August 23, 2006 Meeting Summary

Meeting Summary
Barwell Road Elementary, 4:30-7:30 p.m.

Highlights
1. Review of Committee Work Plan
2. School District Comparisons: Project Scope & Cost Comparison Template
3. Tour of Barwell Road Elementary & Overview of WCPSS Education Program

Welcome
The Citizens’ Facilities Advisory Committee (CFAC) co-chair, John Mabe, opened the meeting and welcomed back committee members. Mr. Mabe reviewed the agenda with committee members. He also reminded members that the committee’s web site was online and could be found at www.wakegov.com/cfac. Committee members were informed that a meeting summary for July 26, 2006, and answers to questions raised at that meeting were included in committee member packets.

Committee Work Plan
Mr. Mabe then led a discussion of the committee work plan with the committee. In discussing the committee work plan, he stated that the chairs of the CFAC and staff met to develop a draft committee work plan. The CFAC work plan calls for meetings September 26, October 24, November 28, December 19 and January 22. Mr. Mabe also indicated that another meeting might be called between these dates. The meetings will cover planning assumptions, the school design process, school construction, organization, process, and delivery, and construction oversight. Later meetings will cover private public partnerships, municipal partnerships, and real estate services and site selection. An interim report from the committee’s consultant will be delivered on October 24 and the final report on school district comparisons will be presented January 22, 2006.

During the discussion of the committee work plan, Rob Weaver suggested touring another school district. He suggested Johnston County because of recent comparisons between Johnston because they are building new schools at a different cost. The committee asked Don Haydon, Chief Facilities and Operations Officer at Wake County Public Schools and one of the staff members to the committee to set up a tour of a Johnston County school. The committee stated that preferably the tour would occur before the next CFAC meeting scheduled September 26, 2006, possibly the week of September 11 or September 18, 2006. The committee also discussed a tour in October.

School District Comparisons
Johnna Rogers, Wake County Budget and Management Services Director, and Don Haydon then reviewed the proposed project scope and cost comparison template for comparing building programs and costs amongst various districts within North Carolina and selected comparable districts outside of North Carolina.

Ms. Rogers reviewed with the committee the purpose of school district comparisons. This purpose is to look at programmatic elements, construction costs, and site development and site size, with an emphasis on an “apples to apples” comparison.

Ms. Rogers reviewed with the committee the school districts that were chosen for comparisons. Counties outside of North Carolina include: Travis County (Austin), Texas, Clark County (Las Vegas), Nev., Fairfax County (Washington, D.C., suburb), Va., Gwinnett County (Atlanta suburb), Ga., and Orange County (Orlando), Fla. Counties within North Carolina include Forsyth, Guilford, Johnston and Mecklenburg. Ms. Rogers proposed to the committee adding Travis County, Texas, instead of Montgomery County, Md., because of the suggestion to add Travis County at the July 26 CFAC meeting and because the D.C. suburbs are represented by Fairfax County. The committee consultant clarified that Austin Independent would be the Austin, Texas, school system used for comparison. The committee also asked for the growth rate of the last five years and the next five years for these school systems. It also asked that the percent of students in year-round calendars be added to the template. The committee also requested that inflation factors for capital budgeting be collected.

Don Haydon then walked through the proposed data template for comparisons. Mr. Haydon said that the district wide planning assumptions template was developed to help get the big picture from other school systems about what they are planning and building. Mr. Haydon stated that it would not be mailed; instead information will be gleaned from interviews and from taking notes so various nuances would be revealed. It addresses grades served, class size ratios, school size and capacity, site size, prototypical designs, maintenance, renovation triggers, soft costs, environmental standards and capital project budgeting.

Mr. Haydon clarified that the comparisons would be for the current model, and not for the average of the district.

In reviewing the template, the committee raised questions about the use of mobile/modular units, and wondered if that was to get an understanding about the number of mobiles or the number of modulars. Mr. Haydon stated that this is an overall term that WCPSS uses for temporary seats. Carolyn Staskiewicz, Vice President of Operations at DeJong, one of the committee consultants, stated that various school systems use a multitude of different terms to describe mobiles, modulars, etc. The committee decided to ask about the use of temporary seats.

During the discussion of maintenance questions on the template, Glenn Blackley asked that the questions be further refined so that an “apples to apples” comparison could be made. He asked to define maintenance and to define square footage. He also asked to include a question about the current replacement value of the portfolio, questions about energy costs both projected and actual. Mr. Blackley stated this type of information helps compare efficiencies of the Physical Plant.

The committee also asked to clarify the question about technology. It was changed to ask about the replacement cycle for classroom technology. Terry Stoops asked that the survey also included some brief questions about whether there were state regulations or state requirements that school districts had to adhere to in their building programs. This is to clarify which systems have more flexibility than others.

The committee also asked to look at whether the school system was looking at non- traditional facilities and whether the system worked with municipalities and well as the private sector in non-traditional partnerships.

Ms. Rogers then introduced the next template, which aimed to normalize construction data from comparison districts. Ms. Rogers explained that it includes regional factors and date of construction factors. This information would allow an “apples to apples” comparison by applying other district costs to a template or a concepts school modeled after WCPSS standards.

Rob Kelley, from Summit Consulting, a subconsultant to DeJong, explained that the individual school data collection form would be used to collect information on recently constructed schools and analyzing construction costs. Mr. Kelley explained that this is for the direct costs for school construction. He also explained that by going through spec sheets and change orders, he would be able to provide information or back-up to the numbers presented on the individual school data collection form. This would allow one to tell life-cycle requirements like the HVAC system and whether the school was cheaper because of cheaper materials. Mr. Kelley also explained that furniture is also included because sometimes the cost of the building appears to be cheaper, but that is because furniture was not included in the contract.

Through discussion, the committee changed the building component system notes to ask about the building envelope, doors and windows together, and to add a question about interior wall systems.
The committee also requested information on off-site development costs and who bore requirements for those off-site costs.

The committee also asked information on land costs, with the understanding that it would be interested in seeing the data even if it is not fully comparable because it adds to the cost of the school. The committee also requested that information be collected about suitable soils.
The committee also asked about whether contractors were union or not. It also requested that photographs be submitted with the report.

The committee was reminded that an interim report would be presented at its October meeting.

Tour of Barwell Road Elementary School
The committee then went for a tour of Barwell Road Elementary school. During this tour, the committee learned that the school was designed for a capacity 800 students, and has a capacity of 1,002 students on a year-round calendar. It has 46 teaching spaces. Barwell Road elementary opened July 10, 2006, on a year-round calendar. As of August 15, 2006, its enrollment was 766 students.
Barwell Road Elementary was constructed using Plan 2000 start-up funds and Plan 2004 building funds for a total budget of $17,416,018. The City of Raleigh contributed $7,755,173 for community center and partial site development.

Barnhill Contracting was the single prime general contractor for the project. It is the third reuse of the building design.

During the tour of the facility, the committee toured the media center, the administrative space, the special education self-contained classrooms, the HVAC system room, kindergarten and first grade classrooms, and wings for second and third graders. The committee also looked at playfields and the cafeteria. The committee did not see the gymnasium because of current construction by the City of Raleigh on the space that will be jointly used by the City of Raleigh and WCPSS.

Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. It was announced that the next Facilities Advisory Committee would be September 26, 2006, at Panther Creek High School.