HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-19-2012 - 3 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 19, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Follow-up Discussion of the Manager's Recommended 2012-2017 Capital
Investment Plan (CIP)
DEPARTMENT: Financial Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Attachment 1. Notification Letter from Frank Clifton, County Manager, (919)
NCDENR of Loan Funds 245-2453
for McGowan Creek Clarence Grier, Financial Services,
Outfall Project (919) 245-2453
Attachment 2. Memo from Solid Waste Paul Laughton, Financial Services,
Director Gayle Wilson on (919) 245-2152
March 15, 2012 CIP
Follow-up Item
Attachment 3. Environment and
Agriculture Center 5-Year
Maintenance Costs
Attachment 4. 3/14/12 Orange County
School Letter Regarding
CIP Projects
PURPOSE: To provide updates to the Manager's Recommended 2012-2017 Capital
Investment Plan (CIP) and provide possible items for follow-up discussion.
BACKGROUND: The FY 2012-17 Manager's Recommended Orange County Capital
Investment Plan (CIP) was presented to the Board of County Commissioners during a budget
work session on March 1, 2012 and during a regular work session on March 15, 2012.
Tonight's meeting provides an update on the following CIP related items:
McGowan Creek Outfall(part of Central Efland/North Buckhorn Sewer Expansion Project)
Within the description of the Central Efland/North Buckhorn Sewer Expansion Project (page 53
of the CIP document), it stated that staff was currently asking the State for permission to use
any remaining loan funds for the McGowan Creek Outfall project. See Attachment 1 for a
Notice of Intent to Fund letter from the State for contingent approval of loan funds for this
project.
2
Solid Waste Landfill Closure
Attachment 2 is related to a Commissioner's request for additional information regarding the
annual costs associated with Landfill post-closure operational responsibilities.
Possible Discussion Items
Other suggested CIP items for possible follow-up discussion include:
• Board of Commissioners Meeting Room Space (Whiffed Building or elsewhere)
• Environment and Agriculture Center (Planning and Ag Building) — See Attachment 3 (this
attachment was presented to the BOCC at the March 1, 2012 budget work session as an
example of costly maintenance projects needed at older County facilities). As a
reminder, this building/project is currently not included in the FY 2012-17 CIP.
Construction of a new Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation building is
included beginning in Year 6 within the Blackwood Farm Park project (page 36 of the CIP
document).
• Southwest Branch Library (site search)
• Emergency Services Related Projects (pages 32-35 of the CIP document)
• Orange County Schools (OCS) — as related to OCS Board of Education's Chair and Vice-
Chair letter to the BOCC dated March 14, 2012 (Attachment 4).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with the FY 2012-17
Capital Investment Plan. It is a long-range financial planning tool with a financial impact in FY
12-13, if the first year of the CIP is approved by the Board of County Commissioners with the
adoption of the Annual Budget.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board of County Commissioners
continue its discussion of the FY 2012-17 County's Capital Investment Plan and provide
direction to staff.
NCQEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P.E. Dee Freeman
Govemor Director Secretary
March 29,2012
Mr.Frank Clifton, County Manager
Orange County
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
SUBJECT: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Notice of Intent to Fund
McGowan Creek Interceptor
March 1'`, 2012 Application Cycle
Dear b4r. Clifton:
Congratulations! Your application for a Clean Water State Revolving Fund(CWSRF)loan has
been reviewed and your proposed project found eligible to receive a low-interest CWSRF loan.
The total loan amount will be$755,450.
Please note that this intent to fund is contingent on'approval of the loan through the Local
Government Commission. This intent to fund is also contingent on meeting all milestones
outlined based on our Intended Use Plan(lUP) as shown below.
Milestone Date
Engineering Report Submittal July 2, 2012
Engineering Report Approval December 3, 2012
Plans&Specifications Submittal June 3, 2013
Plans&Specifications/Permit A roval Se tember 2, 2013
Advertise Project,Receive Bids,Submit December 2, 2013
Bid Information, and Receive CG&L's
Authority To Award
Execute Construction Contract(s) January 2,2014
The next milestone is the submittal of an Engineering Report by close of business on
July 2,2012. The Engineering Report must be developed using the guidance found on our
website. Reports not received in this office on or before July 2,2012 will be returned and
CWSRF funding for the proposed project will be forfeited.
Failure to meet this or any other lUP milestone will result in the forfeit of CWSRF funding for
your proposed project,and a new application must be submitted for consideration during a
future application cycle.
