Consolidation Plan - Complete

7/31/2019 Consolidation Plan - Complete

1/140

Burke County Board of Education March 21, 2011

Burke County Public Schools

Five Year District Plan for FacilitiesAnd

2011 Recommended Consolidations


2/140

Consolidation Plan March, 2011 Page 1

CONSOLIDATION PLAN

Introduction

Summary Savings

Consolidation Savings Chart

Five Year District Plan and 2011 Recommended Consolidationso Chesterfield/Forest Hill to Walter Johnson

Walter Johnson students to Heritage Middle, Liberty Middle, Table Rock Middleo Rutherford College to Valdese and Ray Childerso Icard to Hildebran, Ray Childers and George Hildebrando Hallyburton Academy to Draughn and Create a Career-Technical Vocational Education

Center at Draughn over the next three years

o Glen Alpine to W.A. Young and Oak HillAppendices

o Declining Enrollmento Proposed Consolidation Elementary Enrollment Projectionso Capacity Comparisonso Actual Consolidation Savings from 2010-2011o Per Pupil Expenditure per location from 2009-2010o Five Year Projected Facility Renovation Costo County Comparisons Enrollmento County Comparisons Facilitieso County Comparisons Elementary School Achievemento County Comparisons Average Student Ride Time


3/140

Consolidation Plan

INTRODUCTION

Budget

The Recession of 2008 is still impacting the Federal, state, and local economies. The Burke County Public

School district is not immune from the pressures of a downward economy, particularly since the funding

comes from the government at each of these levels.

What started as BCPS budget assumptions are now turning into the following facts:

No new money from the Federal level

Less funds from the state and more state expenses shifted to BCPS for a projected cumulative

approximate loss of 10 percent of state funding.

Therefore, the current budget deficit is $12,000,000 with a projected range of between 11 and

13 million dollars.

Board approved cuts of approximately $800,000 towards the deficit.Funding from Burke County Commissioners is still unknown.

Whatever budget planning is done for 2011-2012 and the future has to be sustainable. As BCPS

moves forward, all expenses must be identified with every process in the system under review for

continuous improvement. The most critical factor is that ongoing program/staff expenditures have

to have clear and equal ongoing revenue sources (eliminate Robbing from Peter to pay Paul).

Consolidation of buildings is one proven method for reducing overhead and costs. Closing a school

saves at least $500,000 which can help resolve some of the financial problem both short and long

term. Burke County saved more than that amount for 2010-2011 with the consolidations.

Declining Enrollment

Burke County Public Schools have experienced a student enrollment decline of 1,201 students since

2003 and is projected to lose another 1,069 students by 2016 for a total loss of 2,270 students from

2003-2016. The September enrollment for this school year was 13,418. The enrollment dropped

140 students including mid-year graduations by the fifth month. The difference between the

average daily membership for the fifth and sixth month of the 2010-2011 school year shows Burke

County Public Schools lost another 71 students.

Burke County Public Schools projects a 2011-2012 student enrollment of 13,169 students and North

Carolina Department of Instruction projects a 2011-2012 student enrollment of 13,115 students.

Both Burke County Public Schools and the North Carolina Department of Instruction project a steady

decline in Burke Countys student enrollment for the next five school years. North Carolina

Department of Instruction projects a decline of enrollment for the next ten years with a projected

Average Daily Membership of 11,862 students in the 2020-2021 school year.


4/140

When enrollment declines in any school district, fewer buildings are needed and consolidation

becomes necessary.

Consolidation

Small schools are less cost effective than larger schools. The per pupil expenditure among Burke

County elementary schools ranges from $5,104 to $8,627. For example, in 2009-2010 Chesterfield

(221 students) cost $7,201 per pupil to operate with Rutherford College (214 students) at $6,615

with Salem (566 students) at $5,805 per pupil cost. Likewise, the per pupil expenditure at middle

schools ranges from $4,759 to $5,759. Consolidations would equalize the per pupil expenditures.

The capacity of existing buildings has been determined by Cort Architectural Group. Overall, the

current student enrollment is using only 75 percent of the available capacity throughout the district.

Capacity figures are on the low side to permit more flexibility (so schools can go over 100%). In

addition, portables are not included in capacity figures. As enrollment declines further, the capacity

usage will fall further. Consolidations will facilitate a higher use of the capacity or the building space

which is being heated, cleaned and otherwise maintained. All capacity figures have been validated

by onsite inspections and the use of every classroom and other space. Using these capacity

calculations some schools have been at one time at 200% or more of these capacity formulas.

Process

The study done by Evergreen Solutions in 2010 supported and encouraged school consolidation.

Several schools, programs, and offices have since been consolidated. Further analysis by BCPS staff

and suggestions from stakeholders indicated that a larger consolidation plan would be appropriate.

The state required five year facilities renovation plan, completed in January 2011, further amplifies

the need for consolidations since the cost came to approximately $28 milliona prohibitive figure.

Too many old and small school buildings are operating which require extensive maintenance and

renovations. With school consolidations, a significant amount of the $28 million would be avoided.

The Board of Education has been advised since the beginning of 2010 about the need for

consolidations. The Board of Education voted in favor of the consolidations in 2010. The Board of

Education also agreed via consensus at a fall 2010 board meeting to hold on the consolidation of the

central office(s). The Board of Education and Burke County Commissioners approved the five-year

facility renovations plan this year. The Board of Education was informed in January of the

employment of Cort to assist with the consolidation plan. A formal Board and community

presentation on possible consolidation options was made by Cort on Monday, February 21, 2011.Board members have attended some of the meetings in the communities with parents. The Board

of Education will hold a hearing to address consolidation. The Board has been discussing severe

fiscal/budgeting matters over the last couple of years and is aware of the financial problems.

The superintendent and various other staff members have gone to every school impacted to meet

with the principals, the school leadership team, faculties, and the public/parents. There have been


5/140

makeup meetings for anyone unable to attend. Approximately, ten to fourteen hours have been

spent in each school listening to staff and stakeholders.

This five year facilities plan and the five year facilities renovation plan should be folded into the

districts five year strategic plan.

The districts website has contained the various reports on declining enrollment, consolidation

options, and finances.


6/140

Summary

The recommendations which follow will save $3,365,885 in the operating budget every year from now

on, and save $173,842 annually in the food service operating budget for a total savings of $3,539,726.

This consolidation plan will save $3,365,885 (annually) toward the 2011-2012 $12 million deficit or over

one-fourth of the total deficit can be resolved via school consolidations. This consolidation plan will also

create more cost effective food service programs at consolidated schools.

In addition, there will be a five year savings in renovation costs of $5,031,618 and another $318,965

five-year savings for food service capital expenses for a total savings of $5,350,583.

The total savings over a five-year period for this consolidation plan is $16,829,424 in annual operating

expenses and another $869,208 in the food service operations for a grand total savings of $17,689,632.

With the five-year savings from renovations and equipment needs of $5,350,583 on top of the

operations savings of $17,698,632 that comes to a five year grand total savings of $23,049,215.


7/140


8/140

FIVE YEAR DISTRICT PLAN FOR DECLINING ENROLLMENT AND FINANCIAL

EXIGENCY CRISIS

The consolidation recommendations are as follows:

1. Consolidation of Chesterfield Elementary and Forest Hill Elementary withinthe current Walter Johnson Middle School building as the recommendedschool siteto be renamed the Walter Johnson Elementary School.

