • iii $984,600 $1 ,681 ,700 $3,018,200 ',4 • ii ' . FFF } 1 � �,�--F t.sn �F:'yt✓ M I I I _ � � � 1 �' ..- � ii Ml LyQ l: Y Preliminary Budget Revised Budget dated 9/3/03 dated 9/7/04 Land Acquisition $524,000 $524,000 Site Development $1 ,714,500 $2,561 ,400 less Shared Costs with West Ten Soccer Center ($227,900) Building Construction Costs $13,770,000 $16,265,300 Furnishings and Equipment Costs Furniture and Equipment $600,000 $500,000 Technology $650,000 $500,000 Professional Services Costs Design Fees $850,000 $850,000 Other Professional Fees $265,000 $200,000 Project Contingency $465,000 $350,000 Total Estimated Project Budget $185839,300 $21 ,5225800 Total Funding Sources $187850,000 over $2,672,800 Bond Money $18,500,000 Sales Tax Refund Estimate $300,000 NCDOT Bus Lot Reimbursement $50,000 Note! The costs shown are only estimates. Actual costs can only be obtained through the bid process. Y' The Cost of these Site R Development Items is planned to __ be shared with the Orange Co. West Ten Soccer Center: �rt 50 Parking Spaces located in the rear of the School $118,800 Entrance Driveway 7 ` $150,200 s T' rte �a Site Utilities — a portion of the water loop and sewer line$68,000 • West Ten Road Improvements _ $237,600 llflddle School Total of Shared Costs Items w.�s.F. $574,600 SAP _ 4 ' Proposed Cost Split: snnoo nn n. Orange Co. Schools $346,700 - _ — Orange Co. Government $227,900 Shared Costs are based on an estimate performed August 25, 2004. it n. a t R iO. ° { v4f • Replace portion of p - ------------- , heavy-duty asphalt paving with light-duty asphalt paving Fx� $46,500 Par!< ExPymloo + • Reduce concrete sidewalks � 1 $21 300 \ • Replace the asphalt paving on the Fire Access Lane with gravel $15,000 e e u the h c ain-link fencing \+ ' ' a School A3 `7., on site $5,500 1 htiddi S.F. i Reduce Parking by 20 Spaces 1'i + One Starr.ill 1\ __t + , • $28,000 = N t y ip S__"-- _ Total of Cost Savings -------------------- $116,300 Cost Savings are based on an estimate performed August 25, 2004. • Replace all standing-seam metal roofing with 30-year asphalt shingles $i i 95,000 +- ,- `_ . ., • Replace PVC roofing with ; Aao t� t 4-ply built-up roofing with white capsheet $180,000 ; , , _ ti t„ , • Replace prefinished metal ` panels, soffits and fascias with EIFS .} $126,600 Total of Cost Savings $501 ,600 Cost Savings are based on an estimate performed August 25, 2004. Paving Options All costs based on 16,200 sy for parking lots Conventional Asphalt $213, 840 7" ABC + 2" 1-2 @ $13.20/sy Permeable Asphalt $6113500 24" of #57 Stone + 2" (Porous) 1-2 @ $37.75/sy Pervious Concrete $810 , 000 24" of #57 Stone + 8" Porous Concrete @ $50.00/sy Note! Paving Option Costs are based on an estimate performed August 25, 2004. r 7 I i an Ina 3 , ^t . y {..: //.C(/lam { � • . • • � • • i =r- j. . • • Aw- of �•�riy4lrr' �tx;; ...o .. -.. Orange County Board of Education Dr_ Shirley Canaway Superintendent Board Members: Keith Cook, Chair Brenda Stephens, Vice Chair Randy Copeland Susan Halkiotis Libbie Hough Delores Simpson Dana Thompson 200 East King Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Telephone: 919 -732 -8126 FAR: 919- 732 -8120 3 UN)y i r May 14, 2004 Mr. John Link, County Manager Orange County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link and County Commissioners: As we have worked through the budget process this year, we have poured through every document, every budget code, and every funding source to ensure that we are being fiscally responsible in our decisions and in our budget requests. When we saw that our capital improvement funds for 2004- 2005 would fall short of our needs by over half a million dollars, we looked at previous capital project budgets for any leftover funds. If revenue projects are as expected, we will this year be able to fund our 2004 -2005 capital requests. We will have little money left to reallocate, and anticipated revenue projections will fall far short of meeting our 2004 -2014 CIP needs. The reason for this is inherent in the Orange County Board of Commissioners Capital Funding Policy Debt Service specifications. The policy directs that: Prior to funds being