The Board of Education took two steps Aug. 25 to provide a balance of about 1,800 students in each of Paulding’s five high schools by 2011, making them eligible to play sports in the same region.

Based on a recommendation from Superintendent Larry Ragsdale, the board unanimously approved a revision to the five-year facility plan, moving up classroom construction projects at South Paulding and North Paulding high schools. Each school is scheduled to have an additional 12 classrooms built in time for the 2011 school year, based on an assumption of state funding being available.

“At the end of next year all three of the older high schools can take up to 1,800 students and function,” said Marty Turner, executive director of maintenance and facilities. “We want to move North Paulding and South Paulding up on the plan and build 12 classrooms at each school to give them the capacity for 1,800 students.”

South Paulding is currently the largest high school in the county, with more than 2,100 students this year. “The classrooms would be in the back of the school where the trailers are currently located,” said Turner.

Board member Kim Curl asked it would be possible for all county schools to be in the same region for sports. “If they are in the same region that could cut down on travel,” said Curl.

“Our goal is to have all the schools in the same classification and region,” said Deputy Superintendent Cliff Cole. “In 2011, we could redistrict the high schools and balance Paulding County High.”

The county will be submitting student counts to the Georgia High School Association for a determination on classification for sports. That classification will be based on student counts for spring and fall 2009 and an estimate for 2010.

“By 2011, we could have all the schools in the same region,” said Curl.

“We are going to do our best to make that happen,” said Ragsdale.

Board member Michael Skelton asked for an estimate of how long it would be for a new high school to be built.

“It will probably be five years out, and that will be included on the new five-year plan that we do next year,” replied Turner. “We basically have built a new high school when you look at the classrooms we have built, or have scheduled to be built.”

After approving the change in the five-year facility plan, the board unanimously approved a 2011 capital outlay program application to include a new middle school and the classroom additions at the two high schools. “This application will go to the state board and then we will have to wait and see what the Legislature does in February,” said Ragsdale.

“This application will fund almost the entire cost of the projects at the two high schools,” said Turner.

The board is requesting $889,785 in state funds for each of the two high schools and $9,062,588 for a new middle school.

A recommendation by Ragsdale to award a contract bid to Athens-Atlanta Asphalt Co. for asphalt services for the district was approved by a 6-1 vote, with Curl voting against the motion. The district has budgeted $20,000 for repair/patches and $20,000 for paving projects for the year 2009-2010.

“I think that we should have a plan to give vendors in the county a chance to match the low bid submitted,” said Curl.

Curl had questioned whether the board could give local vendors a chance to match the low bid submitted by out-of-county vendors.

“We are looking at what other systems have done in working with local vendors,” replied board attorney Tom Cable. “The board would have to define what is meant by a local vendor, using ownership of the business, employees or other factors.”

“Our original definition was that the company was to have an office in the county,” said Ragsdale.

“That was too broad,” replied Cable.

Curl asked Skelton if he would be willing to withdraw the motion to approve the bid until the board had more time to study the local vendor question, and Cable said, “even if this is tabled now, the rules cannot be changed on the bid now.”

In response to a question from board member Kim Cobb about whether any local vendors had bid on the services, Purchasing Director Donna Perren replied, “we are using a local vendor now but none bid on this.”

Cobb also requested that the district look at what county government has done to consider local vendors in the bidding process. “We might get a better response on the bids if we can align with what they are doing,” said Cobb.

The board unanimously approved four other recommendations from Ragsdale.

The new elementary school on Ivey Gulledge Road will continue to carry the name of W.C. Abney Elementary when it opens next year and students are moved from the present location.

In a related action, the old W.C. Abney school will be renamed the New Hope Education Center. “We have the possibility of moving records there and may be able to move the alternative school there to reduce space costs,” said Ragsdale.

“We can utilize the old facility however we need to,” said Curl.

“Yes, central registration is packed in their space, and we will look at having a professional learning center in the location,” said Ragsdale.

The board requested waivers for state board rules relating to professional learning, instructional extension and class size. The waivers under Title 50 and Title 20 will allow the district flexibility with the use of state-allocated funds.

“We have already cut $200,000 in professional learning from the budget,” said Ragsdale.

Seven field trip requests recommended by Ragsdale were unanimously approved by the board.

In response to a question from Cobb about whether the district had any limitations on field trips, Eddie Fincher, executive director of high school operations said, “we are not involved in limiting the trips unless an instructional day is involved.”

Ragsdale had requested that the board discuss dates for the next special purpose local option sales tax (SPLOST) referendum for the district. After a lengthy discussion, the board opted to take no action other than to decide that the referendum would not be on the ballot in November.

“We have three opportunities to renew the current SPLOST, and each of the dates have advantages and disadvantages,” said Ragsdale. The possible dates for the referendum are Nov. 3, 2009, July 20, 2010, and Nov. 2, 2010.

Ragsdale informed the board that it would be difficult to have everything ready for a vote this November. He also said, “the district would have to pay for the election since it would be a single ballot issue.”

The school district will continue to receive SPLOST funds through March 2011, but Ragsdale said estimates for collections have dropped from $74,382,150.75 to a range of $67 million to $70 million over five years.

Should voters fail to approve an extension for SPLOST on one of the two remaining dates, the district would have to wait one year before the issue can be on the ballot again. If the referendum is approved, there will be no disruption in collections.

If the referendum fails to pass next year the earliest date for inclusion on the ballot would be in 2011, and the district will see at least a short period of disruption in collections, even if approval is granted after a year.