Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-14-2003-1ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 14, 2003 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT• County/OCS/CHCCS Discussion/Policy Issues DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): As listed in "Background" INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link or Rod Visser, 245-2300; Donna Dean, 245-2151 Craig Benedict, 245-2592 Dave Stancil, 245-2598 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 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. Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus Update (CHATPEC) The CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group has met on seven occasions with an initial meeting on September 30, 2002. To date, the Work Group has taken a tour of the site, received a report on site opportunities and constraints, received information on the Joint Planning Area and OWASA infrastructure plans, and discussed and refined a list of potential park facilities. The group has created two subcommittees - an Educational Campus Subcommittee (ECS) and a Township Park Subcommittee (TPS), which have begun meeting to develop draft concept plans for portions of the site. The Work Group met on April 10 and will meet again on April 30. In May and June the Work Group plans to integrate the individual concept plans into one master plan and hold a community forum before submitting their findings to the Board of Commissioners in June. No Attachments b. Process for and Commitment of Resources to School Merger Analysis At their January 25, 2003 annual planning retreat, the BOCC discussed a proposal from Commissioner Carey to examine the implications of a potential merger of the two school systems. This topic has been discussed at several other Commissioner meetings since then, at the last of which the BOCC formally adopted a goal outlining the elements of analysis the Board would like to receive before ultimately deciding whether or not merger should be pursued. A staff report to the BOCC should be delivered by late summer. This goal will require extensive work and cooperation between County and school staffs over the coming months. This meeting provides an opportunity for the governing boards to discuss and clarify mutual expectations about the merger implications analytical process. Attachment 1 b - 3/24/03 Approved BOCC Goal - "School Merger Implications" c. School Collaboration Study An offshoot of the High School Planning Task Force process in 2002 was a set of discussions this past fall between the Chairs of the Board of Commissioners and the two Boards of Education regarding opportunities for collaboration on programs and facilities between the two school systems. Those discussions, which included faculty from the Institute of Government (IOG), were a follow up to preliminary work done a year ago by a committee of school board members at the urging of the BOCC. Dr. Phil Boyle of the IOG has drafted a proposed agreement between the County and the IOG under which he would lead an assessment of collaboration efforts and opportunities between the school systems. The study is proposed at a cost of $20,000, to be borne by the County. At their February 26, 2003 work session and April 1, 2003 regular meeting, the BOCC discussed whether or not to pursue this study in light of the school merger analysis to be conducted over the coming months. The BOCC took no action on the matter other than to docket the subject for discussion at this April 14 joint work session. Attachment 1 c -Draft Orange County Collaboration Initiative -Memorandum of Understanding d. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Update County staff will provide a brief update on the status of consideration by the various SAPFO partners and outstanding issues to be resolved. No Attachments e. School Siting Initiative Commissioner Jacobs presented a proposal during a recent BOCC meeting intended to enhance the current process for school siting determinations in terms of timeliness, effectiveness, and consideration of land use planning implications. This meeting offers an opportunity for the governing boards to discuss the proposal. Attachment 1 e - "Planning the Location of Schools in Orange County in the 21St Century" f. Need for Dialogue with Chapel Hill and Carrboro on Public Transportation for Schools Governing board members may wish to discuss how the Chapel Hill Transit system might be engaged to enhance the transportation options available to public school students. No Attachments 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. ~~C,V~ ~n~~/1~ { ~~T ~~~~ ORANGE COUNTY Bt)ARD OF C'OM1~`IISSIOyERS P~~OPOSED GOAL Approved: Q3i2~p SCHOOL MERGER IMPLICATIONS OBJECTIVE 1: To examine the pros, cons, and other implications of a potential merger of the Orange County Schools and the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools TASK A:: County staff, in collaboration with school staffs, conducts an analysis of potential school merger implications centered around five headings: Finance, Governance and Implementation, Public Information/Education and Public Input, Educational/Student Impacts, Other Impacts and Implications. Analysis will include, but not necessarily be limited to, an examination of the pros and cons for each of the following topics: Finance 1. A detailed analysis of the tax differential and impacts on all Orange County citizens created by a possible merger 2. A proposed method for equalizing funding at the highest level of the two districts, including the tax increase required for a possible merger 3. A review of the financial issues/impacts (both operating and capital) of a possible merger on the County, school districts, and other entities 4. An analysis of what changes might be needed, and how much it would cost, to equalize facilities and programs for both districts 5. Review opportunities to equalize funding for both districts that do not include a possible merger Governance and Implementation 1. A potential implementation timetable that would be associated with a possible merger 2. A step by step process (including legal) to follow for a possible merger 3. A review of potential roles for the two school boards in the process to be followed for a possible merger 4. A detailed analysis of the governance structure/who's in charge scenarios of a possible merger 5. Review possible methods for electing a school board with a possible merger 6. A review of how the superintendent might be selected and what might happen to employees in both districts in a possible merger 7. Timing of engagement of the State Board of Education 8. What relationship, if any, merger would have to SAPFO Public Information/Education and Public Input 1. An investigation of both the truths and the fallacies of a possible merger, including impacts on property values, busing, and affordable housing; and testing assumptions regarding both school systems (examples: demographics, academics, etc.) 2. A detailed explanation of what a possible merger would do and what it would not do 3. Proposals to educate the public on the issues of a possible merger c~~ zao~ OR4NGE CC)UI~TY BOARD 4F C"C?MMISSlt)~IERS PROPOSED GOAL ~1.pprove~d: (73;`24103 4. Develop and detail specific proposals on how public opinion will be included during the decision-making process related to a possible merger, including potential public hearings 5. Describe how a referendum on merger could be included in the decision-making process. 6. Review information and conclusions from the 1986 School Merger Study 7. Develop and detail specific ideas on potential public education efforts related to a possible merger Educational/Student Impacts 1. The educational impacts that possible merger would have on both districts 2. An analysis of the impacts that a possible merger would have on current class size and the current curriculum offered in both districts 3. A detailed analysis of the effects of a possible merger on students in both districts, including potential redistricting and the resulting transportation patterns for students in the two districts, including the degree to which extensive additional busing will be necessitated Other Impacts and Implications 1. Benefits and any negative impacts to each district that possible merger would provide 2. A detailed assessment of intended and unintended consequences of a possible merger 3. A detailed analysis of the impacts of a possible merger on land use, including the effects on the growth and development patterns of the entire county 4. A detailed description of the benefits and cost for children and the entire community associated with a possible merger 5. A detailed description of the effect on promoting equal opportunity for children and the entire community associated with a possible merger TASK A TIMEFRAME: February 2003 -August 2003 TASK B: Prepare and present staff report on merger implications at a work session or regular meeting of the BOCC TASK B TIMEFRAME: August 2003 OBJECTIVE 2: To determine, in light of the prepared analysis of the implications, whether or not to pursue merger of the Orange County Schools and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools TASK A: Subsequent to receipt of merger implications report and receipt of appropriate public input, determine whether merger should be pursued and if so, under what statutorily established mechanism TASK A TIMEFRAME: September 2003 -October 2003 I ' b 1 ~ t ~W DRAFT Orange County Collaboration Initiative 2002 - 2003 Memorandum of Understanding Pur ose This memorandum of understanding is between Orange County and the Institute of Government, UNC -Chapel Hill. Its purpose is to secure the professional services of Dr. Phillip Boyle, Associate Professor of Public Management and Government. Dr. Boyle works closely with the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, the N.C. Carolina School Boards Association, the N.C. League of Municipalities, and with county, school, and municipal governing boards in public problem solving and decision making, including collaborative problem solving involving multiple jurisdictions. Background Representatives from Orange County, Orange County Schools, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools met on September 18th and October 31St to discuss collaboration between their respective governing boards. These meetings grew out of earlier discussions about possible areas of collaboration, as outlined in a February 1St memorandum from the County Board Chair. The three governing bodies have agreed to work together with the assistance of the Institute of Government. Issues and Interests, Expectations and Concerns In these meetings participants identified a number of issues, interests, expectations, and concerns that both drive and restrain efforts to collaborate. These tended to fall into three major themes: (1) conflicting interests, values, attitudes, and beliefs; (2) commitment to collaboration and (3) potential benefits and outcomes. Conflicting Interests, Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs • Visible inequities in funding and opportunities are highlighted by rising expectations for educational opportunity and outcomes for students in both school districts. For example, the district tax by design creates inequity in per pupil local funding prescribed by state law for school operations budgets. • Simultaneous needs for new facilities and better use of existing facilities. • Reducing class size while also trying to squeeze what we can out of the capital budget. • We need to recognize our own legitimate self-interests and those of the other parties and then pursue common interests and common outcomes. • Values and deeply held beliefs may help or hinder collaboration based on the degree of consonance among the participating parties. DRAFT • There is a sense among the boards that they are individually responsible and accountable for issues such as students' access to opportunities, which makes the idea of collaboration difficult. • The school systems have obvious differences, but the differences may be perceived as being greater than they really are. • It's old news that there are differences -let's focus on commonalities. • That this is not a prelude