allocated for specific projects, all debt service, including private placement financing will be subtracted from the unrestricted funding sources. As an exception, the Orange County Schools are responsible for funding directly,fr'om their pay -as- ,you -go capital allocations, that portion of the cost of 'a new high school in the Orange County School system beyond the $12..5 million bonds approved by voters,for that school in November' 1997, I realize that this was an agreed -upon arrangement with the Orange County Board of Education, however, at this point this arrangement is making it almost impossible for the district to maintain its facilities, to ensure health and safety and to complete other projects necessary to provide school environments that support ever increasing academic demands, According to the policy, before any money is allocated to the school systems, the Board of County Commissioners subtracts all bonded debt as well as non bonded debt for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools debt payments for Scroggs Elementary School and McDougle Elementary School. Then, from what is left, the Board of County Commissioners allocates the designated portion to the two school systems. When we are required to subtract the non bonded debt for Cedar Ridge High School from our portion, it cripples our improvement possibilities.. This practice means that all tax payers in the entire county are responsible for paying for the two Chapel Hill schools while only those who live in the Orange County Schools Providing educational oppornmities for successful futures " Link. John Page 2 5/14/04 Orange County Schools district bear the responsibility for Cedar Ridge High School. While previous Orange County Board of Education members may have requested this policy arrangement because it was the only way to get Cedar Ridge High School built, this policy appears unfair to the taxpayers in our school district, and it will without question cause significant hardship for Orange County Schools for a number of years. The charts attached indicate that the revenue picture with the high school debt lacks adequate funding for our district from the onset of this 10 -year CIP to the 2010 -2011 school year. The district has experienced this lack of funding since repayments began in 2001 -2002. Therefore, the Board of Education formally requests that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners reconsider the Capital Funding Policy to finance the debt for Cedar Ridge High School from the unrestricted funding services before the appropriation of funds for county and school capital projects. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Since y, Shirley Carraway, Ed.D. Superintendent /pmc t Orange countp 6cbootz r 200 Ca5t Ring btreet �)iltgborougb,_RC 27278 Dr. Shirley Carraway (919) 732 -8126 Telephone Superintendent (919) 732 -8120 Fax www.orange.kl2.nc.us TO: John Link, Orange County Manager Orange County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Shirley Carraway, Superintendent Orange County Board of Education DATE: September 22, 2004 RE: Fund Balance At the August 16, 2004 meeting of the Orange County Board of Education, the 2004 -2005 local current expense budget was approved. As a result, for the first time in a number of years, the students and staff in our school district will have the advantage of new programs and additional benefits. We have added Spanish teachers to six of our elementary schools, increased the number of school social workers, provided much needed print materials for our school media centers, and enabled our schools to replace furniture that no longer supports a conducive learning environment. The district provided a half -time coordinator to support the newly approved International Baccalaureate Program along with IB instructional materials and required training. In addition, we have been able to increase non - tenured teacher supplements to better match the supplements in the surrounding districts and implemented salary schedules for both our classified employees and central office employees that recognize and reward their commitment to the district. These things were made