Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-24-2001 - 1 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 24, 2001 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: County/OCS/CHCCS Discussion/Policy Issues DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: As listed in "Background" John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300 Donna Dean, ext 2151 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss various issues with policy and/ or Financial implications that are of current interest to the Orange County Commissioners, Orange County Board of Education, and/or Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. BACKGROUND: a. Bond Education Campaign The Bond Education Committee held its organizational meeting on September 5, 2001. Staff can provide a brief update on activities to date and those planned before the November 6 referenda. The Boards may want to discuss the scope and timing of tours of various school facilities to increase understanding of the needs underlying the proposed bonds. Attachment la —Bond Education Committee Organizational Meeting Agenda Materials b. Opportunities for Collaboration Between School Systems During the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force process and a number of BOCC meetings leading up to the adoption of a $47 million school bond order on September 4, 2001, there was substantial discussion about the desirability of exploring ways to enhance collaboration between the two school systems with regard to both programming and facilities. OCS proposed that the two school systems examine ways that excess capacity over the next few years at the new Cedar Ridge High School might work to the benefit of both school systems through some type of cooperative programming. Commissioners Brown and Jacobs have also developed a list of potential opportunities for collaboration that may serve as the focus of discussion among the three boards at this work session. Attachment 1b-1 — 8/21/01 Letter from OCS Vice-Chair Attachment lb-2— Opportunities for School Collaboration developed by Commissioners Jacobs and Brown 2 c. School Health and Safety (including Nursing) Both school boards and the Board of Commissioners have expressed interest in ensuring that health and safety matters affecting students receive attention as a high priority. This item provides the boards with an opportunity to discuss how issues such as air quality improvements may be pursued, and for school staffs to report briefly on steps taken thus far with funding earmarked this year by the BOCC to expand the school nursing staff in both systems. No Attachments d. Priority Projects for Bond Renovation Funds and Alternative Financing The BOCC recently wrote to both school boards to solicit their views regarding the highest priorities for capital funding for renovation projects. This segment of the agenda provides an opportunity for the three boards to discuss renovation project priorities. Attachment Id— 1 9111/01 Letter from BOCC Chair Attachment 1 d- 2 9117101 Letter from CHCCS Chair e. Fund Balance Policies & Update Since the mid-1980s, the BOCC has observed the goal of encouraging OCS to pursue an undesignated fund balance target of 2.7% of annual expenditures and CHCCS to pursue a target of 5.5%. Both school systems are in the process of conducting their financial audits for FY 2000-01, which will likely be complete sometime in October 2001. Both school systems can report on fund balance appropriations made for FY 2001-02, their estimates of available fund balance as of June 30, 2001, and their plans to reduce available fund balance towards their respective targets over the next year or two. Attachment le— 1 2113186 Memo from OC Finance Director Attachment 1e— 2 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools General Fund— Fund Balance Attachment le— 3 Orange County Schools General Fund—Fund Balance f. Review of Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects & Capital Funding Policy In November 2000, the BOCC approved a "Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects" that was intended to clarify the expectations of the BOCC in working with the school boards regarding the development of school capital projects. The Boards may wish to review pertinent aspects of that policy, and the County's overall capital funding policy, as they discuss how to undertake planning for pending new school projects, particularly CHCCS Elementary School #9 and OCS Middle School #3. Attachment If- 1 "Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects" Attachment If- 2 "Capital Funding Policy" Attachment If-3 Review of Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Attachment If-4 - Outline of Master Plan Proposal for Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus (Staff Proposal) Attachment If- 5- Information from CHCCS Board of Education Requesting Planning Funds for Elementary School#10 g. School Facilities Task Force Report Draft In April 2001, the School Facilities Task Force, comprised of two members each of the Board of