Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 23:47:05 -0400
From: Mia Munn <>
Subject: My notes from the October 6, 2014 school board meeting at Chatham Central.
Agenda with links
http://board-of-education.district.chatham.k12.nc.us/modules/groups/group_pages.phtml?gid=3618610&nid=463047&sessionid=dfd34d7b93fbc969c6839e23de9fd44a
There were five community members in attendance including the three school board candidates not yet on the board (Angela Millsaps, Jane Allen Wilson, myself). John Hunter from the Chatham Record was also at the meeting.
Jack Bennett Property
I got to the meeting a few minutes late. The discussion on the Jack Bennett property was underway. Dr. Jordan repeated concerns about the property as a site for a new high school that the board had expressed in the past: hard to grade, safety of the road, difficult septic. Booth Mountain Inc., which has the rights to the timber from the original deed for the property from 2001. They are interested in cutting the timber. Dr. Jordan said the board could declare the property surplus and offer it to the county to sell. The proceeds could then be used for a new school site or other capital needs.
Discussion:
Ms. Howard expressed concerns about the site. Dr. Jordan said he gets lots of questions about a new school and the effects of Chatham Park. There are lots of considerations – location, population trends, the need to maintain existing school quality. Ms. Howard said we can’t build before the population. Mr. Leonard repeated concerns about grading and site issues.
The board attorney said if the board decides the site is not suitable for a school, they can deed it to the county or sell it directly. Mr. Leonard asked if the county had bought the land originally so it would have to be deeded back. Dr. Jordan said it had to be offered to the county first. Ms. Turner expressed concern that if we can’t build a school, no one could use
the site so we wouldn’t be able to sell it. Mr. Leonard said that it isn’t an issue for smaller buildings, only for a large structure. There was some additional discussion that was hard to hear – though there are microphones and a speaker, some board members don’t speak into the mic or loud enough for the mic to pick it up. Mr. Leonard asked if a motion was needed.
Attorney said that consensus was enough to move forward with preparing an agreement, and pointed out the language in the sample agreement.
Revisions to Gifted Plan
Dr. Amanda Hartness and Milinda Martina discussed changes to the AIG plan. The state requires a plan every 3 years. This plan was adopted in May 2013, but as it has been implemented, additional changes were identified. The changes include tightening up the identification process to ensure greater consistency, adding a portfolio as a method of identification, and changes to the grievance process. At the last advisory board meeting, they recommended clarifications to help parents navigate the process. For the portfolio, everyone had different ideas. The AIG teachers met to
standardize what should be included at each grade level, so that everyone had similar activities to complete. In schools where less than 10% of the population is identified as AIG, they will continue to provide nurturing programs. The types of assessments that can be used to qualify as AIG were better defined. They must be administered by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, and the entire test, not just a subtest, must be submitted. The test must be administered within the past 2 years.
Discussion
Ms. Howard asked how non-English speaking students are evaluated. Ms. Martina said there was a test that was mostly non-verbal (I didn’t catch the name), they work with ESL teachers, and that a portfolio can be submitted in the student’s native language. Ms. Howard asked for clarification that this wouldn’t apply to portfolios that had already been submitted, and that was confirmed. She also asked if a student can be retested, and that was also confirmed.
The board approved the changes 4-0.
(Proposed AIG Changes
http://board-of-education.district.chatham.k12.nc.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/gwp/2394738/3618610/File/2014-2015%20Board%20Meeting%20Files/2014-10-06%20Board%20Meeting%20Files/Proposed%20AIG%20changes.pdf?786be4&b9c8a3&b9c8a3&sessionid=dfd34d7b93fbc969c6839e23de9fd44a
(AIG Index Plan Appendix
http://board-of-education.district.chatham.k12.nc.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/gwp/2394738/3618610/File/2014-2015%20Board%20Meeting%20Files/2014-10-06%20Board%20Meeting%20Files/AIG%20BOE%20Index%20Plan%20Appendix%20User.pdf?b9c8a3&b9c8a3&sessionid=dfd34d7b93fbc969c6839e23de9fd44a
(AIG Plan Appendix
http://board-of-education.district.chatham.k12.nc.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/gwp/2394738/3618610/File/2014-2015%20Board%20Meeting%20Files/2014-10-06%20Board%20Meeting%20Files/AIG%20Plan%20Appendix.pdf?b9c8a3&b9c8a3&sessionid=dfd34d7b93fbc969c6839e23de9fd44a
Special Transportation Services Contracts
There are slight changes to the transportation contracts approved in September, to make clear that T&L Transportation was the primary contract and Sister to Sister the secondary. The attorney said the changes were in section 2 on the Purpose.