possible when the Board of Education approved the allocation of $1.2 million from the district's fund balance and supplemented that amount with $400,000 from its Child Care reserves. I am sure you would agree that this was a bold step for the Board of Education realizing that it has no way to replace the funds expended. It must however, continue the initiatives that it has new begun. In addition, the Board also has the responsibility to fund the one time costs of opening middle school #3 in the fall of 2006 and a commitment to upgrade the two existing middle school programs. As you know, Orange County Schools does not have a special district tax or any other mechanism at its disposal that would allow the system to increase its revenue in a year of major expansion. Therefore, the district purposefully sought to increase the fund balance to cover the anticipated upcoming costs of school growth. This spring, the Board of County Commissioners instructed the Orange County Board of Education to spend down some of its fund balance. The rationale was straightforward and reasonable; the Board of County Commissioners could not Link, John: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Pg. 2 September 22, 2004 justify increasing the Orange County Schools per pupil allocation in any significant way knowing that the school system had over $3 million in reserve. The school board did exactly as requested and now needs the assurance of a funding formula that will enable us to sustain our improvement efforts. The School Board needs the Board of County Commissioners to commit to insuring that this district will be able to continue to move forward with the initiatives undertaken. During the budget process this past spring the county funding provided to our district barely covered the amount needed to meet required mandates. This school district has taken a giant step forward and we are now relying on you to help us to continue our forward motion. After making such a courageous move with this year's budget, a shortfall next year in funding would be devastating. It would mean that we would have to end many of the wonderful benefits to our students and staff that we have just begun. We need your help. We welcome any further discussion about this issue. The school board, administration and parents of Orange County Schools stand ready to assist you. /pmc rj : Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Telephone: (919) 967 -8211 Fax: (919) 933-4560 Neil Pedersen, Superintendent Nettie Collins -Hart, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services Ray Reitz, Chief Technology Officer Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services To: John Link, Orange County Manager From: Neil Pedersen, Superintendent Steve Scruggs, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Re: High School #3 Update Date: September 23, 2004 The following update on high school 43 was prepared for our Board of Education and has been revised to serve as a basis for discussion at the joint meeting on September 27, 2004. Design The design for high school #3 includes a student capacity of 800 with a core facility for 1,200 students. The proposed design includes a full gym, auditorium, commons and athletic complex. The design reflects the needs of the high school reform committee by designating career and technical education space for academies and a design that features smaller learning communities. The High School Advisory Committee approved the design during their final meeting in May 2004. The square footage has been established at 162,185 square feet. This is 20,000 square feet less than the original proposal and 7,000 square feet more than was provided for in the original budget. This conceptual plan was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on September 21, 2004. Budget and Costs Included for your review is a history of the budget and probable costs for High School #1 The sections below correspond to the spreadsheets as indicated. Initial Budget The initial budget was developed after the County Commissioners established a $30,000,000 finding level for the project. That funding included $27,800,000 and $2,200,000 