Commissioners and the two school boards, produced a draft report following their review of school construction standards and student population projections, and their implications regarding the need for bond or otherwise-funded school capital projects. The press of budget matters and the activities of the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force during Spring 2001 prevented the Board and staff from devoting adequate time to review and discuss the Task Force report. The three boards may wish to review the major findings and recommendations from the Task Force and provide direction to staff on additional work that may be needed on certain issues (e.g. selection of a single student population projection standard for planning school capital projects) addressed in the report. Attachment Ig—Draft School Facilities Task Force Report FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the discussion at this meeting. However, decisions that the school boards and BOCC will make at subsequent meetings are likely to have significant implications for future capital and operating budgets. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards discuss the issues noted and provide direction to staff, as appropriate. /71TO ORANGE COUNTY BOND EDUCATION COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING SOUTHERN HUMAN SERVIC'S CENTER SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 - 5:30 — 7:15 P.M. AGENDA 1 . Welcome to the Committee (5:34-5:45) a. Comments from Steve Halkiotis, Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners b. County Commissioner Comments 2. Overview of Bond Process — County Staff a. Slide Presentation — John Link, County Manager (5:45-6:05) • Debt Management • Bond Planning Process • Bond Package Components • Financial/Tax Implications • Alternative Financing of Other Priority Capital Needs b. Structure, Timeline, and Background Materials — Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager (6:05 — 6:25) • Charge to the Committee • Committee Structure • Staff Support • General Timeline • "Education" vs. "Advocacy" • 1997 Bond Process - Background Information • Administration/Logistical Support • Subcommittee Discussion Points • Questions? 3. Subcommittee Discussions (6:25 — 7:15) 4. Adjourn as Subcommittees Complete Tonight's Discussion CHARGE TO ORANGE COUNTY BOND EDUCATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 2001 BOND REFERENDUM • become familiar with the purposes of each of the bond orders.,* • become familiar with the projects expected to be addressed with bond funds • understand the community needs that led the Board of Commissioners to adopt each of the bond orders • develop appropriate informational materials that.will address the bond orders * design and implement a campa'iga to distribute relevant factual information about the bonds to Orange County citizens in the most effective and efficient manner possible • design and implement a process for informational meetings with civic groups,non-profit agencies, neighborhood associations,and other interested.parties in the community • ensure that equal access to factual information is provided to all individuals and groups,regardless of their position for or against any bond order • encourage all eligible voters to participate in the November 6 election SUGGESTED BOND EDUCATION COMMITTEE STRUCTURE Bond Education Committee Steering Committee— Parks Schools Subcommitt Recreation, &Open Space Subcommittee Senior Centers Affordable Housing Subcommittee Subcommittee ( Information & reach Subcommittee Revised 9/5/01 TIMETABLE FOR 2001 ORANGE COUNTY BOND EDUCATION COMMITTEE 6/25/01 BOCC confirms structure and charge for the Bond Education Committee 6/25 to 9/4/01 Invite Citizens to participate in Bond Education Committee 9/5/01 First Committee Meeting • Bond Process Overview • Establish Subcommittee Memberships • Preliminary Subcommittee Discussions 9/5/01 to 10/1/01 Development of Educational Materials including - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Web Site/Electronic Media, Brochures, etc. 9/26/01 Meeting of Full Committee • Confirm Overall Game Plan, Schedules, etc. • Share Draft Products for Educational Campaign 10/17/01 Meeting of Full Committee (IF NECESSARY) 10/1/01 -- 11/5/01 Educational Campaign Presentations to Groups Outreach Efforts such as: • Newspaper Articles • Bond Hotline • Call-in Radio/Television • Phon-A-Thon • Other Educational Efforts Meetings of On An As Needed Basis Subcommittees Weeks of 9110/01 9/17/01 10/1101 10/8/01 10/15/01 10/22/01 10/29/01 11/6/01 Bond Referendum Akkv*,� �. - . Orange County August 21, 2001 Board of Education Orange County Board of commissioners P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Randy Bridges Dear Commissioners: Superintendent The Orange County Board of Education would like to congratulate Bond Members: the members of the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force for their Brenda Stephens,Chair work in recommending a bond package to the Orange County Dana Thompson,Vice Chair Commissioners. The task force