2. Consolidation of Walter Johnson Middle School into Liberty Middle School,Table Rock Middle School and Heritage Middle School - the reassignment ofthe Walter Johnson students (and staff) to the abovementioned middleschools.

3. Consolidation of Rutherford College into Valdese Elementary and RayChilders Elementary with redistrict and transfersthe reassignment ofRutherford College students (and staff) into the abovementioned elementaryschools.

o Additional Recommendation OptionConsolidation of RutherfordCollege into Valdese Elementary with Valdese Elementary as therecommended school site.

4. Consolidation of Icard Elementary into Hildebran Elementary and RayChilders Elementary with redistrict and transfersthe reassignment of Icardstudents (and staff) into Hildebran Elementary and Ray Childers Elementary

with some students beginning assigned to George Hildebrand Elementary.

o Additional Recommendation OptionConsolidation of IcardElementary into Hildebran Elementary School with HildebranElementary as the recommended school site.

5. Consolidation of Hallyburton Academy into Draughn High School withDraughn High School as the recommended school site.

6. Gradual additions of Vocational/Career Technical programs to Draughn HighSchool to create a specialized center.

7. Consolidation of Glen Alpine Elementary into W.A. Young Elementary andOak Hill Elementary with redistrict and transfersreassignment of GlenAlpine students (and staff) into the abovementioned elementary schools.


9/140

The savings from the consolidations would be up to $3.5 million plus any revenue fromleasing and/or selling of property from consolidations. The total savings from theconsolidations would be approximately $23.2 million.These consolidations represent the best alternative for students as well as parents,stakeholders and others in the general public.

The remaining long term recommendations for the five year plan are as follows:

1. 2012-2013 District Plan Recommendation (Decisions in 2011-2012)a. Consider recommendations for consolidation in the western part of the

county.

b. Formulate an ideal district student assignment pattern by geographicarea and with consistent feeder patterns

c. Begin annual redistricting/reassignments as conditions allow2. 2013-2014 District Plan Recommendation

a.

Consider school consolidation options for 2013-2014b. Conduct feasibility study for consolidation of elementary/middle

schools in east and west parts of the county (may not be necessary

depending upon actions in spring, 2011)

3. 2014-2015 District Plan Recommendationa. Act on 2013-2014 feasibility study as appropriateb. Determine whether or not to continue the evolution of Draughn into a

career technical/ vocation school or a middle school (See c)

c. Review enrollment for possible further consolidations of middleschools, conversion of a middle to an elementary school and/or

conversion of Draughn High School into a middle school4. 2015-2016 District Plan Recommendation

a. Act on feasibility studies or review of data as appropriateb. Review high school enrollment for possible action depending upon

other prior decisions

c. Update the five year plan


10/140

Consolidation of Chesterfield and Forest Hill Elementary Schoolsinto Walter Johnson Middle School

Background:

The highest enrollment for the district was in 2003 with an ADM of 14,479. Due to a

variety of factors, BCPS is now at 13,278 students, over 20% less than anticipated.In the last three years the BCPS budget has been cut by the highest amount in over 60years.

The average age of BCPS elementary schools is 40 years; smallest schools average over50 years old. Chesterfield Elementary was built in 1935 and Forest Hill Elementary wasbuilt in 1958.

The report to the Burke County Commission by Evergreen Solutions recommendedconsolidation of schools.

The comprehensive study by Cort Architectural Group regarding Burke Countyspopulation trend, facility capacity and other factors related to the anticipated decrease inschool enrollment led to recommending consolidation of schools.

Pros:

Financialcost savings for county and school system, to meet budget shortfall.

Better quality of instructionfocusing more resources at the combined school.

Increased opportunities for grants and other financial support. Also, more availability ofschool grade level ability grouping.

Collaborationmore grade levels with more teachers in a grade level; facilitates theprovisions of appropriate grade level ability grouping.

More student opportunitiesdaycare, clubs, recreation center

More student opportunities for athletic enhancement.

Opportunity to provide enhanced school safety and security.

Opportunity to increase equity in technology among elementary and middle schools.

Opportunity to plan for long range facility improvements for a stable school population.

Opportunity to reduce liability of renovation costs.

Meets NCDPI and State Board of Education efficiency standard for elementary schools(450-700 students)reasonable cost per student elementary schools.

Decreases the number of mobile units used for instruction in BCPS.

Increases capacity usage at the middle schools.

Better traffic flow for safety of the students at both Chesterfield and Forest Hill.

Cons:

Initial one-time relocation expense of furniture, materials, etc.Inconvenience of some students no longer able to walk to school.

Inconvenience of increased ride time for some students on school buses.

Inconvenience or hardship or recreating social arrangements resulting from thereassignment of current students (counseling to be provided).

Hardship related to the process of change from the status quo for BCPS.


11/140

Significant factors for Consolidation:

Chesterfield:

Excess capacity is currently more prominent at the elementary level.

Logistical location to Walter Johnson Middle School.

Disproportionate class sizes as compared to the rest of the district.Chesterfield is at 58% capacity.

The Average Yearly Membership in 2003 was 307, the current ADM is 231 and theprojected ADM for the 2014-15 school year is 192. The projected capacity for the 2014-15 school year is 51%, hence the building would be half empty.

Consolidation into Walter Johnson with Forest Hill would continue the socioeconomicand social balance/diversity of the two elementary schools as required by the U.S. Officeof Civil Rights.

Walter Johnson is currently equipped with a sprinkler system.

Chesterfield was built in 1935 and will require $500,576.00 for renovations within thenext 5 years.

Walter Johnson is a modern facility that could provide enhanced educationalopportunities with the utilization of the auditorium, two gymnasiums and science labs.

Forest Hill


Logistical location to Walter Johnson Middle School.

Forest Hill is at 111% capacity.

Forest Hill currently has 6 portables on campus.

Consolidation into Walter Johnson with Forest Hill would continue the socioeconomicand social balance/diversity of the two elementary schools as required by the U.S. Officeof Civil Rights.

Walter Johnson is currently equipped with a sprinkler system.

Forest Hill was built in 1958 and will require $1,285,897.00 for renovations within thenext 5 years.

Walter Johnson is a modern facility that could provide enhanced educationalopportunities with the utilization of the auditorium, two gymnasiums and science labs.

School Building Changes at Walter Johnson Middle School:1. Change some urinals.2. Change some water fountains.3. Replace some furniture with those from the elementary schools.


12/140

Estimated Savings:

Chesterfield Elementary

1. Staff: $463,735.001 Principal3 Teacher Positions1 Counselor1 Media Position2 Custodial Positions2 Office Support

2. Utilities $40,736.003. Other $69,368.00

Telephone

GarbageCustodial SuppliesProperty InsuranceProportionate share of:

Maintenance Salaries and ContractsMaintenance TravelRepair Parts

4. Food Services $23,126.00

Annual Total: $596,965.00

Next 5 Years Renovation Costs: $500,576.00

Next 5 Years Food Service Capital Needs: $76,000.00

5 Year Total Savings: $3,561,401.00


13/140

Forest Hill Elementary

1. Staff: $455,984.001 Principal3 Teacher Positions

1 Counselor1 Media Position2 Custodial Positions2 Office Support

2. Utilities $57,761.003. Other $86,346.00

TelephoneGarbageCustodial Supplies

Property InsuranceProportionate share of:Maintenance Salaries and ContractsMaintenance TravelRepair Parts

4. Food Services $44,216.00

Annual Total: $644,307.00

Next 5 Years Renovation Costs: $1,285,897.00



Complete Consolidation Totals for Chesterfield and Rutherford College:

1 Year Consolidation Total: $1,241,272.00

Yearly Additional Food Service Operational Cost at WJM ($12,000.00)

Next 5 Years Renovation: $1,786,473.00




14/140

Page1 of23/7/11

BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

PROPOSED WALTER JOHNSON MIDDLE SCHOOL CONVERSION

March 7, 2011

The attached drawings illustrate one possible scheme for converting the 800-student Walter Johnson Middle School into a 600-800-student Elementary School.Other schemes are possible. Any scheme must address the following issues:

Kindergarten Classrooms:Kindergarten rooms typically have in internal single toilet room but this is notrequired. In Walter Johnson Middle School the group toilets are located at thecenter of each classroom wing which minimizes travel distance from classrooms totoilets.