Infrastructure Finance Section
1633 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1633
Location:8m Floor Archdale Building,512 N.Salisbury St.Raleigh,North Carolina 27604 NortlaCarolina
Phone:919-707-9160\FAX:919-715-6229
Internet:www.ncwatergua[Ky.org Ni tmall'
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer J
4
Mr.Frank Clifton, County Manager
March 29, 2012
Page Number 2
Please note that if funding is based on the recipient's agreement to develop an Asset
Management Plan,that plan must be adopted by the recipient and approved by the Infrastructure
Finance Section before the contract execution milestone. Otherwise,project funding will be
forfeited. The lUP and an overview of our CWSRF funding process are available on our website
(http://Portal.nedeni.org/web/wq�/ifs).
If you have questions,please contact the Mr. Seth Robertson,P.E. Supervisor,Design
Management Unit at 919-707-9175.
Sincerely,
Kim H.Colson,P.E., Chief
Infrastructure Finance Section
JMH
cc: Mark Hubbard
Jennifer Haynie
SRF File
Memorandum
To: Frank Clifton,County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson,Solid Waste Director
Subject: March 15,2012 CIP Work Session Follow-up
Date: Friday, March 23,2012
At the March 15 CIP Work Session a Commissioner requested staff provide an estimate of the annual
cost associated with landfill post-closure operational responsibilities. Staff has evaluated the various
costs involved and has estimated these costs to be about$86,113 annually. This estimate assumes
direct costs only and includes both the previously closed (1996) municipal waste disposal unit and the
soon to close municipal waste disposal unit. This estimate does not include any costs associated with
the landfill gas recovery system and assumes no extraordinary cap maintenance requirements or
environmental mitigation measures.
If the Board desires details of the various cost components or assumptions staff can provide as
necessary.
County Capital Projects
Fiscal Years 2012-17
Project Name Environment and Agriculture Center Project Status
Functional Service Area Governing and Management Starting Date 7/9/2072
Department Asset Management Services Completion Date 613012096
Available Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Five Year 6
Prior Years Balances Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year to
Project Budget Funding 1/3112012 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Total Year 10
Appropriation
Land/Building
Construction/Repairs/Renovations
Parking repairfimprovements(complete site) 210,000 210,000
Geo-thermal HVAC(Env/Ag Center&ES substation) 662,508 662,508
Roof replacement-Env&Ag Center only 481,000 481,000
ES substation-Vehicle canopy&shorelines 100,000 100,000
Emergency Services substation-Generator 15,000 15,000
Total Project Budget: 115,000 872,508 - 481,000 - 1,468,508 -
General Fund Related Operating Costs
Personnel Services
Operations
New Debt Service
Total Operating Costs _ _ _ _
Revenues/Funding Source
Transfer from General Fund 115,000 210,000 325,000
Debt Financing 662,508 481,000 1,143,508
Total 115,000 872,508 - 481,000 - 1468,508 -
Project Description/Justification
The Environment and Agriculture Center(EAC)was renamed following relocation of the Planning/Inspections and Environmental Health offices to the West Campus
Office Building in 2009. It houses the Department of Environment,Agriculture, Parks and Recreation(DEAPR),Cooperative Extension,Soil and Water,the Farm Services i ■
Agency,a Federal support agency for the agriculture community,and also provides a space for managed records storage for county departments. Emergency Medical W
Services, Base#1 occupies a separate building on the site. Components of this request include: 1)Parking lot resurfacing and site drainage. The parking areas,vintage
from the days in which the building was used as a grocery store prior to the County's acquisition in the late 1980's,continues to break apart with age and use. Frequent
use by heavier vehicles,such as ambulances accelerates the deterioration as well. 2)HVAC replacement. Although some individual units have been replaced overtime,
the HVAC system pre-dates the County's purchase of the facility in the late 1980's. The system is in need of replacement and based on energy and operating cost
reductions being experienced at the Justice Facility,a replacement geo-thermal system for both the EAC and the EMS Base Station#1 is recommended.Since geo-
thermal installation will damage pavement,both projects should be approved for the same funding cycle. 3)Shorelines and canopy for ambulances. Emergency Services
has requested installation of a canopy c/w shorelines for protection and improved readiness for ambulances located at the site. 4)Emergency Generator. An emergency
power generator has also been included,to serve the ES substation only. 5)Roof Replacement of the Environment and Ag Center in Year 4.
rn
March 14, 2012
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Pam Hemminger, Vice Chair
Orange County Valerie Foushee
Board of Alice Gordon
Barry Jacobs
Education Earl McKee
Steve Yuhasz
200 South Cameron Street
Post Office Box 8181
Board Members: Hillsborough, NC 27278
Donna Coffey
Chair Dear County Commissioners,
Stephen H.Halkiotis
Vice Chair Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on our District's quickly emerging capital needs—
Eddie M.Eubanks in particular the construction of a new elementary school and the addition of a new wing and
Tony M.McKnight auxiliar
Anne Medenblik Y gymnasium at Cedar Ridge High School.
