S.C.O.

Re Affect on County Redistricting Financial Performance

On Friday, January 28, 2011 DeKalb County released a financial analysis of the centralized and decentralized redistricting options proposed by MGT America. The Countys financial analysis includes a document summarizing the expected annual savings and implementation costs for the two options as well as (a) supporting information for individual school savings and (b) efficiencies in school operations. Over the weekend of January 29th and 30th we reviewed the Countys financial analysis to ascertain how the SCORe Alternative Plan might affect the Countys expected savings and implementation costs. This document details our findings. Please note that the depth of our analysis was constrained by the need to provide the County a response by January 31 st. Additionally, we have based the SCORe Alternative Plan on the school closures identified by the County under the centralized option. Our SCORe Alternative Plan should not be construed as endorsing the closure of any particular school. The table below shows the annual savings the County has identified for the centralized and decentralized options. We have included an additional column in the Countys table that describes how we perceive the SCORe Alternative Plan will affect the Countys identified savings.
Annual Savings Centralized Decentralized SCORes Affect on County Identified Savings The SCORe Alternative Plan should provide the County with the same individual school savings as the centralized plan. The Countys savings in this area are driven by the reduction of personnel $11,282,279 salary / benefits costs and building utility costs for closing several current schools. The SCORe Alternative Plan uses the same school closings as the centralized plan and should provide the same individual school savings. The SCORe Alternative Plan should provide the County with the higher savings associated with the centralized plan . The SCORe $4,838,600 Alternative Plan is based on the same schools remaining open as the centralized plan and should result in the same overall school operational efficiencies as the centralized plan. $16,120,879 The SCORe Alternative Plan should provide the County with similar additional capital entitlement earnings as the centralized plan. The SCORe Alternative Plan is based on the same schools remaining open as the centralized plan and should result in similar additional capital entitlement earnings as the centralized plan.

Individual School Savings

$9,890,789

Efficiencies in School Operations Total Savings Additional Capital Entitlement Earnings

$5,174,650

$15,065,439

~ $500,000

<$500,000

Figure 1. SCORes expected affect on the County identified redistricting savings

January 31, 2011

Page 1

S.C.O.Re Affect on County Redistricting Financial Performance

The County provided a list of implementation costs associated with the centralized and decentralized redistricting options. Figure 2 below shows how the SCORe Alternative Plan is expected to affect the Countys identified redistr icting implementation costs.
Implementation Costs Centralized Decentralized SCORes Affect on County Identified Savings

The SCORe Alternative Plan will have the same moving and appraisal implementation costs as the centralized plan. The Moving and appraisal $140,000 $110,000 SCORe Alternative Plan uses the same school closings as the centralized plan and should result in the same moving and appraisal costs. The SCORe Alternative Plan should have the same costs for Provision of band, band, athletic and extracurricular activities for the magnet athletic and schools as the centralized plan. While the county did not extracurricular Not estimated Not needed provide an estimate for the cost of band, athletic and activities in by County extracurricular activities, if such costs are likely to be incurred centralized magnet under the Countys centralized plan they are also likely to be schools incurred under the SCORe Alternative Plan. The SCORe Alternative Plan will provide the County with considerable transportation cost savings over both the centralized and decentralized options. The Countys financial analysis of the centralized and decentralized options indicates that the transportation costs for these options will be minimally different from current transportation costs because the increased costs for transporting additional students under both the County centralized and decentralized options will be offset by having County estimated fewer schools and more efficient bus routes. The SCORe Transportation costs estimated these these as Alternative Plan achieves the same transportation cost savings as minimal minimal associated with having fewer schools and more efficient bus routes and will achieve additional savings because it requires the transportation of fewer children over shorter distances than either the centralized or decentralized options. In addition to the cost savings to the County, the SCORe Alternative Plan will give back to the children of DeKalb County hundreds of unproductive hours each day that would have been spent in school transportation under both the centralized and decentralized options. Figure 2. SCORes expected affect on the County identified redistricting implementation costs

In the SCORe Alternative Plan we identified a possible solution for the over capacity issue that exists at Henderson Middle School under the current, centralized, decentralized and SCORe Alternative plans. This possible solution is the temporary creation of a 6th grade annex at available DeKalb County School System (DCSS) facilities, such as Heritage and Livsey, that would house some or all of the Henderson Middle School 6 th graders. If the County decides that this solution is in its best interest, then the County will incur additional costs for facility utilities and for non-teaching personnel required to staff the facilities (e.g., assistant principal, media specialist, custodian, etc.). These costs would to some extent be offset by a reduction in costs for the 13 portable classrooms (i.e., trailers) that are currently in use at Henderson Middle School.

January 31, 2011

Page 2