Ideally, according to DPI standards, Kindergarten classrooms with the maximumdaily average of 21 students should have 1,200 square feet floor area 57 s.f. perstudent. The classrooms in Walter Johnson Middle school are 850 square feet.This condition can be addressed in one of several different ways:

Reduce average Kindergarten class size to 15 students (850 s.f. 57s.f./student = 14.9).

Provide an opening in the wall between the 850 s.f. classrooms.

Disregard the ideal classroom size. The Kindergarten classrooms in manyBurke County schools are not significantly larger than 850 s.f.

The toilets may need to be replaced in the accessible stalls of the Kindergarten

wing group toilets to conform to the maximum allowable seat height. This wouldinvolve replacing three toilets, and because these are wall mounted toilets, work inaddition to changing toilet fixtures is required. However, the current accessibilitycode calls for a seat height in childrens environments ranging from 11 to 17 inches.The as-built drawings for Walter Johnson Middle School call for a seat height of 17inches. The seat height must be field verified and final determination of the requiredheight will be made by the local building officials.

Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms:Pre-Kindergarten classrooms must meet the DPI area requirements forKindergarten rooms. The toilet height is 12 which is not practical in a group toiletused by older children. The attached drawings show the two existing Workforce

Labs converted into Pre-Kindergarten rooms with the addition of a single accessibletoilet room in each. In addition to having the required floor area, these roomscurrently have sinks, ovens and counters. One of the rooms has refrigerators and awasher and dryer. These factors are desirable (though not required) for Pre-Kclassrooms. There are also 12 parking spaces existing at the end of the currentWork Force wing which will be convenient for parent drop-off and pick-up.


15/140

Proposed Walter Johnson Middle School Conversion

Page2of23/7/11

Computer Labs:DPI standards call for one 850 s.f. Computer Lab in Elementary schools. WalterJohnson Middle School currently has three computer labs with fixed, custom-built

computer tables two Labs are located in the Work Force wing and one near thejunction of the Classroom wings. Burke County Public Schools usually provides twoComputer Laboratories per school. The attached drawing shows one of the WorkForce Computer Labs converted into a 5th grade classroom. We believe that thiscould be done by simply removing the computers and having the older students usethe built-in tables as their student desks. In the alternative, both of the Work ForceWing Computer Labs could be retained and that 5 th grade class moved to thecurrent health classroom located in the Physical Education wing. The disadvantageof this scheme is having one isolated 5th grade classroom.

Science Labs:Walter Johnson Middle School currently has one science lab in each wing. These

rooms have specialized built-in science casework with chemical resistant sinks andplumbing located in specially designed floor trenches. Converting these labs intoregular classrooms would result in some cost. Conversion of all three ScienceLaboratories to classrooms results in a school capacity of 800 students. If less than800 students is desired, one Laboratory could be retained for a general schoolScience Laboratory.

Art Rooms:Walter Johnson Middle School currently has two Art Rooms. One is shown as beingused as a fifth grade classroom. The other Art Room could be used as a third Pre-Kclassroom if art were moved to an existing Science Laboratory.

Note on School Capacity:The attached Elementary School Capacity Worksheet is an NCDPI Excel documentthat performs the necessary calculations as the numbers are filled in. Thus theeight Kindergarten rooms shown on the attached scheme are automaticallyassigned 21 students. The total shown of 126 Kindergarten students may go downdepending on how Burke County Schools chooses to treat these 850 sq. ft.Kindergarten rooms.

The Capacity Worksheet shows zero students for the Pre-K classrooms, althoughunder the attached scheme the two Pre-K rooms will accommodate 36 students. Ifthese students are included in the total, this would increase the calculated capacityto 800 students.

Walter Johnson Middle School can be arranged to accommodate the anticipatedenrollment of 600 - 800 elementary school students with minimal expense.


16/140


17/140


18/140

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITY WORKSHEET

School Name: Walter Johnson School Code: 390Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

K-5

Optimal

Capacity

Capacity Generating Spaces:

Kindergarten classrooms: 6 X 21 = 126

First Grade Classrooms 6 X 21 = 126

Second Grade Classrooms 6 X 21 = 126

Third Grade Classrooms 6 X 21 = 126

Fourth Grade Classrooms 5 X 26 = 130

Fifth grade classrooms: 5 X 26 = 130

Self-contained exceptional children clrms: 1 X 10 = 10

Non-Capacity Spaces:

Pre-K classrooms: 2 X 0 = 0

Art classrooms: 1 X 0 = 0

Music classrooms: 1 X 0 = 0

(not a T.S.) Resource (Pull-Out) classrooms: 4 X 0 = 0

PE/Dance/Drama/Multi-purpose rooms: 1 X 0 = 0

Science/Project/Computer rooms: 2 X 0 = 0

TOTAL 42 774

MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY WORKSHEET

School Name: School Code:

Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

6-8

Optimal

Capacity


Sixth - Eighth grade classrooms: X 26 =(Language Arts, Social Studies, Math or Science Only)

Self-contained exceptional children clrms: X 10 =

Non-Capacity Spaces:Art classrooms: X 0 = 0

Band/Music classrooms: X 0 = 0

(not a T.S.) Resource (Pull-Out) classrooms: X 0 = 0

PE/Gym/Health/Multi-purpose rooms: X 0 = 0

Pre-vocational classrooms/labs: X 0 = 0

Dance/Drama Classrooms X 0 = 0

Computer/Project rooms: X 0 = 0

TOTAL

School Capacity is an approximation. These worksheets reflect only one method of calculation

and assume that all needed support and core spaces are present and of adequate size and number

to support the population of the school.

Walter Johnson Capacity Worksheets.xls 3/7/2011


19/140


20/140

March 4, 2011

TO: Dr. Art Stellar

SuperintendentBurke County Public SchoolsPO Box 989Morganton, NC 28655

FROM: Mr. John E. Cort, AIA

PresidentCort Architectural Group PA239 Haywood StreetAsheville, NC 28801

RE: Consolidation ofChesterfield Elementary SchoolForest Hill Elementary School

Dear Dr. Stellar:

The Burke County Public Schools Board of Education is considering school closing for

Chesterfield Elementary School and Forest Hill Elementary School. Attached isdocumentation on

1) Evaluation of the facilities and2) Capacity of the facilities for useful pupil capacity as determined by Division of

School Planning recommendations.

General Statute 115c-518, Disposition of School Property, provides that when in theopinion of the local Board of Education, the use of any building or site is unnecessaryfor Public School purposes, the local Board of Education may dispose of such.