Deborah A.Piscitelli
Brenda Stephens
Student Membership Projections
G.Patrick Rhodes As predicted for many years now, our district has started to see a rise in the number of
Superintendent students that we serve — in particular those living in the western area of the county near
Mebane. While it is not possible to anticipate the number of students coming from
developments located within the Mebane Planning jurisdiction, because Mebane is not a
200 East King Street SAPFO partner, we do see evidence of growth. For example, one reliable indicator of
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Telephone:919-732-8126 children coming from particular areas is the number of buses that service those areas. Since
FAX: 919-732-8120 this year's first day of school, our district has increased the number of buses running routes to
these areas from three to seven. Assuming that the four additional buses transport at least
50 children each, we estimate the increased number of students from this area to be at least
200. The majority of these students originate from the Ashbury and Collington Farm `
subdivisions, and we believe that many of them live in multi-family dwellings.
Historically, single-family dwellings have generated more students than multi-family
dwellings. However, we have seen a reversal of that trend during the current economic
downturn, and now we are seeing more families residing in multi-family dwellings. Our Board
appreciates the fact that the Orange County Planning Department recognizes the change in
trend and is ready to have the current Student Generation Rates re-assessed. We look
forward to reviewing the results of the planned study and using the tool to project more
accurately student membership.
Orange County Schools
"Providing educational opporta dlies.for successful Frhu•es."
8
Elementary School#8
While our Board acknowledges the fact that the Average Projection Model is the County's
standard model used for student membership projections, we feel confident that our future
elementary student growth will outpace the average and reflect trends we are currently
experiencing which are more in line with SAPFO's Three Year Projection Model. In addition,
NC DPI projects our elementary population for the upcoming school year will increase at an
even higher rate than any of the SAPFO models.
Elementary School Student
Membership Projections
2012-13
Membership
Increase
Projection
SAPFO -Average 90
Model
SAPFO-3 Year 124
Model
NC DPI Projection 173
It is important to note that for each of the past six years, actual OCS elementary student
enrollment has exceeded state projections for a cumulative total of 202 students in excess of
state projections—an average of more than 33 each year.
Chart 1 (attached) compares our District's elementary student membership projections with
elementary capacity. In summary:
• SAPFO's Average Projection Model projects that elementary capacity for OCS would
exceed 100% in 2016-17 and exceed 105% in 2020-21.
• SAPFO's Three Year Projection Model reflects that elementary capacity for OCS
would exceed 100% in 2015-16 and exceed 105% in 2018-19.
While we did not chart growth projections using the NC DPI projection, we would deduce that
the need for Elementary #8 would be greatly accelerated with this model, since NC DPI's
projection is much higher than either of the two SAPFO charted projections.
Our Board also feels it is important to mention that since 2007 our District has been very
committed to a strong Pre-K Program. We currently serve 154 at-risk and exceptional
children, ages three and four years, in nine of our elementary classrooms. Four rooms are
used as regular Pre-K classrooms, three are used for the Head Start program, and two are
used for exceptional children classrooms. At the time SAPFO was approved originally, Pre-K
programs did not exist, and capacity numbers have never been updated to reflect the loss of
Orange Counly Schools
"Providing educalional opportunities for successful futures."
9
classroom space. Therefore, the current capacity numbers for our district as reflected in
SAPFO are overstated, because they do not take into account classrooms dedicated to that
program — i.e. classrooms that do not serve children in K through 5. Based on elementary
class size mandates, we estimate this total "loss"of seats to be between 189 and 220 seats.
All of these considerations led our Board to request funding for Elementary#8 sooner rather
than later. Given that the average length of time to locate suitable land and
plan/design/construct an elementary school is between 36 and 48 months, our Board feels
strongly that we must begin planning for Elementary #8 in the upcoming year (2012-13) in
order to accommodate anticipated capacity needs that lie in our not so distant future.