was faced with many funding Robert Bateman -consensus that served the Keith Cook requests, but succeeded in reaching a Susan Halkiotis needs of citizens across the county. We appreciate that the David Kolbinsky commissioners are now deliberating this issue deeply, so that wise Delores Simpson decisions can be made. It appears that some uncertainty remains how to allocate the 200 Fast King Street school portion of the bond so that we are best prepared to meet Hillsborough,NC 27278 future enrollment demands throughout the county. Some Telephone: 919-732-8126 questions that have been posed recently are: FAX: 919-732-8120 1) whether Orange County actually needs a new middle school, 2) whether Chapel HM-Carrboro will need additional high school capacity before OCS needs new middle school space, and 3) whether the $18 million currently allocated for an OCS middle school should be redirected to funding a new Chapel Hill-Carrboro high School, or the funds split between the districts and used to In's acquire land and plan for each project. As presented during the task force meetings, we have numerous reasons to support building a new middle school in Orange County. However, we do not believe that it would be productive to pit our school district against Chapel Hill-Carrboro. Instead, an alternative idea exists that may prove to be win-win for all involved. The Orange County Board of Education would like to propose a solution that will benefit both school systems, as well as make the best possible use of taxpayer revenues. We invite the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system to discuss with us the option of using existing high school capacity in OCS to serve students from the city district. We propose having discussions about an International Baccalaureate program, or some similar academic magnet program currently not being offered in either system, at Cedar Ridge or Orange High School. orange County schools "Providing eduawonW opponmaesfor successful futures. Orange County Board of Commissioners -2- August 21, 2001 This magnet program could be funded by both school systems and open to enrollment from students of both school systems. This proposal has the advantages of 1) Using existing high school capacity that has already been purchased with taxpayer funds, 2) Delaying the use of additional funds for construction until such time as the need for additional high school capacity is more clear, 3) Providing an academic program of high interest to families in both the county and city districts, 4) Fostering cooperation between the districts that has been needed for some time,but not yet been realized. Many funding challenges face our county, both now and in the future. Our board is eager to participate in solutions that offer benefits to all of our citizens. We believe this proposal is just such a solution, and we look forward to exploring this issue with the commissioners and our colleagues from Chapel Hill-Carrboro. Sincerely, .�; c6xo- fi ice. Dana Thompson,Vice Chair Orange County Board of Education /ha Y ? c. Orange County Board of Education Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education Mr. Randy Bridges, Superintendent Dr. Neil Pedersen, Superintendent ca, Opportunities for School Collaboration Purpose: The Orange County Board of Commissioners encourages Chapel Hill-Carrboro City and Orange County school systems to explore opportunities for collaboration with regard to educational programming and use of facilities that would address the following: 1. Achieve the broadest possible access to educational opportunities for all students in Orange County. 2. Enhance resources and support for teachers. 3. Be responsive to long-term impact of school budgets on the taxpayers of Orange County. Proposal: The Orange County Board of Commissioners request that the two boards of education establish a work group of their choice to discuss the purpose and possible elements of collaboration as identified below; and to share their findings with the Board of Commissioners by May 1, 2002. POSSIBLE ELEMENTS OF SCHOOL COLLABORATION • Develop joint programming opportunities. (Merger study: "Encourage the school districts to pursue areas of educational cooperation such as special services." Orange County Schools' proposal on baccalaureate program.) • Survey students in both systems on their interest in taking advantage of programs in the system which they do not currently attend. (ie, horticulture in Orange). • "Encourage the districts to investigate areas where economies may be affected by joint operations such as transportation, food service and maintenance." (Merger study) • Seek efficiencies in joint ordering of supplies and services. (County use of Segal) • Develop a cooperative facilities plan. (Merger study, I&E Committee) • Examine pros and cons of constructing ajoint central administration building. • Analyze alternative uses of existing excess capacity within each school system and across school systems. • Review acreage and parking standards associated with siting and construction of