if the project met "smart growth' principals. The square footage of the building was determined by removing land acquisition costs and site development costs and backing out the rest of the budget to reach the 155,000 square feet. This budget was also established using the approved Orange County Construction Standards that set the square foot costs at $110.00 per square foot. Revised Budget The revised budget illustrates changes in land acquisition costs and the approval of Addendum `B ". The cost factor changes include an increase in land costs of $1,142,000 approved by the County Commissioners in June 2004. The budget also reflects the approval of Addendum `B" which added $1,900,000 to the project instead of the initial amount of $2,200,000. The remaining $300,000 is intended to be used for off-site infrastructure improvements. This model does not change square footage requirements for the building. Design Development The Design and Development budget with probable costs includes the increase in square footage required for the school program and the projected square foot cost increases for construction. The additional square footage will be explained in more detail below. The square foot increase is a nationwide trend. The Orange County Middle School project has experienced similar increases. The original square footage of the building was established at 182,000 square feet. The $30,000,000 budget reduced that figure to 155,000 square feet. The present option contains 162,185 square feet. That square footage has been reviewed by staff and architects for additional areas for reduction and none is available. Any further reduction in square footage would have a permanent impact on the core facilities that would be difficult to compensate for later. To reach the square foot target of 155,000 would require a reduction of over 6,000 square feet. This is the equivalent of eight classrooms or the auditorium. A review of the comparable projects around the state indicates that our square footage is lower than other similar sized projects. Project Southside, Beaufort Northside, Onslow Cedar Ridge, Orange CHCCS Student Square Footage Total Sq. Ft. Per Capacity Sq. Ft. Per Core Capacity Core 750 1,286 169,674 226 132 905 1,225 176,510 195 144 1000 1,500 206,900 207 138 800 1,200 162,195 203 135 Using the School Planning Division guidelines and extrapolating a 1,200 -core capacity, a square footage requirement of over 170,000 square feet is indicated. Unless the program or capacity numbers are changed, any architectural reduction would be minimal at best. Square foot cost increases have ranged from 20% to 40% in last two years. The major force behind these increases has been the cost of steel and oil. Per square foot costs are ranging from $120.00 to $130.00 per square foot. This trend is reflected in North Carolina school construction figures. School construction costs have increased 24% from 2003 to August of 2004 according to figures released by the Department of Public Instruction on Tuesday, September 14, 2004. If that percentage were applied to the construction standards of $110.00 per square foot, the cost would increase to $136.40. This trend has impacted schools across the country. A recent article from Education Week is included for your review that describes this trend. A break down of the cost increases is included on the first spreadsheet under Summary of Cost Increases. The first column includes increased square footage, site work and the reduction of "smart growth" by $300,000. The second column details the impact of the cost per square foot increase and the ripple effect in other areas. Cost Reduction Options The second spreadsheet provides two options for completing the new high school. Both will require significant additional funding. Each option has funding listed after the "Anticipated CIP Funding," the $982,000 set aside for field construction in the 2004- 2014 CIP. The "Final Difference" reflects the difference between the projected cost and the $30,842,000 already secured for the project and the $982,000 reserved for the fields. Cost reduction options are summarized on the building cost, site work