Cort Architectural Group PA has conducted a thorough study dated February 17, 2011,

of the useful pupil capacity of all school facilities by staff formula methods and hasdetermined that at least four Elementary School facilities within the Burke CountyPublic Schools System are unnecessary for the purpose of accommodating the 5-yearprojected pupil population of the system.

Cort Architectural Group PA has made a thorough study of the increase or decrease inschool enrolment for closing or consolidating schools within the district and we haveprovided eight school system organization concepts for the Board of Education tochoose from for the purpose of considering geographic locations, increase or decreasein school enrolments and options to pupils to be affected by such closings orconsolidation so that the decisions made will keep in mind principally the welfare of thestudents affected by the closing or consolidation.

Following is documentation on:1) Evaluation of the facilities (Chesterfield) and (Forest Hill)2) Capacity of facilities (Chesterfield) and (Forest Hill).

Should you have any question on these evaluations and capacities, do not hesitate to call.


21/140

Cort Architectural Group PAPage 1 of 33/4/11

FACILITY EVALUATION

CHESTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL2141 PAX AVENUE

March 4, 2011

Site Area:

9.85 Acres

Total Building Area:

43,811 SF

Dates of Construction:

1935 3 classrooms @ 630 SFMedia Center @ 2,450 SF

1950 3 classrooms @ 1,025 SF1 classroom @ 550 SF

1956 2 classrooms @ 750 SF

1991 Gymnasium and Cafeteria


Total classroom size spaces 22 which includes resource and support spaces.

Observations:

Wheelchair access not current Code compliance

Exterior masonry in need of repair

Toilets do not comply with current Accessibility Code.

Basement classrooms not accessible.

Wood floor and roof structure main building.

Mechanical heating system boilers and radiators:

o No automatic ventilation air in majority of building.o No individual control of room temperature.

Electrical panels require upgrades

Plumbing water system is galvanized steel pipe.

Sewer system disposal is on site filter bed.

Toilet fixtures in original building antiquated.

Kitchen grease trap not current Code compliant.


22/140

Facility EvaluationChesterfield Elementary School Continued


A) The Architects have examined Chesterfield Elementary School.Observations are as set forth above.

B) The physical condition of the facility is good considering the main

building is now 75 years old with wood floor and roof structures. BurkeCounty Public Schools does an exceptional job of maintaining theirfacilities.

C) The useful life of a public school building shell and structure is generallyregarded as 60 to 80 years. The State Construction Office lists theeconomic life of building components as:

Component Economic Life (yrs)

Substructure 30 (masonry, 20 (wood)

Superstructure 30 (masonry, 20 (wood)

Exterior Closure 30 (masonry, 20 (wood or metal)

Roofing Shingles 12-20

built-up 17single-ply 20

Interior Construction 10

MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTION

Air Conditioners Through the-wall 15

Heat Pumps

Commercial air-to-air 15

Commercial water-to-air 19

Roof-top air conditioners 15

Boilers Cast Iron 25

Furnaces Gas or oil-fired 18

Unit heaters Hot water or steam 20

VAV boxes 20Fans Ventilating roof-mounted 20

Coils DX, water, or steam 20

Reciprocating compressors 20

Package chillers 20

Cooling towers 20

Air-cooled condensers 20

Pumps 15

Controls 15

Piping, Ductwork, Insulation 25

ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION

Electric motors 18

Electric transformers 30


23/140

Facility EvaluationChesterfield Elementary School Continued


D) Maintenance issues and current Building Code compliance issues arestated under observations above. The useful life span of PlumbingSystems, Mechanical Systems and Electrical Systems is much less than

that of the building shell. Building Code requirements change every threeyears. Any school building is 100% Building Code compliant only duringthe year of construction and issuance of a Certificate of Compliance bythe Building Official. After 75 years of Building Code changes non-compliance is widespread.

E) Education Program:

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Division of SchoolPlanning August 2010 Facility Guidelinesprovide recommended areasfor elementary school classrooms as follows:

Grades Net Square FootagePre-K 1,200 1,400K 1,2001-3 1,000 1,2004-5 850 1,000Art 1,000 1,400Media Center 2,400 + 1,200 supportComputer 850Administration 1,230Guidance 450

When comparing existing classroom sizes to the August 2010 NCDPI

Facility Guidelinesit is apparent that if the youngest pupils are housed inthe largest classrooms first, none of the existing classrooms meet currentstate guidelines for classroom size.

Chesterfield Elementary School is programmatically deficient in meetingState Facility Guideline recommendations.

Respectfully submitted,

Cort Architectural Group PA

John E. Cort, AIAPresident


24/140


25/140

Chesterfield

Elementary

School

2141 Pax Hill

Road


Teaching Tomorrow's Leaders Today

January 2011

Observations

Main Building

CR

630 SF

Media

Center

2450 SF

CR

Basement

Office

Basement

Storage

Boiler

CR

630 SF

CR

630 SF

CR

630 SF

CR

630 SF

CR

630 SFCR

630 SF

CR1025 SF

CR550 SF

CR465 SF

1998

1935

1935

1950

304-01

CR

900 SF

CR

900 SF

CR

900 SFCR

900 SF

CR

900 SF

CR

900 SF

CR

900 SF

CR

900 SF

CR

Computer area

Computer Lab

Conference/OfficeEC Self Contained

Office (Guidance)

Resource Reading

MusicESL

Speech

Resource Science

Daycare

Storage

Mobiles

1 Pre-KClassroom

14 K-5Classrooms

1 EC S/C

1 Music

3 Resource

2 Science/Computer


26/140

Chesterfield

Elementary

School

2141 Pax Hill

Road



January 2011

Observations

Annex

Cafeteria

1730 SF

Gymnasium

3400 SF

CR

750 SF

CR

750 SF

1991 1956 304-02304-05

Pre-K


27/140

TYPICAL SPACE PROFILE

10/6/2004

Number of students*

Core capacity

Special Education (S/C)

Dance/Drama classrooms

Pre-kindergarten clrms.Core Classrooms (K-5)

Other Teaching Stations

No. sq.ft. No. sq.ft. No. sq.ft. No. sq.ft. No. sq.ft.

Elementary (PK-5) Classrooms

Pre-K Classrooms @ 1200s.f. 1 1,200 1 1,200 2 2,400 2 2,400 3 3,600

Kindergarten Clrms @ 1200s.f. 3 3,600 4 4,800 5 6,000 6 7,200 6 7,200

Grade 1 Clrms @ 1000s.f. 2 2,000 3 3,000 5 5,000 5 5,000 6 6,000

Grade 2-3 Clrms @ 1000s.f. 5 5,000 7 7,000 9 9,000 11 11,000 12 12,000

Grade 4-5 Clrms @ 850s.f. 4 3,400 6 5,100 8 6,800 9 7,650 10 8,500

Resource roomss @ 450s.f. 2 900 4 1,800 5 2,250 6 2,700 7 3,150

Exceptional S/C @ 1200s.f. 1 1,200 1 1,200 1 1,200 2 2,400 2 2,400

Arts/Computer ClassroomsArt (w/150 sf stor/kiln) 1 1,350 1 1,350 1 1,350 1 1,350Music 1 1,000 1 1,000 1 1,000 1 1,000Dance/Drama 1 1,800Computer Clrms @ 850s.f. 1 850 1 850 1 850 1 850 1 850Art/Project room 1 1,000

classrooms total area 19,150 27,300 35,850 41,550 47,850

Media CenterMedia RLV (sf/student & total sf) 6.00 1,800 4.86 2,914 4.48 3,133 4.10 3,276 4.00 3,680

Support spaces 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,500

sub-total 3,000 4,114 4,333 4,776 5,180

Food Service

Dining (no. of servings) 2.3 1,800 3 2,800 3 3,267 3 3,733 3 4,293

Kitchen 1,261 1,518 1,938 1,938 2,208

Serving (serving lines) 1 400 2 620 2 620 2 620 2 620

sub-total 3,461 4,938 5,825 6,291 7,121

Physical Education

Multipurpose 1 3,600 1 3,600 1 4,000 1 4,400 1 4,880

Stage 600 600 600 600 850

Storage/Office 450 450 450 450 600

sub-total 4,650 4,650 5,050 5,450 6,330

Administration,Misc.