elementary, middle and high schools to promote smart growth and reduce costs. • Review other recommendations of merger study. • Develop common definition of budgetary mandates from the state and federal government by category. STEPHENH HALh'1077s.CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BARRY JACOBS. VICE CHAIR x"'s MARGARET W.BROWN POST OFFICE BOX 8 18 1 1; ° .,,t 52 MJSE Y ALICE M. , 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET ' M. Go caJRDoN HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 rtb �Ata���� September 11,2001 Mr.Nick Didow,Chair Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education Lincoln Center,Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Dear Nick: On.behalf of.the Orange County Board of Commissioners,I want to convey our enthusiastic commitment to working with the two Boards of Education in the next two months to secure voter approval of all the bond questions on the November 2001 ballot,particularly in your area of interest-the$47 million in school bonds. In a distinct but related vein,we pledge the unflagging support of County Commissioners and County staff to work with Bond Education Committee members to explain to Orange County voters the needs that necessitated the adoption of the four bond orders. We know that the Board of Education and school staff will match or surpass our information outreach efforts,especially with regard to school capital needs. In addition to funding for two new elementary schools in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system and one new middle school in the Orange County system,the school bond order includes$29 million for renovations to existing facilities. On September 4,when the Commissioners approved$2 million to be included in the bond for renovations for CHCCS,we did not specify for which facilities those dollars should be earmarked. However, we did indicate our clear view that the funds should be spent to ameliorate health and safety concerns in various CHCCS facilities. We also noted,as we have throughout 2001,that capital funding beyond that included in the bond referendum will be needed to upgrade older existing school facilities and to create adequate school space for students who will be entering our two school systems in the next five years or SO. We would appreciate hearing from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education on the following points that relate to the November 2001 bond referendum and other capital financing matters: • How does CHCCS propose to allocate the$2 million in bond funds for renovations? • What policies or criteria are CHCCS using to set priorities for bond funded renovations, and for renovations that will be funded by other means? • Based on those priorities and student population trends, what specific construction and/or renovation needs does CHCCS believe it must address within the next 1$—24 months? • How does CHCCS propose to employ its fund balance reserves over the next year or two to reach the target of 5.5 percent of annual local fund expenditures? • To what extent,if any,does CHCCS dedicate district tax proceeds to any specific long-range or recurring capital projects or purposes? WW CO.ORANGS.NC.US PROTECT/NS AND PRESERVING—PEOPLE. RESOURCES. QUALITY OF LIFE ORANGE COUNTY, NORT!! CAROLINA— You COuNTf (9 f 9)245-2130 • FAX(9 f 9) 644-0246 2 We welcome your thoughts on these points as soon as you can provide them, and took forward to discussing them with you during the joint meeting between the County Commissioners and the two Boards of Education on September 24. Among other topics, we would like to discuss setting up tours of facilities that would benefit from November 2001 bonds,particularly specific school venues that you believe the Bond Education Committee and elected officials should consider visiting. Sincerely, Stephen H.Halkiotis Chair cc: Orange County Commissioners Orange County Board of Education WWWCQ-0fiAN6E NC.US PROTECTING AND PRESERVING-PEOPLE, RESOURCES, QUALITY OF LIFE ORANGE COUNTY. NoRrjy cARouNA - YOU couNri (919)245-2130• FAX(919) 644-0246 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CIT Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill QnA Chapel Hill, North Carolina 6 S� Telephone: (919) 967-8211 FAX: 919-933-4560 Neil G. Pederson Nettle Collins- s!ant Superintendent Superintendent for Instructional Services Raymond J. Reitz Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent Chief Technology Officer for Support Services September 17, 2001 Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioner Halkiotis: I'm writing this letter to respond to the five questions that you raised in your letter to me of September 11, 2001: How does CHCCS propose to allocate the $2 million in bond funds for renovations? The$2 million will be used to remedy conditions related to air quality and other health and safety concerns. We anticipate that the bulk of the money will be spent at Chapel Hill High School where the needs seem to be the greatest. If there are sufficient funds, we also will address other air quality