to merger -that's not what this group is trying to resolve. • One participant has talked with a parent adamantly opposed to collaboration, almost as if they'll be contaminated. Commitment • Collaboration is hard work -what will it take to keep people at the table long enough to identify and act on real opportunities for collaboration? • It is easier to tinker around the edges of collaboration than to tackle really important issues. Achieving meaningful collaboration requires win-win outcomes for all participants. • Collaboration needs to be meaningful, not just something to say we're collaborating. False collaboration could lead to mistrust of boards by constituents. • The hope that something positive will come out of the process. • Considerable ambivalence about jumping into the process because of doubts that there will be a meaningful effort by all parties. Potential Benefits and Outcomes • We need to agree on the big picture outcomes for collaboration and to identify what we want to accomplish (e.g., creating greater educational opportunities) before deciding how to accomplish it (e.g., pursuing greater funding equity). • We need to establish short-term objectives and achieve some initial short-term progress yet keep in mind that collaboration is a long-term and ongoing process. • How do we measure success, what are the boundaries of this effort, and what are reasonable timeframes? • How might this effort contribute to student achievement? • That all students in county have access to same programs. • There should be measurable outcomes, such as student achievement, not just a political exercise. • Increase equitable educational opportunities that create a greater sense of partnership among the jurisdictions and lead to more efficient, cost effective, and better use of existing resources. DRAFT Collaboration offers opportunities to share services that may be too expensive to replicate, while also helping officials and citizens understand why it may be important to replicate some services. This effort should result in real partnerships that benefit all students and jurisdictions in terms of efficient use of resources and cost effectiveness, equitable educational opportunities, and a sense of "being in this together." Next Steps (March -August 2003) 1. Identify Participants and Schedule Initial Working Session • Participants must include board chairs and executives. Key folks will need to commit to participate. It's important that they be a part of conversations and discussions about values, beliefs, and goals. • We may want to consider including a second board member (e.g., vice chairs, past chairs, or an interested member) and some assistant or associate managers and superintendents. In addition to building a greater sense of shared purpose, the working group will benefit from having additional perspectives. • Timing is a factor. Board chairs and executives need to be in place. 2. Identify Interests, Barriers, Values, and Goals • Given the issues and interests identified above, the working group's first set of tasks should be to discuss their individual interests, define criteria for what successful collaboration looks like, describe what has worked well or not so well in previous collaborative efforts, and identify barriers to successful collaboration. • The working group can then identify the key values that reflect their interests in public education, and create shared goals for this initiative. 3. Develop Recommendations and Evaluation Criteria • Once this has been accomplished, the working group can use its goals and values to identify the outcomes they agree to work together to achieve. These will most likely be broad value-based goals. • The next steps involve identifying, or engaging additional staff in identifying, a set of specific recommendations that satisfy the values and goals agreed to by the working group. • The working group will also develop criteria or measures for evaluating the success or outcomes of these recommendations. 4. Engage Governing Boards and Administrative Officials • The respective governing bodies should be kept informed about the efforts and progress of the working group. • The working group should also coordinate with school administrators who are proceeding with the charge from their boards to move forward on collaboration. • Using its goals, values, and criteria for successful collaboration as a guide, the working group should jointly select specific recommendations and present these recommendations at a joint meeting of the respective boards. DRAFT • Based on feedback from each governing board, the working group will identify priority recommendations for implementation. 5. Implement and Evaluate Recommendations • The working group will oversee existing or new task forces responsible for implementing the final recommendations and evaluate how well implementation satisfied the goals and values. • The implementation task forces will engage other representatives and stakeholders as appropriate. Compensation for Professional Services Dr. Boyle will work with Orange County, Orange County Schools, and Chapel-Hill Carrboro Schools to carry out Steps 2, 3, and 4 as described above. He will work with the county and school systems on this project for a period of six months, from March 2003 through August 2003. Orange County agrees to pay the Institute of Government $20,000, which includes an estimated 20 - 25 days of dedicated time and administrative expenses such as copying, mailing, telephoning and local travel. The Institute of Government shall submit invoices to the county outlining compensation and reimbursement expenses pursuant to this memorandum of understanding. Contact information for the appropriate financial official is provided below. Invoices shall be paid within 30 days of receipt. The parties may modify, extend, or terminate this memorandum of understanding by mutual consent. Contact Information for County Financial Official Name: Title: Address: Telephone: Email: Authorizing Officials For Orange County: John M. Link, Manager Date For the School of Government: Michael R. Smith, Dean Date ~Q9r'r,'t ,~,,, ~..., PLANNING