Thank you
Premium Sponsors!

For more information about becoming a website sponsor, please click here.

The good intentions of the Legislators are recognized in seeking to reduce education costs. Stock plans could be seen as a device to eliminate the architect and save some 6% of the cost of all of the State's school construction.

But, it is not that simple. First, let us put the architect's role in school planning in some perspective.

The following is an example of the cost of the architect's planning as it relates to the lifetime cost of a 600 student elementary school.

72,000 sq.ft. ® $78/sq.ft. =	$5,600,000
Architect's fee 6% x $5,600.000 =	$ 336,000
Average per pupil, per year, expenditure for operating and maintenance of plant	$ 350*
Cost per year - $ 350 x 600 students =	$ 210,000
60 year life cycle cost    60 x $ 210,000 (no inflation is figured) =	$12,600,000
Construction	$ 5,600,000
Architect's Fee	$ 336,000
Land and Other Costs	$ 793,200
	___________
Total Cost of Building Operation and Maintenance	$19,339,200

*Source N. C. D.P.L

The architect's services at $336,000 are a very small portion (1.7%) of the total life cycle cost of $19 million, and yet the design skill and care which he brings to the individual project has a major effect on the ultimate cost of the $15.5 billion spent on operations and maintenance.

If stock schools were planned by the State the school board or the State would still be required to spend money to have the designs changed to adapt to:

• Local desires and community interest. Most take pride in their schools and would prefer some individuality in their design and colors.
• The type of school and the grade breakdown (see below)
• The local needs as to space and program. These do vary.
• The site configuration, orientation, and zoning.
• The heating and cooling requirements of the area.
• The service points for electrical and plumbing connections.
• The foundation and grade conditions.
• The code structural requirements which vary in different areas of the State.

No two sites are alike in shape, topography, soil conditions, orientation, availability of sewer water gas electric service, site access - all vary. Every school will require adapting plans to the site. Sometimes it will cost more in site work to fit a stock plan on a unique site than it would to redesign.

If a stock plan is to be used someone must also:

1. Secure some 13 agencies review and approval. This requires a major time and effort in today's maze of offices who have some oversight before a school is occupied. It is becoming more complex each year. These reviewers do not accept previous approvals without checking each project for current compliance.
2. Secure bids.
3. Prepare contracts.
4. Observe construction for compliance with contract documents.
5. Review material submittals and shop drawings.
6. Approve payments to contractors.
7. Secure occupancy permits.
8. Prepare close-out documents.
9. Assume responsibility for the contract documents.

The plan may be almost right for a school, but there is a need for more special education classrooms or a bigger gymnasium - or different vocational programs or a performing arts program. Modifications must be made and the design must be changed.

The Architect or Engineer's liability insurance will be questionable.

Educational programs and theories are rapidly changing. Stock plans must be adaptable or be replaced often.

In our experience, when an identical new school need is established by a school board, there can be a saving of 20% to 25% of the normal fee when the second, or subsequent schools; are a prototype of the original. If extensive changes are made, as they often are, the saving is less.

The idea has many implications. Stock plans would be required for typical new school; using the following student capacities:

Elementary K-5	Middle 6-8	High 9-12
300	550	600
450	650	800
600	800	1,000
750	950	1,200
900	1,100	1,600
		2,000

Listed above are 16 sizes and types. Less common K-8 and 6-12 schools would require special plans.

A plan would be needed for each size/type with ability to add or delete class rooms to ^u provide for the in-between size. If the climate and wind conditions of the three distinct regions in North Carolina are to be considered, there could conceivably be a need for 48 stock plans. (16 sizes x 3 regions)

In North Carolina there are 8 times as many additions and renovations as new buildings according to the Department of Public Instruction. These account for 60%-70% of school construction cost.

Over the years, a number of states have attempted to develop a standard plan which could be used for different types of schools. I made an in-depth study of this matter many years ago. The conclusion was that it did not work and the states who initiated the system abandoned the idea. No state that had tried it recommended it.

In early 1960's, the New York State Legislature appropriated $1 million to develop 18 stock plans. Nine plans were developed but only two schools were ever built using the plans. One involved 40 addenda and 58 change orders to modify the plans.

The Georgia Department of Education did an excellent study of stock plans that was completed in January 1992. They surveyed all 50 states and every school district in Georgia. The following was the conclusion of their study:

"... the feasibility of using this approach as a means of reducing costs or shortening the time required for design and construction of new schools does not appear to be practical nor economical over a period of time. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal to develop and use standard (or stock) plans and specifications for new school construction be rejected. ⁿ

This idea has been proposed to previous legislators as a simple cost saving measure. After due consideration and study it has been given, the plan has always been abandoned.

Today, the trend in education is to have more "local control" and direction. To legislate stock plans by the State moves in a counter direction.

The development of stock plans to create standard public schools is not in the best interests of education and the State of North Carolina.

Leslie N. Boney, Jr.