cost and day lighting cost spreadsheets. Each is attached for your review,. Option 1 Option 1 includes a complete high school with all the fields and auditorium complex intact. Cost reductions used are listed on the value engineering spreadsheet under Cost Reduction Options 1 / 2. These reductions were made during an analysis of the project and will have a minimal impact on the functionality of the project. They include reductions in kitchen and media furnishings, the use of utility brick and the reduction in the use of some metals. Site reductions include reduced retaining walls, landscaping and concrete walkways. These reductions will have little impact on the project and would have been included in a regular value engineering review. These reductions are included in the other options listed below. Additional Funding Required $3,402,304 Option 2 Option 2 moves the entire auditorium complex to phase 2. This area includes the auditorium, chorus, band rooms and associated offices. The plan compensates for the loss of the wing by adding a large multipurpose room for chorus or, if needed, wrestling. This area would be converted upon completion of the auditorium wing. All the athletic fields are intact in Option 2. The value engineering cost savings featured in Option 1 /2 is also included in this option. Site cost reductions are identical as well. These reductions can be found on the attached spreadsheets. Additional Funding Required $1,897,491 With large increases in square foot costs and an initial budget that was $4,000,000 less than requested, it is clear that additional funding will be needed. Avenues for additional funding include a reprioritization of the 2004 -2014 CIP, a request for additional funding to the County Commissioners, or the deletion of some parts of the program as illustrated in the options above. As the preparation of construction documents moves forward, it will be important to note any major shifts, such as suggested above, be made as soon as possible so that schedules are not impacted. Education Week American Education's Newspaper of Record September 1, 2004 Costs Climb on Materials For Schools By Joetta L. Sack Education Week The rapidly rising cost of steel and other construction materials is forcing some districts that are building new schools to scramble for more money, delay work, or redesign projects. Nationwide, contractors and architects are finding it harder to give accurate estimates on projects, and some have even had to renegotiate contracts with districts. The prices for nearly every construction material, particularly steel and concrete, have been rising at double -digit percentages in recent months, reminiscent of inflation levels in the 1970s, Even the costs of asphalt, plywood, and paint have been rising, according to data from McGraw -Hill Construction, a New York City -based research group for industry professionals. The increases may put a dent in the school construction industry, which grew to $29 billion last year. Many of the fastest - growing districts are juggling multiple projects and have seen the greatest impact. "It has had a dramatic effect in terrns of projects coming in over budget, or projects not being bid on at all," Michael Garretson, the deputy superintendent for facilities in the 271,000 - student Broward County, Fla., school district, said of the spike in costs. This summer, bids for a new middle school that had been budgeted at $20 million canine in at between $26 and $30 million, he said. Meanwhile, nobody bid at all on a dozen projects budgeted at $1 million or less, possibly because contractors did not see enough potential for profit. "In the last 12 months, we've seen an increase between 15 and 20 percent" on the cost of completed projects, said Dale Scheideman, the director of new schools and facility planning for the 270,000 - student Clark County, Nev., district. His district is building 99 schools as part of a 10 -year construction plan. If the inflation continues at its current rate, the district could run out of money for one of the schools, Mr. Scheideman said, Shared Pain Plenty of school construction contractors have felt the pinch as well