Principal 200 200 200 200 200Assistant Principal @150 1 150 1 150 2 300 2 300

Secretary/reception 300 400 400 400 400

Secretary 1 150 1 150 1 150 2 300 2 300

Sims 120 120 120 120 120

Health 120 200 200 200 200

Office work room 190 230 240 250 270

Conference 200 200 200 250 250

Records 90 130 140 150 170

Office storage 90 130 140 150 170

Guidance room 300 300 300 300 300

Office/testing @ 150 1 150 2 300 2 300 3 450 3 450

Other student services 150 150 150 200 200

Teacher workroom 300 450 450 600 600

Teacher lounge(s) 300 450 450 600 600

Itinerant teacher offices 2 200 3 300 4 400 4 400 5 500

Book storage 650 800 850 900 960

General storage & receiving 750 900 950 1,000 1,060

sub-total 4,260 5,560 5,790 6,770 7,050

Total Net Sq. Ft. 34,521 46,562 56,848 64,837 73,531

Circulation, toilets & Mech. @ 37.0% 12,773 17,228 21,034 23,990 27,206

GRAND TOTAL (sq.ft.) 47,294 63,790 77,882 88,827 100,737

Total Capacity (K-5+Pre-K+S/C) 342 478 653 752 838

Sq.Ft./Student (incl. Pre-K+S/C) 138 133 119 118 120

Students/class K: 21 Students/class 2-3 21

Students/class Grade 1: 21 Students/class 4-5: 26

*"Number of students" includes K-5 and special education (S/C) students only, not Pre-K.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PK-5

"Typical Space Profiles" are examples of possible school space programs that apply the NC Public Schools Facilities Guidelines. Profiles are not

standards or mandates.

5

2

1

334

4

700

800

4

1

227

2

231

3

450

600

1

120

4

1

114

300

300

600

700

800

920

School Planning, NCDPI Elementary School PK-5 1

Chesterfield Spaces


28/140


School Name: Chesterfield School Code: 304Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

K-5

Optimal

Capacity











Art classrooms: X 0 = 0



PE/Dance/Drama/Multi-purpose rooms: X 0 = 0


TOTAL 19 324



Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

6-8

Optimal

Capacity











TOTAL




Chesterfield Capacity Worksheets.xls 3/3/2011


29/140

March 4, 2011

TO: Dr. Art Stellar




RE: Consolidation ofChesterfield Elementary SchoolForest Hill Elementary School

Dear Dr. Stellar:

The Burke County Public Schools Board of Education is considering school closing for

Chesterfield Elementary School and Forest Hill Elementary School. Attached isdocumentation on




Cort Architectural Group PA has conducted a thorough study dated February 17, 2011,

of the useful pupil capacity of all school facilities by staff formula methods and hasdetermined that at least four Elementary School facilities within the Burke CountyPublic Schools System are unnecessary for the purpose of accommodating the 5-yearprojected pupil population of the system.

Cort Architectural Group PA has made a thorough study of the increase or decrease inschool enrolment for closing or consolidating schools within the district and we haveprovided eight school system organization concepts for the Board of Education tochoose from for the purpose of considering geographic locations, increase or decreasein school enrolments and options to pupils to be affected by such closings orconsolidation so that the decisions made will keep in mind principally the welfare of thestudents affected by the closing or consolidation.

Following is documentation on:1) Evaluation of the facilities (Chesterfield) and (Forest Hill)2) Capacity of facilities (Chesterfield) and (Forest Hill).



30/140


FACILITY EVALUATION

FOREST HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL304 ANN AVENUE

March 4, 2011

Site Area:

17.25 Acres


51,600 SF


1958 8 classrooms @ 928 SF8 classrooms @ 812 SF

1 classrooms @ 1,030 SFGymnasium and Cafeteria

1964 2 classrooms @ 928 SF2 classroom @ 812 SF

1992 1 classrooms @ 930 SFMedia Center @ 1,600 SF


Observations:

Site access for parent drop off and school buses deficient

Toilets do not comply with current Accessibility Code. Toilet fixtures are antiquated.

Lower floor of building not wheelchair accessible.

Steps in corridors not Code compliant.



Steel piping is below slab on gradenot serviceable.

Temperature control problems with split system cooling.

Electrical distribution panels are antiquated.

No backflow preventer for domestic water system for boiler connection.

Water piping is galvanized steel.

Kitchen grease trap not Code compliant

Kitchen waste has drainage problems.


31/140

Facility EvaluationForest Hill Elementary School Continued


A) The Architects have examined Forest Hill Elementary School.Observations are as set forth above.

B) The physical condition of the facility is good considering the main

building is now 53 years old. Burke County Public Schools does anexceptional job of maintaining their facilities.

C) The useful life of a public school building shell and structure is generallyregarded as 60 to 80 years. The State Construction Office lists theeconomic life of building components as:






built-up 17

single-ply 20Interior Construction 10


Air Conditioners Through the-wall 15

Heat Pumps







VAV boxes 20

Fans Ventilating roof-mounted 20Coils DX, water, or steam 20


Package chillers 20

Cooling towers 20


Pumps 15

Controls 15



Electric motors 18



32/140

Facility EvaluationForest Hill Elementary School Continued









Forest Hill Elementary School is programmatically deficient in meetingState Facility Guideline recommendations.





33/140


34/140

Forest Hill

Elementary

School

304 Ann Street



January 2011

Observations

Main Building 316-01

Basement

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

CR928 SF

Kitchen

Dining

2325 SF

Media

Center

1600SF

Gymatorium

3085 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

CR812 SF

Basement

Basement

Boiler

1992 1958

1964 1958

1964 1958

1992 1958

930 SF 1030 SF

Resource: ESL

Resource:

Reading

Resource

Computer

Computer

Resource:

Reading

Music

Resource:AG

PreKRe-

source:

EC

EC Self

Contained

CR

CR

Re-

source:

EC

1 Pre-KClassroom

18 K-5Classrooms

0 EC S/C

1 Music

3 Resource

5 Science/Compute


35/140


10/6/2004

Number of students*

Core capacity









Grade 1 Clrms @ 1000s.f. 2 2,000 3 3,000 5 5,000 5 5,000 6 6,000

Grade 2-3 Clrms @ 1000s.f. 5 5,000 7 7,000 9 9,000 11 11,000 12 12,000

Grade 4-5 Clrms @ 850s.f. 4 3,400 6 5,100 8 6,800 9 7,650 10 8,500






Support spaces 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,500

sub-total 3,000 4,114 4,333 4,776 5,180

Food Service


Kitchen 1,261 1,518 1,938 1,938 2,208


sub-total 3,461 4,938 5,825 6,291 7,121

Physical Education

Multipurpose 1 3,600 1 3,600 1 4,000 1 4,400 1 4,880

Stage 600 600 600 600 850

Storage/Office 450 450 450 450 600

sub-total 4,650 4,650 5,050 5,450 6,330




Secretary 1 150 1 150 1 150 2 300 2 300

Sims 120 120 120 120 120

Health 120 200 200 200 200

Office work room 190 230 240 250 270

Conference 200 200 200 250 250

Records 90 130 140 150 170

Office storage 90 130 140 150 170

Guidance room 300 300 300 300 300

Office/testing @ 150 1 150 2 300 2 300 3 450 3 450



Teacher lounge(s) 300 450 450 600 600


Book storage 650 800 850 900 960


sub-total 4,260 5,560 5,790 6,770 7,050

Total Net Sq. Ft. 34,521 46,562 56,848 64,837 73,531


GRAND TOTAL (sq.ft.) 47,294 63,790 77,882 88,827 100,737









5

2

1

334

4

700

800

4

1

227

2

231

3

450

600

1

120

4

1

114

300

300

600

700

800

920


18

Forest Hill Spaces

4

5

36


36/140


School Name: Forest Hill School Code: 316Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

K-5

Optimal

Capacity
















TOTAL 22 403



Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

6-8

Optimal

Capacity











TOTAL




Forest Hill Capacity Worksheets.xls 3/3/2011


37/140

School Name Total(304) Chesterfield 231

(316) Forest Hill 442

School Name Totalota s or new a ter

Johnson Elementary

School 673

Capacity 800

Usage without Pre-K 673

Percentage Usage 84.13%

Capacity 800

Usage with Pre-K (2 Pre-K

classrooms at 18 students

each) 709


Consolidation of Chesterfield and Forest Hill Elementary

Schools into Walter Johnson

Projected Enrollment at WJES

Current Enrollment



38/140

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian

Pacific Asian Hispanic Black White

Multi-

Racial Total Male Female Total

04) Chesterfield 1 - 10 29 26 152 12 231 113 118 231

Current %'s 0.43% 0.00% 4.33% 12.55% 11.26% 65.80% 5.19% 100.00% 48.92% 51.08% 100.00%

6) Forest Hill 2 1 14 135 36 225 29 442 222 220 442

Current %'s 0.45% 0.23% 3.17% 30.54% 8.14% 50.90% 6.56% 100.00% 50.23% 49.77% 100.00%

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian


Multi-


tals for new

alter Johnson

ementary School 3 1 24 164 62 377 41 673 335 338 673

rcentages 0.45% 0.15% 3.58% 24.44% 9.24% 56.03% 6.11% 100.00% 49.79% 50.24% 100.03%

rrent Free and Reduced Lunch

School Name F&R

04) Chesterfield 82.38

16) Forest Hill 50.76

ojected Free and Reduced Lunch

alter Johnson 61.51%

Projected Ethnicity Projected Gender

Consolidation of Chesterfield and Forest Hill Elementary Schools into Walter Johnson

Current Gender


Based on 2010-2011 Month 5 Ethnicity Numbers

Current Ethnicity


39/140

Forest WalterChesterfield Hill Johnson Total

Sq. Ft. 41,315 47,280 118,478 207,073

Mobiles 1,728 5,184 6,912

Total Sq. Ft. 43,043 52,464 118,478 213,985

ADM ('10/'11) 231 442 475 1,148

Electricity 27,480 38,049 - 65,529

Nat. Gas/Oil 12,536 12,906 - 25,442Water/Sewer 720 6,806 - 7,526

Energy Costs 40,736 57,761 - 98,497

$ per Sq. Ft. 0.95 1.10 0.46

Principal 73,451 64,800 138,251

Bookeeper 40,688 40,500 81,188

Media 66,245 56,700 122,945

Data Manager 29,253 28,350 57,603

Counselor 45,819 48,600 94,419

Other Salaries 141,750 137,700 137,700 417,150

Maint. Salaries 37,230 45,378 82,608

Maint. Contract 5,331 6,498 11,829

Garbage 3,540 4,315 7,855

Maint. Travel 175 213 388

Telephone 1,022 1,246 2,268

Custodial Salaries 66,529 79,334 145,863

Custodial Supplies 5,500 8,500 14,000Repair Parts 11,257 13,721 24,978

Property Insurance 5,313 6,475 11,788Extracurricular Supp. - - 17,586 17,586

Total 573,839 600,091 155,286 1,329,216

Next 5 years facilities 500,576 1,285,897 - 1,786,473

Per Pupil Expenditure 7,201 5,579 5,660

BCPS

Consolidation Savings

2010/2011


40/140

Consolidation of Walter Johnson Middle School

into Liberty, Table Rock and Heritage Middle Schools

Background:

The highest enrollment for the district was in 2003 with an ADM of 14,479. Due to a

variety of factors, BCPS is now at 13,278 students, over 20% less than anticipated.In the last three years the BCPS budget has been cut by the highest amount in over 60years.

The average age of BCPS elementary schools is 40 years; smallest schools average over50 years old.

The report to the Burke County Commission by Evergreen Solutions recommended

consolidation of schools.

The comprehensive study by Cort Architectural Group regarding Burke Countys

population trend, facility capacity and other factors related to the anticipated decrease inschool enrollment led to recommending consolidation of schools.

Pros:Financialcost savings for county and school system, to meet budget shortfall.


Increases capacity usage at the middle schools.

Improves middle school to high school transition problems.

Improves socioeconomic and social balance/diversity at three middle schools and highschools.

Increases the possibility to provide direct feeder patterns from the middle schools to thehigh schools.

Greater opportunity to share staff and resources between schools.

Cons:

Increasing subgroups for state testing at the receiving schools.


Inconvenience or hardship or recreating social arrangements resulting from the

reassignment of current students (counseling to be provided).

Hardship of redistricting the impacted area.


Excess capacity is currently more prominent at the elementary level and there existscapacity concerns as well in the middle schools which will become worse in the future.

Logistical location to Chesterfield and Forest Hill.Walter Johnson is at 56% capacity with a possible student capacity of 800.

The average yearly ADM in 2004 was 540, the current ADM is 475 and the projectedADM for 2014-15 school years is 484. The projected capacity for the school year 2014-

15 is 61%. In 2014-15, it is projected that the ADM for three elementary schools will be

as large or larger than Walter Johnson.


41/140

The abovementioned receiving middle schools current capacities do not exceed 80% andafter the proposed consolidation would not exceed the available capacity.