issues at Estes Hills and Phillips as we identified in our original request for$7 million in renovation monies. Now that the Commissioners have decided to include$2 million for these purposes on the November 6' bond referendum, the school board will decide at its October 4'meeting how these funds will be spent. What policies or criteria are CHCCS using to set priorities for bond funded renovations, and for renovations that will be funded by other means? Although the Board does not have a formal policy that addresses this question,past discussions have generated the following priorities: (1)health, legal compliance, and safety conditions; (2)infrastructure and major maintenance(roofs,electrical systems, parking lots,etc.) (3)equity among old and new facilities; (4)expansion of capacity; and (5)energy saving features. The,$2 million provided through the bond referendum would only begin to address the first priority category at a limited number of locations. Please note that these priorities overlap. Energy savings considerations are always a part of any renovation and major maintenance project. Significant progress in health,legal compliance and safety conditions does, in fact, contribute to resolving equity issues between old and new facilities. Based on those priorities and student population trends, what specific construction and/or renovation needs does CHCCS believe it must address within the next 18-24 months? The following is an inclusive list of projects that are pressing for the district. Other renovations and projects will be handled through the regular CIP funding process. Renovations a. CHHS HVAC system (bond) $1,500,000 b. CHHS fire alarm system (bond) $ 100,000 c. HVAC systems at Estes Hills and Phillips (bond) $ 365,000 d. Temporary space at CHHS and East for 500 students $1,500,000 e. Roofing at Seawell and CHHS $ 262,000 f. Fire Alarm and intercom upgrades at Estes Hills, Carrboro and Frank Porter Graham $120,000 g. Acquisition of a high school site $3,000,000 New Construction a. CHHS High School Addition(8 classrooms) $1,700,000 b. Elementary#9 (to open 2003) $13,555,000 c. Elementary# 10(to open 2003) $14,348,000 d. High School#3 (to open in 2005) $25,000,000 e. New Central Office $5,260,000 f. Renovate Lincoln for an alternative school $3,300,000 How does CHCCS propose to employ its fund balance reserves over the next year or two to reach the target of 5.5 percent of annual local fund expenditures? When the audit is completed in October, we will know exactly what our fund balance is. At this time we believe that it is approximately$2.5 million. The Board is committed to reducing the fund balance to 5.5 percent(approximately$1.8 million)over the next year. Any additional expenditures would be for one-time expenses. We anticipate that most of these will be for capital improvements. For the 2001-02 operating budget,the Board initially appropriated$900,000 of fund balance. Later,following your counsel,the board appropriated an additional $600,000 of fund balance to our current operating budget, and most of these expenditures are continuing. This requires that caution be used as the fund balance is spent down further. Assuming that the audited current fund balance amount is as we expect and recognizing what the board has already committed out of fund balance, this leaves an amount of about$600,000 still available to the board to reduce the fund balance to the 5.5 percent target level. The board.will likely make a determination as to the use of these remaining funds at its meetings in November after the audit is completed. Most,if not all,of these remaining funds will be used for one-time capital or operating expenses. To what extent, if any, does CHCCS dedicate district tax proceeds to any specific long-range or recurring capital projects or purposes? To date,CHCCS has not used the district tax to supplement its revenues for capital improvements. In recent years, the district tax has been used to support the increased local operating costs associated with new schools that are opened. Looking forward several years, the opening of elementary#9 in 2003,elementary#10 in 2003 and high school#3 shortly thereafter will present continuing demands to use these funds in this manner. We look forward to discussing these and other issues with you at our September 24'meeting. Also, we would be more than happy to host the Commissioners and members of the Bond Education Task Force in our schools. We are grateful that the BOCC has decided to address a major portion of our pressing current capital needs through the i I forthcoming bond referendum. We will work diligently to educate the public as to our needs that are part of the referendum. We appreciate the initial commitment you made toward high school#3, and we look forward to a speedy determination by the BOCC with respect to our remaining legitimate needs that I previously identified for you in my letter dated August 27. Sincerely, wwoc� Nick Didow, Chair CHCCS Board of Education Cc: School Board Meiiibers Chapel Hill Town Council /ohn Link Cal Horton Carrboro