Some say that the bidding process forces them to choose between factoring in cost increases for materials, thus creating a higher bid that might cost them the job, or gamble on a lower bid based on current prices. "This absolutely has had a very negative affect on contractors' profits," said Ken Simonson, the chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America, a national group located in Alexandria, Va. Because contractors submit bids based on current prices for materials, any price increases between the bid and actual construction, which can take place months or years later, usually must be absorbed by the contractor. Nationally, steel prices have risen more than 30 percent in the past year. In some cases, Mr. Simonson said, "the steel -price run -up has been sufficient to wipe out contractors' profits." Lin Redden, the vice president of the Atlanta -based construction and design firm Heery International, said: "Costs [for' steel] have gone up 30 to 40 percent in some areas, and that has definitely caused an impact because a lot of budgets were put together before the spike." Shortages of materials pose another problem, Mr. Redden and others said. In one case, Mr. Redden said, a school project was under way when his builders discovered they could not get steel joists delivered on time. That delay put the project several weeks behind schedule. Now, most of Heery's contractors order those materials well ahead of the time they will need them, he said. Mr. Redden said he had seen some contractors go out of business because of the higher costs. Demand in Asia Analysts say several factors are driving up the costs of materials. Mainly, though, the explanation lies in Asia, where countries such as China, Japan, and India have been undergoing massive building booms in recent years, thus increasing demand. That surge overseas has been matched by a robust construction market in the United States, fueled by low interest rates. "We gained ground because interest rates were so low, but may lose ground because steel prices and concrete prices are going up," said David A. Sneed, the chief of architectural services for the New .Jersey Building Authority. The state agency oversees the Garden State's $8- billion, multiyear school renovation and construction project. Further, many U.S. steel mills shut down earlier this decade during a market slump. The closures have added to significant supply shortages. The rising costs of steel and oil have also created a ripple effect as builders have tried to find substitute construction materials to cut costs. How a district handles cost increases often depends on timing: If construction has begun, it could be more expensive to make changes than to absorb extra costs. "If it's been on the board for a couple of years, then they may have to go back and make cuts in the project, said Judy Marks, the associate director of the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, located in Washington. "Some districts are just delaying their projects, hoping the costs will go down." "Most people have found ways to work around it," Leslie Loudon, an architect, said of the rise in costs. Most often, architects respond by finding ways to downsize projects or by asking districts to come up with more money, said Ms. Loudon, who is with Little Diversified Architectural Consulting, an Arlington, Va. -based firm that specializes in K- 12 and higher education facilities. For example, Ms. Loudon is revamping a current project, a dormitory for Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, W.Va. The project ran over budget in part because of rising materials costs, so Ms. Loudon is simplifying the floor plan and looking for more cost - effective materials. Break Ahead? So far, Nevada's Clark County district, which includes Las Vegas, hasn't had to make drastic changes, mostly because the district factors in potential price increases when it draws up budgets for its projects, Mr. Scheideman said. As a result, Clark County has actually saved money on constriction costs in the past two years. Florida's Broward County, which includes Fort Lauderdale, has seen some delays on its projects, particularly