No School Building Changes Anticipated

Estimated Savings Created in the Consolidation of the Elementary Schools


42/140

School Name Total(334) Heritage Middle 642

(350) Liberty Middle 648

(376) Table Rock Middle 598

School Name Total

New Totals for Heritage

Middle School 744

Capacity 800


School Name Total

New Totals for Liberty

Middle School 822

Capacity 884


School Name Total

New Totals for Table

Rock Middle School 796

Capacity 800


**133 from WJMS (plus

rising sixth graders)

Reassignment of Walter Johnson middle school students

into HMS, LMS, and TRMS

Projected Enrollment at HMS

Current Enrollment


Projected Enrollment at LMS

Projected Enrollment at TRMS






43/140

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian


Multi-


34) Heritage Middle 2 1 53 29 23 507 27 642 325 317 64

Current %'s 0.31% 0.16% 8.26% 4.52% 3.58% 78.97% 4.21% 100.00% 50.62% 49.38% 100.00%

50) Liberty Middle 2 0 23 46 13 542 22 648 319 329 64

Current %'s 0.31% 0.00% 3.55% 7.10% 2.01% 83.64% 3.40% 100.00% 49.23% 50.77% 100.00%

76) Table Rock Middle 1 2 48 25 78 412 32 598 324 274 59

Current %'s 0.17% 0.33% 8.03% 4.18% 13.04% 68.90% 5.35% 100.00% 54.18% 45.82% 100.00%

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian


Multi-

Racial Total Male Female Totalew Totals for Heritage Middle

hool 2 1 54 44 30 582 31 744 374 370 744

rcentages 0.27% 0.13% 7.26% 5.91% 4.03% 78.23% 4.17% 100.00% 50.27% 49.73% 100.00

ew Totals for Liberty Middle School 2 0 26 80 29 654 31 822 447 375 822rcentages 0.24% 0.00% 3.16% 9.73% 3.53% 79.56% 3.77% 100.00% 54.38% 45.62% 100.00

ew Totals for Table Rock Middle

hool 1 2 51 45 95 571 41 806 433 363 796

rcentages 0.12% 0.25% 6.33% 5.58% 11.79% 70.84% 5.09% 100.00% 54.40% 45.60% 100.00


Consolidation of Walter Johnson into HMS, LMS, and TRMS

Current Gender



Current Ethnicity


44/140


School Name F&R

34) Heritage Middle 53.57

50) Liberty 48.45

76) Table Rock 65.89

90) Walter R. Johnson 67.16

ojected Free and Reduced LunchSchool Name F&R

34) Heritage Middle 54.51

50) Liberty 51.36

76) Table Rock 66.10


45/140

Consolidation of Rutherford College Elementaryinto Valdese and Ray Childers Elementary Schools

Background:

The highest enrollment for the district was in 2003 with an ADM of 14,479. Due to avariety of factors, BCPS is now at 13,278 students, over 20% less than anticipated.

In the last three years the BCPS budget has been cut by the highest amount in over 60years.

The average age of BCPS elementary schools is 40 years; smallest schools average over50 years old. Rutherford College was built in 1929 and is the oldest elementary school inthe district.

The report to the Burke County Commission by Evergreen Solutions recommendedconsolidation of schools.

The comprehensive study by Cort Architectural Group regarding Burke Countys

population trend, facility capacity and other factors related to the anticipated decrease inschool enrollment led to recommending consolidation of schools.

Pros:

Financialcost savings for county and school system, to meet budget shortfall.Better quality of instructionfocusing more resources at the combined school.

Increased opportunities for grants and other financial support. Also, more availability ofschool grade level ability grouping.


More student opportunitiesdaycare, clubs, recreation center.


Opportunity to increase equity in technology among elementary schools.



Meets NCDPI and State Board of Education efficiency standard for elementary schools(450-700 students)reasonable cost per student elementary schools.

Cons:

Inconvenience of some students not being able to walk to school.



Hardship of redistricting the impacted area.




Logistical location to Valdese and Ray Childers Elementary schools.

Disproportionate class sizes as oppose to the rest of the district.

Rutherford College is at 78% capacity but can only accommodate 280 students.


46/140

The Average Yearly ADM in 2003 was 258, the current ADM is 218 and the projectedADM for the 2014-15 school year is 196. The projected capacity for the 2014-15 schoolyear is 70%.

Consolidation of Rutherford College into Valdese and Ray Childers would not disrupt thecurrent socioeconomic and social balance/diversity of either school.

Valdese Elementary is currently at 79% capacity and Ray Childers is at 70% capacity.Rutherford College was built in 1929 and is the oldest elementary school in the district.The school will require $1,026,937.00 for renovations within the next 5 years.

No School Building Changes Anticipated


47/140

Estimated Savings:1. Staff: $455,497.00

1 Principal3 Teacher Positions1 Counselor

1 Media Position2 Custodial Positions2 Office Support

2. Utilities $42,982.003. Other $61,119.00

TelephoneGarbageCustodial SuppliesProperty Insurance

Proportionate share of:Maintenance Salaries and ContractsMaintenance TravelRepair Parts

4. Food Services $26,700.00Annual Total: $586,298.00

Next 5 Years Renovation Costs: $1,026,937.00




48/140

- Additional Recommendation OptionConsolidation of Rutherford College Elementary into Valdese Elementary

Pros:

Financialcost savings for county and school system, to meet budget shortfall.

Better quality of instructionfocusing more resources at the combined school.Increased opportunities for grants and other financial support. Also, more availability ofschool grade level ability grouping.


More student opportunitiesdaycare, clubs, recreation center.


Opportunity to increase equity in technology among elementary schools.



Meets NCDPI and State Board of Education efficiency standard for elementary schools

(450-700 students)reasonable cost per student elementary schools.

Cons:

Possible initial building expensepossible adding more classrooms/mobile units.

Impact on lunch service.

Limited parking.

Inconvenience of some students not being able to walk to school.






Logistical location to Valdese.

Disproportionate class sizes as oppose to the rest of the district.

Rutherford College is at 78% capacity but can only accommodate 280 students.

The Average Yearly ADM in 2003 was 258, the current ADM is 218 and the projectedADM for the 2014-15 school year is 196. The projected capacity for the 2014-15 schoolyear is 70%.

Consolidation into Valdese would not disrupt the current socioeconomic and social

balance/diversity of school.Valdese Elementary is currently at 79% capacity.

Rutherford College was built in 1929 and is the oldest elementary school in the district.The school will require $1,026,937.00 for renovations within the next 5 years.

School Building Changes:1. Classroom Spacetwo portables initially to be phased out2. Assess staff parking, traffic pattern


49/140

3. Assess lunch serviceEstimated Savings Same as Previous Recommendation


50/140

March 9, 2011

TO: Dr. Art Stellar




RE: Consolidation of Schools

Dear Dr. Stellar:

The Burke County Public Schools Board of Education is considering school closing ofat least four Elementary Schools and other schools. Closing or consolidation to addressfacility overcapacity is considered to be more cost effective than additions or new

construction. Attached is documentation on




Cort Architectural Group PA has conducted a thorough study dated February 17, 2011,of the useful pupil capacity of all school facilities by staff formula methods and has

determined that at least four Elementary School facilities within the Burke CountyPublic Schools System are unnecessary for the purpose of accommodating the 5-yearprojected pupil population of the system.

Cort Architectural Group PA has made a thorough study of the increase or decrease inschool enrolment for closing or consolidating schools within the district and we haveprovided eight school system organization concepts for the Board of Education tochoose from. Issues considered in school closings are inconvenience of change forsome students; increased transportation time for some students but in proportion tosystem-wide transportation times; and geographic location of schools. Otherconsiderations are the increase or decrease in school enrolments and options to pupilsto be affected by such closings or consolidation so that the decisions made will keep inmind principally the welfare of the students affected by the closing or consolidation.

Following is documentation on:1) Evaluation of the facilities (Icard, Rutherford College and Glen Alpine).2) Capacity of facilities (Icard, Rutherford College and Glen Alpine).