High School Capacity
As our Board recently reviewed the November 15, 2011 SAPFO square footage and capacity
numbers for our high schools, we discovered some interesting facts.
Orange High School's total square feet is less than both Chapel Hill High and East
Chapel Hill High; however, OHS's SAPFO student capacity is almost identical to the
two schools. With that said, the square feet per student is between 18 and 31 square
feet less at OHS than at either of the two built out high schools in CHCCS. (It did not
seem equitable to compare OHS to Cedar Ridge or to Carrboro High, since neither
school is built out to their core capacity at this time.)
Square Feet Per Student(per SAPFO)
Total Square
Square SAPFO Feet
Feet Capacity Per
Student
Chapel Hill High 241,111 1,520 158.63
East Chapel Hill 259,869 1,515 171.53
High
Orange High 213,509 1,518 140.65
In light of this discovery, our Board has requested that staff from NC DPI re-examine
OHS to determine its current capacity. That assessment is scheduled for later this
month.We plan to update you when we receive the results of the study.
Should the assessment determine that OHS's capacity is more in line with Chapel Hill
and East Chapel Hill high schools, the result would be a loss of approximately 225
high school seats for our district.
Orange County Schools
"Noviding educational opporiunilies for success ul fiinrres."
10
Chart 2 (attached) compares how the anticipated reduction of seats would affect our District's
high school student membership projections with high school capacity. In summary:
• Using SAPFO's Average Projection Model, the anticipated loss of 225 seats would
mean that OCS would exceed 100% of high school capacity year after next in 2013-
14 and exceed 110% in 2019-20.
• Using SAPFO's Three Year Projection Model, the anticipated loss of 225 seats would
mean that OCS would exceed 100% of high school capacity in the upcoming school
year, 2012-13, and exceed 110% in 2015-16.
Again, our Board feels it important to keep our eye on projections generated using the Three
Year Projection Model due to the factors stated earlier related to growth in the western area
of the county.
In reviewing the SAPFO projections and anticipating the outcome of the upcoming OHS
space re-assessment, it became clear to our Board that there is an immediate need to move
forward with an expansion at Cedar Ridge High School. Cedar Ridge High School (CRHS),
originally constructed in 2001, has classroom capacity for 1,000 students and core facilities,
such as library, cafeteria, etc., to accommodate 1,500 students. During original construction,
the site was prepped for additional classroom space (to accommodate 500 students) and an
auxiliary gymnasium. Thus the reason this expansion project now is reflected in our CIP
Evidence of the growth our district is experiencing can be found in the 2010 Census data for
total housing unit changes—examples include a 36% increase in Cheeks Township between
2000-10, 21% increase in Hillsborough during that period, increase of 20% in Little River
Township, etc. These trends coupled with anticipated growth promulgated by the completion
of the Efland Sewer project in the near future equate to a growing number of students for our
District — growth for which we all must be prepared. We look forward to an opportunity to
share our thoughts and ideas about Orange County Schools'future capital needs.
Sincerely,
Donna Coffey GI G" Stephen H. Halkiotis
Chair Vice Chair
cc: Frank Clifton, County Manager, Orange County
Enclosures(2)
Orange County Schools
"Providing educational opportunities for successfid fi lures."
Chart 1. Orange County Schools - Elementary Student Projections MMUM2
Average and 3 Year Projection Models0)
4,500
I
4,000 (I
3,500 I
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19'2019-20'2020-21 2021-22
ttttttiiiiiiiActual Average 11111111111113 Year Growth Projection Model --*--Capacity-1000A Level of Service -40-105%Level of Service
(1)Class saes for grades K-3=1:23 for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. In accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction,with planned opening of CHCCS
Elementary#10 In school year 2006.0®,K3 class sizes for school years 2008-09 through 2015-16 reflect 1:21 as directed by past State legislative action. This results in 00S
elementary capacity reduction(district wide)of 297 seats(decreasing from 4,116(105%LOS X91:23 class sael to 3,819 1105%LOS @ 1:21 class s¢ep.
N
T
Chart 2. Orange County Schools - High School Student Projections 3MIM12
3,000 Average Projection Model Only
♦ ♦ 1
; 1
2,500 ♦ - - - - � -
♦ xr
2,000
k
a
i
1,500
1,000
500
I
0
2006.07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014.15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019.20 2020-21 2021-22
—Ae ual ®Average —Capacity-100%Level of Service
—46-110%Level of Service 100%C apecity After OHS Reassesernert 110%Capacity After OHS Reassesemart