when there have been no bids, Mr. Garretson said. The delays are complicating efforts to build more classrooms to meet a state class- size - reduction mandate. The district will lose state aid if it doesn't comply with the law. "Therefore, we can't delay some of these new schools," Mr. Garretson said. "You pay one way or another." School officials and construction experts are hopeful that the inflation in construction costs will soon ease, or at least become more predictable. Mr. Garretson, for one, believes a rise in interest rates will dampen the home - building market and lessen demand for materials. Mr. Redden, though, believes districts' budgets simply must figure on cost increases.. "I'm not an economist," the Atlanta construction executive said, "but my gut tells me we're still going to have high commodity prices," On the Web Browse die school construction e.nsts resources list from the National Clearinrhow, fin Gdwaliu I A far 11bies Read an October 2002 article. "P'+ tine Pacil' line,_ from the .loserimn School Donrd JDnrnds online anthology. School S endive. the piece details the legal and financial challenges of school construction projects The magazine American .School S Unfversiry, keeps an archive of micles relating to scluwl ai ngru,1kuj and its surrounding issues Ilk (mnp I'm of Public Schaal C iurilruetion Cosis. a2001 report by Peter Philips. Pit D, Professor of Economics, University of Utah. tracks trends in Kentucky. Ohio, and Michigan since the 1990s (Requires tinb> L sc Acrobat header ) Estimate the expense of a building project using 11re RS�1gt_ns C oits'Ingyion Cnv1, Calculanx (Pam of the site require registration ) PHOTOS: The rising cost of steel, cement, and other construction material Is Impeding school construction projects. Above, a worker cuts block for an addition being built at the Mott School In Trenton, N.7. — Daniel Hulshlzer /AP 0 2003 Editorial ProjccU in Education Vol 24. number 01. page 1,24 MOSELEYARCHITECTS �I A I i O.I PROf FS510NA1 COPPO PA I(L�. I Se(ember 15.HOOf , OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARYOFCOSTINCREASES HERE S h IR3 Ch. NNn C, b.N Citys n 1 4 I ! I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 ! ! 1 I I -L I INITIAL DUOGET REVISED BUOGET: - DESIGN OEVELOPMEN] Pra9rvm SFae. iolOi —__ _ CONSiRUCNON COSH I - I 19 el I � I _ 52515769 I ' ' -r36T/199- I { I IT36TL]09-- _ ff SWIRLS N 8ui-1tli DPmp I-155.09051[$110001151 1=31],950.000_ 1550005.L 1!0.301/sf I=131].050.000_-i550W 151.{ 131.Od1ts11=I t6.]fi0.816_ - ]!9.016 51,]10.816 I 1 ! - AdtliansaBUiai P mm I�—J IJ $0- 0 $0 -].1851 s.nFlo-111si1=r?865.655 -5]90.350--T)9.]OS- 869,fi55 �' T j l - _— _ _7_ U�_I_ _- �jTolal-B�iltlttp Cost t55.oD01s.l.i$no00Rsi !_I !1.050.900_ i55.9001s.1� ,,-oovsr _! n.WO.CDO 162.18.5!51. St2164 110�! 1 519.6?D.d]i- - 1 It...d, 1 1-t— 1 jT 3118 WaM -I_ 1�J—S�a4]_5000- ��_1 I S6,600]]) 525.]!} 525.]]] T -- I "'Adds a9te WY i__I 1 1 _, 1 4 -- ^l �l-- _ I Add'f�F'ea __L_j_ I I--30 1 �--I I 50__t_I 1 I $S6fi.659 5586.659 Sa * UhOw,pO Se lnUasWCturel 15529.52 V511- 4,$]5.000 155,000151 -3 29521/5( .?.!_.. .SY5.0�0- 162.t255.L 5319�1512� IS 43G L If site lnfmstmaum _� 1I__ _� --I - �I J 392.320- 392,320 -392.320 ICOnnecar 'Jlduded beaw- ImmemRO oven FOad: r 1 I�j•p udea beNw - Impmvemen6a mN min oad fMUtli�Slpral: t i i - 1 --I "1 SdfiZ657 67.65)--66].657 -I 1W o !Ray Fl ow min 1-� 1 —! t !J -- I T -v, NN,ltnplualpq otls eln rase-1 �_� 5)5,000 1 �i 365]5000 —I 96,Oi]A13 = - ITOtaIGOOANCIIOnCost 155 WO'sl[$t1952 US( ( 321,625,000 t59,00�15 1 15139 62U 1$21625000 =621655f1315832USI !3156Y]684 al 16T.-329 32.28]155 (NOn-COdStNellnn Sla[I-Up Casts I t _� 1 !� - 1 ! Fees L �I�...I 52.162500 _, I� 52162SO0 1 I�-1 SEE�� Iht9ve hle Eou pment �S8525_ 5852500_ 1 ' I 5&52.SW ' iTeduplalY 155000 st[5825(st $12 78 750 155.00�I t1 58251(51 =1 51278]50 ibZ.t951sf�5825115( 1 51.3JB 026 559.2]5 559_2)6 aNbN nc/(35°5) � ! {._.._5]_56875 —! I _ ]566]$_--t�4!-5898726 $]9.92G 5141651 INOM1p ROMe15art-uO COSB 1 1 3)88.6]5 ! ]8B.6]5 4 t 1 3]686]5 Y u IYolal NarvmnsWCUOn aM1 pCOSts I_ I,T 1 35039]00 t 5039.]09 _I - -- TOM PROJECT COST $30,000,909 331!42,000_ (�_y ( $35,396011 _ -! iFiedue9pn to Smart Gmura FRhil, ! 