51/140

FACILITY EVALUATION

RUTHERFORD COLLEGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL170 HONEYCUTT STREET

March 8, 2011

Site Area:

14.69 Acres


36,620 SF


1929 6 classrooms @ 670 SFMedia Center

1950 4 classrooms @ 670 SFDining Room and Kitchen




Mobile Classrooms:

2 used for Resource Rooms

1 used for Storage

1 used for Pre-K

1 used for Music

1 used for ESL

Observations:

Wheelchair access not current Code compliance

Exterior masonry in need of repair

Toilets do not comply with current Accessibility Code.

Basement Cafeteria not accessible.

Wood floor and roof structure main building.



Electrical panels require upgradeswiring needs replacement



52/140

Facility EvaluationRutherford College Elementary School Continued

Plumbing water system is galvanized steel pipe.

Sewer system disposal is on site filter bed.

No backflow preventer

Toilet fixtures in original building antiquated.

No Kitchen grease trap.

A) The Architects have examined Rutherford College Elementary School.Observations are as set forth above.

B) The physical condition of the facility is good considering the mainbuilding is now 82 years old with wood floor and roof structures. BurkeCounty Public Schools does an exceptional job of maintaining theirfacilities.

C) The useful life of a public school building shell and structure is generally

regarded as 60 to 80 years. The State Construction Office lists theeconomic life of building components as:






built-up 17

single-ply 20

Interior Construction 10


Air Conditioners Through the-wall 15Heat Pumps







VAV boxes 20

Fans Ventilating roof-mounted 20

Coils DX, water, or steam 20


Package chillers 20Cooling towers 20


Pumps 15

Controls 15



Electric motors 18




53/140

Facility EvaluationRutherford College Elementary School Continued









Rutherford College Elementary School is programmatically deficient inmeeting State Facility Guideline recommendations.





54/140

Rutherford

College

Elementary

School

170 Honeycutt

Street



January 2011

Observations

Main Building

CR735 SF

CR630 SF

CR630 SF

Media

Center

CR695 SF

CR670 SF

CR630 SF

CR695 SF

CR695 SF

CR630 SF

CR630 SF

Dining

Kitchen

Lower Level

1929

1950

1929

1950

372-02

Computer

EC Resource

Rooms markewith yellowhighlight arecounted as K-classrooms

1 Pre-KClassrooms

11 K-5Classrooms

2 Computer

1 EC S/C

2 Resource


55/140

Rutherford

College

Elementary

School

170 Honeycutt

Street



January 2011

Observations

Annex

Lower Level

CR

750 SF

CR750 SF

CR750 SF

CR750 SF

CR923 SF

CR923 SF

Lower Level

1955

1968

372-01

EC Classroom

Computer Lab

Day Care

Resour

Storage

Music

Readin

Resour

Pre-K

ESL

Storage

Mobiles notincluded inclassroom coun

Rooms markewith yellowhighlight arecounted as K-classrooms

Pre-K

Resource


56/140


57/140


School Name: Rutheford College School Code: 372Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

K-5

Optimal

Capacity












Music classrooms: X 0 = 0




TOTAL 15 256



Number of

Teaching

Stations

Capacity per

Teaching

Station

6-8

Optimal

Capacity











TOTAL




Rutheford College Capacity Worksheets.xls 3/8/2011


58/140


10/6/2004

Number of students*

Core capacity









Grade 1 Clrms @ 1000s.f. 2 2,000 3 3,000 5 5,000 5 5,000 6 6,000

Grade 2-3 Clrms @ 1000s.f. 5 5,000 7 7,000 9 9,000 11 11,000 12 12,000

Grade 4-5 Clrms @ 850s.f. 4 3,400 6 5,100 8 6,800 9 7,650 10 8,500






Support spaces 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,500

sub-total 3,000 4,114 4,333 4,776 5,180

Food Service


Kitchen 1,261 1,518 1,938 1,938 2,208


sub-total 3,461 4,938 5,825 6,291 7,121

Physical Education

Multipurpose 1 3,600 1 3,600 1 4,000 1 4,400 1 4,880

Stage 600 600 600 600 850

Storage/Office 450 450 450 450 600

sub-total 4,650 4,650 5,050 5,450 6,330




Secretary 1 150 1 150 1 150 2 300 2 300

Sims 120 120 120 120 120

Health 120 200 200 200 200

Office work room 190 230 240 250 270

Conference 200 200 200 250 250

Records 90 130 140 150 170

Office storage 90 130 140 150 170

Guidance room 300 300 300 300 300

Office/testing @ 150 1 150 2 300 2 300 3 450 3 450



Teacher lounge(s) 300 450 450 600 600


Book storage 650 800 850 900 960


sub-total 4,260 5,560 5,790 6,770 7,050

Total Net Sq. Ft. 34,521 46,562 56,848 64,837 73,531


GRAND TOTAL (sq.ft.) 47,294 63,790 77,882 88,827 100,737









5

2

1

334

4

700

800

4

1

227

2

231

3

450

600

1

120

4

1

114

300

300

600

700

800

920


Rutheford College Spaces

4

2

3

17

2


59/140

School Name Total(372) Rutherford College 216

(380) Valdese 427

(368) Ray Childers 456

School Name Total

New Totals for Valdese

Elementary School 562 **135 students from Rutherford College

Capacity 562



School Name Total

New Totals for Ray Childers

Elementary School 537 **81 students from Rutherford College

Capacity 677



Consolidation of Rutherford College into

Valdese Elementary and Ray Childers


Projected Enrollment at Valdese Elementary

Current Enrollment

Projected Enrollment at Ray Childers Elementary


60/140

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian


Multi-


72) Rutherford College - - 17 13 1 172 13 216 110 106 2

Current %'s 0.00% 0.00% 7.87% 6.02% 0.46% 79.63% 6.02% 100.00% 50.93% 49.07% 100.00

80) Valdese - - 22 17 4 371 13 427 210 217 4

Current %'s 0.00% 0.00% 5.15% 3.98% 0.94% 86.89% 3.04% 100.00% 49.18% 50.82% 100.00

68) Ray Childers - 4 23 24 2 376 27 456 244 212 4

Current %'s 0.00% 0.88% 5.04% 5.26% 0.44% 82.46% 5.92% 100.00% 53.51% 46.49% 100.00

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian


Multi-


ldese Elementary - - 33 25 6 477 21 562 279 283 56

rcentages 0.00% 0.00% 5.87% 4.45% 1.07% 84.88% 3.74% 100.00% 49.64% 50.36% 100.00


School Name F&R72) Rutherford College 63.76

80) Valdese 50.77


ldese Elementary 53.81%



Current Ethnicity


Consolidation of Rutherford College into Valdese Elementary and Ray Childers

Current Gender


61/140

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian


Multi-


ay Childers Elementary - 4 29 29 2 441 32 537 285 252 53

rcentages 0.00% 0.74% 5.40% 5.40% 0.37% 82.12% 5.96% 100.00% 53.07% 46.93% 100.00


School Name F&R

72) Rutherford College 63.76

68) Ray Childers 70.69


ldese Elementary 69.66%



62/140

School Name Total(372) Rutherford College 216

(380) Valdese 427

School Name Total

New Totals for Valdese

Elementary School 643

Capacity 562Usage without Pre-K 643


Consolidation of Rutherford College into

Valdese Elementary


Projected Enrollment at Valdese Elementary

Current Enrollment


63/140

School Name

American

Indian

Hawaiian


Multi-


72) Rutherford College - - 17 13 1 172

Consolidation Plan - Complete

Documents

Transcript of Consolidation Plan - Complete