2003 Minutes

MINUTES OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 1:00 P.M. N O R T H C A R O L I N A MECKLENBURG COUNTY The Board of Commissioners of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, met in Special Session in Conference Center Room 267 of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE Present: Chairman Tom Cox, Commissioners Dumont Clarke, H. Parks Helms, Bill James Norman A. Mitchell, Sr., Jim Puckett Dan Ramirez, Ruth Samuelson and Valerie Woodard County Manager Harry L. Jones, Sr. County Attorney Marvin A. Bethune Clerk to the Board Janice S. Paige Absent: None ____________________ Commissioners Ramirez and Woodard were absent when the meeting was called to order and until noted in the minutes. The purpose of the meeting was to receive a report from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) regarding their Five-Year Capital Needs and to conduct program reviews and assessments of County services. Note: No formal action was taken by the Board. General discussion was held on each agenda topic. Below are highlights of the discussion. It is not inclusive of every comment and/or question asked but reflects key points and requested follow-up. (1) CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS CAPITAL NEEDS Discussion Highlights Wilhelmenia Rembert, Chairman of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Dr. James Pughsley, Superintendent of Schools, and Guy Chamberlain with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools addressed the Board regarding CMS capital needs. Mr. Chamberlain was the main presenter. Commissioner Ramirez entered the meeting during Mr. Chamberlain’s remarks. The report addressed the following topics: • Approved projects under construction • Approved projects not started • Two (2) new proposed high schools (COPS) • Approved design only projects • CIP projects • Capacity & Enrollment • Projected bond expenditures It was noted that the first three years of the 03 Capital Needs Assessment includes the following: Facility Operational Needs 1 • Lifecycle repair and/or replacement of plumbing, roofing, pavement, sitework and HVAC systems at 22 existing schools • Track rebuilding and stadium renovations • Legal mandate compliance (asbestos removal, etc.) • Initiatives that include surveillance and fire alarm upgrades at 48 schools Baseline Standard Needs • Full baseline standards projects at 13 schools 7 of the 13 schools will begin designs with 02 bonds 7 of the 13 schools provide required additional capacity Growth Needs • Additions to 11 existing schools including 4 overcrowded high schools • Construction funding for 2 new elementary schools and design and construction funding for 2 additional new elementary schools • Additional funding to increase capacity a 1 new middle school • Construction funding for 2 new high schools • Land acquisition for an additional elementary school site not described in the Long Range Masterplan, sites for 2 Pre-K centers, and property for a north middle school Also, the unfunded capital projects in the first three years of the 02 request are still needed. A copy of the report is on file with the Clerk to the Board. Comments Commissioner Samuelson asked for a definition of a “full equity project.” Commissioner Mitchell expressed concern for overcrowding and the use of mobile units. He noted that he could not support the building of new schools when there were schools that were underutilized. Dr. Pughsley stated that the Board of Education and staff were in the process of reviewing the Choice Plan in order to see if something could be done in regards to the mechanics to bring about some refinement of the plan. He said that hopefully this would allow them to address some of the “under capacity”, although not necessarily in total. Commissioner Samuelson referenced the “capacity without mobile units” information and asked whether or not that capacity assumes build out based on the information provided to the Board or was it capacity without any changes to the information the Board currently has? Mr. Chamberlain stated that what it meant was that in 03 the permanent seats that currently exist was 95,000. Commissioner Samuelson asked whether or not in 08 this would be the number of permanent seats if build out were to occur based on the information provided to the Board. The response was yes. Commissioner Clarke referenced the Projected Bond Expenditure information for currently funded/ proposed COP’s/construction funding of design only projects on page 13 of the report. He noted that the information states that the total need for 03 is $151 million. He asked when does the 03 period begin and ends? Mr. Chamberlain stated that these were annual expenditures based on the calendar year, January 1, 2003 – December 31, 2003. Mr. Chamberlain noted that the $151 million that’s shown in the report may not exactly coincide with what was sold by the County because it includes some 1996 funds and 1999 COP’s, therefore the exact amount of cash may not match what Finance Director Weatherly sells. Commissioner Clarke noted and requested clarification that based on the report the requested amount for a January 04 bond sale was $164 million. 2 Mr. Chamberlain stated that this was correct, that the $164 million includes 10 million in COP’s, a little of 1996 funds and 1999 COP’s. He noted also that it was his understanding that Finance Director Weatherly has recommended $144 million, which the Schools agree with and feels is adequate. Commissioner Clarke asked if the $144 million was net of a proposed or COP’s sale for a high school? Finance Director Weatherly stated that this was correct. Mr. Chamberlain stated that the cash flow amounts shown do not include the next phase of equity projects, which together would be about $100 million over probably three years. Commissioner Helms asked if the Board were to agree on the 5-year Plan as outlined by the Board of Education, what would be the overall impact on the equity projects that are either committed, started or in process, would there be delays? The response was no, not if funded at the levels outlined. Board of Education Member Kindberg asked Mr. Chamberlain to comment on the number of additional mobiles that would be needed if the Plan had to be spread out over 18 years instead of 10. Mr. Chamberlain responded that it would be around 800 more additional units, above the 600. Board of Education Member Kindberg addressed capacity levels based on a recent analysis. She noted that with mobiles district-wide that Elementary schools were at 92% utilization, Middle schools 90%, and High schools 103%. She said that without mobile units the percentages would be 98% for Elementary schools, 105% for Middle, and 119% for High schools. Commissioner James referenced the information concerning past bond allocations. He noted the amounts that had been spent on inter-city schools and on suburban areas. He asked for information on how the projected bond expenditure numbers break out by geography and in terms of 0-5, 5-10 and 10-20. Commissioner James stated that his interest was in how future bond allocations will be spent. Commissioner Woodard entered the meeting at this time. Commissioner Puckett asked that student population figures be included in the break out by geography that was requested by Commissioner James. Commissioner James asked for clarification regarding the Schools Facilities Master Plan whether it was still a draft and subject to change. Mr. Chamberlain responded, yes. Commissioner James stated that the issue for him was not that there were some under capacity schools in some areas, but rather about the growth on the “outer edge” of the County. He does not want to return to busing, which means more schools need to be built further out or students will end up in mobile units or on a bus. Mr. Chamberlain stated that there were plans to build schools further out, in the northern and southern parts of the County. Board of Education Chairman Rembert expressed concern for inferences made regarding busing. She noted that the Board of Education has not made any decisions and were in the process of reviewing its Student Assignment Plan in an attempt to make modifications to accommodate the 3 needs of children across the district. She noted that in Mecklenburg County “we are still playing catch up”, which was why the Schools were faced with the challenges it has today. She stated that “we are still trying to renovate and replace facilities that have not been fit for educating children for many years.” She noted that the Board of County Commissioners have been very generous in trying to rectify this situation. She stated that the goals should be bringing schools up to educational standards wherever they are in the County. Secondly, to create opportunities for addressing the rapid growth that is being experienced. She said the goal is not to exclude any group but to address the needs of all. Chairman Rembert also commented on the PRAG Report. She stated that what stood out to her in the report was the recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners try to balance fiscal flexibility and infrastructure investment. She stated that schools were an infrastructure investment. She also referenced the four sources for dealing with debt service. The County may raise revenue or delay debt. She referenced the 14%-16% debt service to expenditure ratio. Setting a maximum debt ratio. She posed to the Board the question of whether or not the Board would consider some of those other factors that are relative to future bond sales to address the needs of schools; to continue the progress that is being made, the current building that is underway and still address the need for growth. She stated that she would not the want the County to do as it has been done in other communities, to place a moratorium on development until they can catch up with school construction.

Load more