Agenda - 12-11-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Remarks of Neil Pedersen, Asst. Superintendent, CHCCS to . the County Commissioners on December 11, 1991 Regarding the Upcoming Bond Referendum My name is Neil Pedersen. As the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services for the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools, I chaired the committees which developed our long -range facility master plan and the educational specifications for the proposed elementary and middle schools. Tonight I would like to speak to three issues: (1) the planning process which our district used to formulate its capital needs request; (2) cost and space estimates; and (3) the impact of different rates of growth in the two school districts on funding equity. I will begin with the planning process. The information provided to the School Capital Needs Advisory Committee is the product of a two -year planning effort. In 1990 a Long -Range Facilities Planning Committee was convened in anticipation of the severe overcrowding that the district was expected to face in the near future. It recommended that four new schools be constructed in our school district in order to meet the anticipated growth in student enrollment. The Long -Range Facility Plan for the Nineties was presented to our School Board in November of last year. As a result of this effort, funds were included in our Capital Improvement Plan to begin planning for the elementary and middle schools. We considered it imperative that substantiated cost estimates for each school be provided to the bond study committee based upon the program requirements of the facilities. Consequently, facility and educational planners were engaged to work with a broad -based committee of more than 50 members to develop educational specifications for these schools. Last summer this committee produced a 400 page document which our architects have translated into a schematic design. In light of time constraints, I will simply distribute to you some clarifying information concerning the second issue of space and cost estimates for our proposed schools. I contend that the reason our schools look different from those to which they are being compared is that teachers and other community representatives were integrally involved in their design from day one. The facilities are not elaborate. Instead, they are functional and have additional space for small and large group instruction, storage, professional work spaces, and exceptional education programs. They are designed to meet the educational challenges of the 21 st century, not simply to comply with minimum state standards. The Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District has not constructed a school in over twenty years. The last three which were built to accommodate the baby boom were seriously flawed due to unrealistic budgets. Hopefully, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past and attempt to force fit school designs into inadequate budgets. equity. I would now like to turn to the impact of student enrollment trends on funding The School Capital Needs Advisory Committee had difficulty reaching consensus, but the one clear conclusion which it drew was that the county needs four new schools to meet the demands of the student growth which has been projected by the state to occur through 1998 -99. Although both districts had other legitimate needs in the areas of technology and building renovations, most committee members concluded that the new schools must take priority over these other needs, especially in light of the fact that voters would be hard - pressed to support the funding required to construct these fours schools.