Approved 4-0 (after this and the subsequent votes, Ms. Howard asked if there was any discussion on the item)
Contract for Joint Transportation Facility
Mr. Blice presented information on the bids for the transportation facility for the school district and the county. This is the first joint facility of its kind in the state, and they now no why because there have been some difficulties. He recommended Harrod & Associates, who had the lowest bid looking at the base bid plus the alternates. The attorney clarified that this goes hand in hand with the next agenda item, the agency agreement between the district and the county. The county owns the land and will own the building, but the school district will run the facility for both the county and the district.
Discussion
Ms. Howard asked what the alternates were for. Mr. Blice said you go into the bid process with a total dollar budget and identify parts that can bid separately, so they can make adjustments to ensure the project is within the budget. Mr. Hamm asked if this needed to be voted on after the Agency agreement. The attorney said that would make sense, of they could just add the word “approved†to the wording of the resolution. That was done. Since the county owns the facility, the resolution recommends that the county commissioners approve the Harrod and Assoc bid.
Approved 4-0
Joint Transportation Facility Inter-local Agreement
The original plan was for the county to own the land and the district to own the building. The attorneys determined that wasn’t allowed, so the county will own both. This agreement lays out the relationship between the county and the school district. The school district (Mr. Drumheller) will oversee the construction of the building, and then the district will manage the operations with the county paying for the maintenance/expenses for the county vehicles. The attorney said there may still need to be tweaks to the language at the county’s request. The district will have authority for change requests during construction up to $300K without having to go back to the county. The lease of the building is for as long as the school district needs it.
Discussion
Ms. Howard asked how the costs for the county will be accounted for. All of the employees will be school district employees. The county will pay for expenses monthly up front (so there won’t be cash flow issues). Ms. Turner asked if the school district will do the work on both district and county vehicles. Mr. Blice replied there will be dedicated employees working on the county vehicles. Costs for fuel, parts, etc. will be tracked. All of the employees will be managed by Mr. Caviness. When this was first proposed, the district discussed this with the Dept of Public Instruction and got their ok. Mr. Hamm commented that he sees sheriff’s deputies filling up at gas stations and wondered if they had discounts for fuel or if they paid retail. Mr. Blice didn’t know, but said with the school district’s buying power, fuel costs for the county will be lower.
The resolution was approved 4-0. Then the agreement was approved 4-0, pending minor changes necessary, to be made by the attorney and superintendent.
Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020
Mr. Blice presented the plan with 4 new items: Classroom Expansions, Dressing/Locker Rooms Renovations, New Central Services Building, Northwood Auditorium HVAC Replacement. It also moves the start of construction funding for the New High School from FY16 to FY17. The locker room renovations were originally just for the high schools. This adds the rest. Some will be more extensive than others. On the classroom expansion, the 800K is for 11 portable classroom units. They explored other options but this was the only viable one. The cost includes purchase, delivery, site work, utility hookups, aluminum porches and ramps, and has some money earmarked for an upgrade to sewer capacity at one school that they expect will be necessary in the permitting process. These 11 units provide 2-3 years of additional capacity while the district plans for the next school. The central service building will go on the heads up document to the county, with no timeline.
Discussion
Ms. Howard said she wasn’t thrilled with the idea of more mobiles – they had paid to remove a number of units two years ago. Her kids had never had a classroom in the building at North Chatham – not an ideal situation. Mr. Blice said they explored permanent additions, but that would take 2+ years before they could be used. Dr. Jordan said this is the best alternative while they get a handle on where the growth will be. Need to continue to work with Or/ED consultants so we don’t just bandaid the situation, but plan for the long-term. Mr. Blice said in the last 5 years, the district grew by 645 students. With Briar Chapel and Chatham Park, that number will increase significantly. Mr. Hamm pointed out that some schools aren’t full. Redistricting will have to be part of the discussion – inevitable. The new high school won’t just split Northwood. There needs to be adjustment across K-12. They need to work with the community, not how it was proposed a few
years ago. Ms. Howard said we also need to work on reconfiguration, and engage with the community. Dr. Jordan said the goal is that folks will be informed throughout the process, not “here is the proposal, let’s go†.