THE LOCATION OF SCHOOLS IN ORANGE COUNTY IN THE 21ST CENTURY The ongoing process to site a new high school in southern Orange County has been a source of concern and consternation for many months. To some degree the difficulties encountered are of our own making. To a large extent, however, these difficulties reflect fatal flaws in the statutory process by which North Carolina delegates the authority for siting schools. This is particularly true in an urbanizing area such as ours. We are fortunate in Orange County to have a good system of communication between the school boards and the Board of County Commissioners. Yet, despite good- faith attempts at mutual assistance, the dysfunctional aspects of the school siting process have become increasingly manifest. The most recent result is atime-consuming search that works to the detriment of the children we are all committed to serve, while potentially undermining other community goals related to sound land use, environmental sensitivity and honoring public decisionmaking processes. Once we have sited the new high school, we must change the way we do business. The importance of establishing a timely and predictable process for siting schools is made more acute by the pending adoption of a Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO). That ordinance requires a commitment from the county and school boards to provide facilities within a reasonable timeframe to meet enrollment demands generated by growing school populations. There is little leeway for delay. Yet, as we have seen with the current siting of a new high school, a decision may take more than a year as a school board grapples with issues of size and location related to the selection of a particular parcel upon which to locate a facility. Further complicating that process, North Carolina statutes invest the authority to site schools in boards of education that have neither the training nor the support staff to make these increasingly complex decisions. Thus we witness time spent on ultimately doomed consideration of changes to urban service boundaries that are the basis of carefully crafted, community-endorsed land use plans. Similarly misguided efforts have previously included discussion of locating schools in the rural buffer north of Chapel Hill. A lack of understanding of the ultimate land use goals embodied in municipal and county plans is further reflected in comments about building a rural high school in Carrboro's Northern Transition Area, targeted for intensive development, or in remarks that seem to anticipate waves of growth in downzoned areas of southern Chapel Hill. This disconnect is less a failure of individual or collective vision than it is a function of North Carolina's antiquated and compartmentalized method for siting schools that reflects the realities of a rural state that no longer exists. Certainly in our fast-growing county, this arrangement has proven ineffective. We have seen several developers interested in one property attempt to bribe and otherwise manipulate a school board. In another case, the search for a suitable parcel has largely failed to take into account public transportation resources -- negating a chance to teach our younger generation to embrace alternative modes of transit -- in pursuit of an outmoded auto-dependent model promulgated by the state. We pride ourselves in Orange County on our commitment to public education, the rigor of our land use planning and environmental protection, and our creative and collaborative approaches to problem-solving. Our Orange Water and Sewer Authority is perhaps unique in North Carolina in its structure, which provides a mechanism by which Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County may jointly plan, share and control water and sewer service within the framework of local land use regulations. The recently adopted Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement, which involves Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County, is another example of collective effort to key public resources to support defined land use goals. The Joint Planning Agreement between the county and the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro is yet another such partnership. The JPA created the rural buffer and placed voluntary limits on municipal powers of annexation. These powers are granted by state statute, yet were circumscribed in the interest of achieving a greater good -- the orderly and publicly organized growth of southern Orange County. That willingness to look beyond protecting institutional turf in order to achieve broader goals is at the basis of my proposal to restructure our method for siting schools. The time has come to look beyond old prerogatives to new realities. Given the importance of land use planning in our community, and given the heightened need for timely and orderly provision of educational facilities, I propose we direct county staff to develop a draft memorandum of understanding that would engage both school systems with the municipalities and the county in a comprehensive school siting process. Such a process, unlike current practice, would bring to bear the considerable planning and information resources of four jurisdictions. Planning entities could work in partnership with the boards of education, employing growth models and school population projections to identify specific parcels or areas best suited for siting schools in the coming decade. This approach would allow us to plan in a deliberate manner. Early involvement by those elected officials charged with land use decisions would be assured prior to taking proposals to the public for comment. We might then consider including in our next county bond package monies sufficient to purchase the necessary, identified sites, lending an element of surety that is currently lacking in our school planning process. The ultimate result would be an enhanced process that minimizes conflicts with land use goals and provides parents and taxpayers with the knowledge the siting of schools can be achieved in awell-conceived and expeditious manner. Barry Jacobs 3-3-3