Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alternative Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board to consider feasibility study on using Burton Center for a public alternative education program
Summary
Superintendent and staff proposed an independent feasibility study (~$49,500 discussed) to assess converting Burton Center/other properties into a public day alternative education program aimed at reducing private day‑school (CSA) costs and addressing space shortages; board signaled support to place the item on consent.
The Roanoke County School Board reviewed a proposal to hire architects and engineers for an independent feasibility study to evaluate whether the Burton Center and other district properties could be repurposed for a full‑time public alternative education (AEP) program.
Dr. Ken Nicely framed the discussion by highlighting cost and capacity pressures under the Children's Services Act (CSA), which funds many placements for students with significant disabilities and behavioral needs. He said private day‑school placements account for a large share of CSA expenditures (he cited an FY24 figure for private day placements discussed in the presentation) and that the district is exploring whether a public option could reduce costs and provide space for elementary students who now lack local placement options.
Staff described several options the study would examine: converting Building A at BCAT (Burton Center for Applied Technology) into an alternative school (classrooms and admin space), converting central office and building a new office on the existing site, building a new dedicated facility, or relocating maintenance and transportation functions to reconfigure existing property. Staff also noted site constraints (floodplain near building C), appraisals already completed, and the need to calculate renovation vs. new‑build costs.
Board members pressed for clarity on student counts and operating costs; staff said about 113 students currently attend private day placements with additional students on waiting lists and that the district serves roughly 174 students in specialized programs. Several board members voiced support for the study and for keeping the alternative program “in house” to assure parents of district oversight. One board member described the proposed $49,500 study as “money well spent” to avoid costly missteps.
Procedural next step: with board consensus staff said they would place the feasibility‑study authorization on next week’s consent agenda for formal action and begin developing scope and RFP materials for architectural and engineering services.
Quote: “We don’t have the expertise to really do that adequately,” a board member said; “that’s the money well spent to make sure we know what we’re getting into.”