Ms. Howard asked about the new central services building, whether it would be on the same site. Dr. Jordan said he didn’t know – this is still early planning. Right now, the central office building has been split into smaller offices as much as possible, and not all staff can be housed in the building. With more growth in the district, central services will grow as well. Mr. Blice said they had done a facilities assessment. Dr. Jordan said that it showed safety issues in the current building that would cost $1.2M to remedy. Mr. Blice said they will do a feasibility study, the same as they did for the transportation facility, to see what is needed and where it might go. Dr. Jordan said there aren’t any buildings that could be converted.
Ms. Howard said we don’t know where the new high school will go. Mr.. Blice said it is in the county’s debt model already, and has been moved out a year at a time. This moves it out one more year. Continue until we can answer the location/size questions. Dr. Jordan said there will be ongoing discussions about the new high school.
Approved 4-0
Waiver of facilities fees
This brought some laughter – Mr. Leonard asked to look back in the minutes how many times this has been discussed in the past six months. He said they promised the board wouldn’t have to keep doing this. Dr. Jordan apologized in advance. Mr. Blice said at least they are bringing the waiver requests before the events, instead of retroactively.
Approved 4-0
Drivers Ed
Drivers Ed funding has come from the Highway funds. In FY15/16, that will be eliminated. Unfunded mandate – districts are still required to provide drivers ed for all students in the county. For three years, districts have been allowed to charge up to $55 for drivers ed. This year it is $65. Chatham has not charged (45 other districts also don’t charge). The district receives funding for each 9th grader in the county (including charters/ private/ homeschool). This year, $46K in additional local funds were needed to pay for the drivers ed program. Next year, if we charge $65,
the district would need at least $172K more to pay for the program. Dr. Jordan said they needed a sense of what the board wanted – to charge or not, to outsource the program or keep in the district.
Discussion
Mr. Hamm asked about pitfalls districts that have outsourced have faced. Dr. Jordan said the benefit is one less program to manage, but the downside is that the pay scale for the teachers wouldn’t be the same. The companies would recruit teachers outside of just the current drivers ed employees. Mr. Hamm asked if the classes would still be onsite at the high schools and
the answer was yes. Mr. Hamm asked if outsourcing would mean the district wouldn’t be responsible for the vehicles and maintenance. Dr. Jordan said it could be that way, or the district could supply the vehicles. Ms. Howard asked about the cost of outsourcing drivers ed. Dr. Jordan said they hadn’t had those conversations. Generally, the district would say what they could
afford, and the contractors would say what they would provide for that. It would go through an RFP process. Ms. Howard was concerned about the cost – some students couldn’t afford it. Dr. Jordan said the fee could be flexible for students on free or reduced lunch. The attorney said the contract would set the fee but the board could adopt policy to assist FRL students. Ms.
Howard asked if they could charge students not in district schools a different price. Dr. Jordan said that would be a recordkeeping issue. Ms. Turner asked if we outsourced, what would happen to the current drivers ed employees. Dr. Jordan said the contract could request or direct that the current employees be hired, but that they couldn’t set the rate of pay, which would likely be less than the state salary scale. In the current year, drivers ed teachers who aren’t certified teachers did get a pay increase. Our district has veteran instructors. Mr. Hamm asked about students outside of the district – where do they take drivers ed, and is it at the smaller schools. Mr. Messer said they go to whatever school they contact to get on the list for the class. Where they go isn’t managed centrally. Mr. Hamm asked whether all students take drivers ed at school. Dr. Jordan said no, some go to private driving schools because of the wait time to get into a class. He said one of our instructors retired last year, and we were fortunate to hire an instructor with experience. Mr. Leonard said WRAL has been focusing on student accidents in Raleigh. There is speculation that there could be a groundswell to request the legislature to restore this funding (before or after implemented next year). He also expressed concern about the loss of control – with outside group using the schools. Dr. Jordan said the classes are usually 3-6pm. Usually but not always school employees on site. He said any contractor would have to comply with policies and rules. A drivers ed teacher commented to him last year that this is the only class where a student could die because of how it was taught. Ms. Howard said she would like to see what a contract would look like. Ms. Turner said drivers ed is now taught in house by the district and she likes it that way. Dr. Jordan said that the funding is eliminated next year so we would need to find an additional $100K or more.
Supplemental retirement option vendor
Districts are required to maintain an approved vendor list for employee benefits like optional retirement programs. Currently there is a 403b plan. This would add a 457b plan option.
Approved 4-0
Moved to closed session, 6:30 pm.
Mia Munn
Candidate for Chatham County (NC) School Board District 3
Email me your school or campaign concerns at Mia4Chatham at gmail.com
My campaign website is Mia4chatham.com