3300.000 -$a00.OW_ TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING I ( 339,990_090_ -I I_I 1$30,042,990 I I i I I I 1 1 I I I �--_- �'AmoTn{Over Food_ S I I I I I-50- I t I I 5309.000- I I I I S4 d.01t--52.190.532_ 2.363,879 54.154 Ott n� 'Ufw; MOSELEVARCHITECTS A PFOFESSIOtIAI COFPORAiION ,�s�— JL '- I._.I I � ! 1� I FII hSCFnnI p3 OPINIO1N OF PROBABLE CO -COST REDUCf1ON OPTIONS ['6 dNNil GrcbmOCir sdwoe { I i 1 1 !ST OPlIONI OPTIONS COST REDUCFION OPTIONS I/3 AUDITORIUM INPH,I .2; •AVRCOSTR ROOMMPR.1 COSTREDUCFION OPTIONS I12 COYS`T'�ISCTIO�SI'S I ��I l —S1ic ACqubmnn 0udgN _ — 0.6r,700 53.6]].]00 ��NM'ewld Pm m I 16+185 f fl s12t Bi/zf °I SI9,6J0,4]I 163.185 sf W SI 161/sI °I 519.630A71 I t V I t I I 44 I- ( I ewld AUdO BaM�indCMnl\Ving nPhssc I INtA -1aS001zf('I 51 IOJ/zfl °I 51.85 WJ -- L 1 1 I Sub�11a16 Wi t 1 16ZIBZ fCnI 512104/zf 519.6JO,it1 N)6HS SIC 51_104(zf SO.H]Sd2]�_ i �Bti ld WSasline ROOmmPhucl fm M1lusrt USC f I 1 I IN/A 12301zffi,.SL'IOi VZf1 °I 5390.951 I I I !_ -Sub-oul build'n mst ! __163.195 sue!(.z 31210�ii,.. 1 °I 519,630.4)1 150.9151. (n.(512104/zf 1 518.366})H_�� 1_}_)yam I 7 t i ICOSIRMm 11 Sc DraLdonn 1 �i i -�-I 1 1I I 1 _i_ _iOn rnss- s)6 1 I COSSRWucnvn OpliomlS3 (_ ( ��� s-16.I2H_�_I .2e t Coss Roluczi nOpuan3 —I N/A _!t_i—t N/A 4 I CmtRM s 0 times (--J '_�—i !_INIA - I I _I I N!A - I_ E�l�imbu_ld_a I'O6t�n -Ss bmkdoxn T—t I VN/A N/A ! IITou1I Buildin Cun I- I�s-f G'51205)Isf I=�51935a.JiJ I50,915Vs.f.nl SIJOSI/sf I ° 518.190.250� ! t �—I i I!T- 1 I 1 I I Slte m9rp ] ( _ S' 1 56.44].4 IJ 56,0.0,413 1 BWWI]ZcbaIVSOIRAU d)l 2MT= In Ph t2 T IN/A 1 IN/A I I ! tilt -subozl sw I 1 0 _ — i t1tt�1 TV 56 61 _ _ _ ICOSIRMvztiunRmis 5r 01vkdocn I_i_t ( ITI CCa011 t RRcCddlul[zYOOO U Op tiva<IA3 � 59) 40 I I t ( 587.84 1 ____': i N/A IN/A — J—.— ` CoslftMucuon OOOana 1 t N/A 1 INIA I TObl5itc 140sk _ _ f �, I 55959 i]J_ t I LJ_ _ �J __ �(__�_ V�—_ t 1 I ITOIaI COmlmmon COS1 1 162.teis.r.GI 515).]1/sf I ° I 52550,916 Is09151s.f1 IS16002 IZf -_ �ry 1 <uuv sun-u co.0 0 SL16?}a0_ 1 I $3 1,I6LZO0 I j91 blcC m �_ 5852,500 L _! S6P 500 (Talmotu - _j_ 16 1844 f(1 SBn Lf I -I SI}]5026 150.91.! CSI Wnysr I ! S1145.049 !_� ELM ��_i S sais'44 —!Non-mvmid Slamw�Cw= - _! I —( I S]8H.6]5 5)66.6]z �rTOUl Norvmmsrvcuon SlanA�COSB 56.0]4,688_�__i_I__! 55,993.968 TOTALPROJEC(COS 05.226}W_ V SJI,T'_L491 —I- 4 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING I I 1 00 842000 SJ0.842.000_ I 1 I I I Amu a N daFwdin �_!i-1 I 5a}eaJOi I I t 52.9)9.491 "p MCIPF T�I ( -s9aL000--� —T —j jF vT➢i w,n � IT} I i i�a33w- i I E 1-"'i-1.99zasf-��� I_— I MOSELEYARCHITECTS j A P R O F E S S I O N A L CORPORATION t September t5.2004 1��� High School#3 �I I Building Reductions J Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Preliminary Cost Reduction Options OPTION 1/2 I 1—�1 1! COST REDUCTION ITEMS ! CONSTRUCTION COSTS �- -- --�eu(Idin9 i — 1 1 _!Reduce scope of Kitchen equipment ! I $S.000I __ -1 I $5.000, Reduce scope of Media furnishings 11 I I I f I ICan51NCf protect with utility bock,rather than standard/motlular 1 —I $25.000 I 1 Il III I _ —iReduce scope of security grilles 1 I I I $01--1 ( 1 I I I I I — Reducescope of miscellaneous metals $25,0001—I 1 I �-- _� $0 i Reduce scope of architectural glass wiling _ ! L Reduce scope of gypsum wallboard ceilings_— I ( ! $5.000 ISUbtotal Cost Reductions S65.0001 �- I Perm h/Tax/Contingency/Bond/Etc { 17.12A( ( $i 1.1281 4 � I I I l i I i-1 —(Total Cost Reductions —1 � — $76 1 12801 1 j I I ® ELYARCHITECTS A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N September 15,2004 High school#s ( —�— Site Reductions f �� Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Preliminary Cost Reduction Options __ OPTION 1(2 i ( ( COST REDUCTION ITEMS CONSTRUCTION COSTS i - I Sliework I I anings/so /seedin $20I�Reduce scope o(landsca m 000 ! — — I { Retluce concrete walkwa s 1 $25000 1 _I Reduce concrete curb and gutter 10.000 1 — Reduce reloinln walls ( b20.000 I I L f_ { _ I ISUbtofal Cosa ftedudions 1 I I I l l $7s.aoo I Penniis/Tax/Contin e /Bond/Etc a 1712 I — $128401 1 �- 11 I II Total Cost Reductions 4— i 1 $87,8401 1 ( I- I I