Board of Alderman Bob Morgan _ - Moe I, FINANCE DEPARTMENT S2 ORANGE COUNTY GORDON R. BAKER DIRECTOR To: County Commissioners From: Finance Director Subject: Recommended Policy on Fund Balance of' School Systems. Date: February , During the 1985-86 budget process, it was decided that a policy should be developed regarding the appropriate amount of fund balance available but unappropriated that each school system should maintain. This policy would be agreed upon by the County Commissioners and the Boards of Education. This recommended policy regarding the fund balance applies to the local current expense fund and addresses the maximum amount of fund balance available but unappropriated that each system should have at the beginning of each fiscal year. The school systems should maintain only the fund balance necessary to meet their cash flow.aeeds and to make relatively minor adjustments in their appropriations during the year. The Local Coverrnnent Commission monitors the fund balance of the General Fund of all tax levying units of government in North Carolina. They have established a policy that such units of government should maintain each fiscal year a General Fund fund balance available in an amount equal to at least 8% of the total expenditures of the General Fund for the year. The expenditures on which this 8% is computed includes the County's expenditures for the school systems' local current expense as well as for their capital outlay. Thus, in meeting the Local Government Commission's minimum standard of 8X, the County's fund balance avail- able for the General Fund includes a substantial amount that is related to expen- ditures for the school systems. The Local Government Commission does not have such a minimum standard for the school systems themselves. One can conclude from this that they rely on the counties to maintain an adequate fund balance level for the school systems. The superi ntendent and the finance director for orange County Schools have expressed their desire to build the fund balance available but unappropriated in the local current .xpense fund to a level of $120,000. This amount would equal approximately 2.7% if the budgeted expenditures in this fund for 1985-86 as originally adopted: Based on the fact that Orange County Schools receive the major portion of their local current expense revenue from the County in an equal amount each month, and using the County's 8% minimum standard as a gauge, a 2. 7% -fund balance level should be adequate. 6L` The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools rely on the supplemental school district tax in addition to the monthly County appropriation. T'he supplemental tax is approximately 1/3 of their local current expense fund revenues and is received primarily during the months of January and February. Because of this reliance on the district tax and again, using the County's 8% minimum standard as a gauge. a 5.5Z fund balance level should be adequate for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools. In addition to my own analyses of the above percentages, I have discussed the fund balance level appropriate for school systems with others in state and local government who are familiar with school and county finances.- The consensus was that the fund balance level for school-systems should be somewhat lower than that of the County's 8% standard and that asystem relying on a supplemental tax would heed a higher level than otherwise necessary. Based on my analyses and discussions, I recommend that the following policies be established: 1. Orange County Schools begin each fiscal year, to the extent possible, with fund balance available but unappropriated in the local current expense fund that is equal to no more than 2.7% of the budgeted expenditures in that fund for that year, and; 2. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools begin each fiscal year, to the extent possible, with a fund balance available but unappropriated in the local current expense fund that is equal to no more that 5.5% of the budgeted expenditures in that fund for that year. It must be noted that, based on the local current expense budgets as originally adopted for 1985-86, Orange County Schools fund balance level was approximately $86,000 short of the level recommended in this draft, policy. Also, Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools fund balance level was approximately $204,000 short of the recommended level. Considering the federal cut-back in assistance to local governments, the County should not be expected to build-up the school systems fund balance levels in one fiscal year. I recommend that this be accomplished gradually over a period of several fiscal years. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools General Fund-Fund Balance Historical Comparison 2000-01 2000-01 Preliminary Final Estimate (Unaudited;Based (Presented on Year-End during Spring Estimates and 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2001 Budget BOE Approved Actual Actual Actual Actual Acutal Actual Work Sessions) 2001-02 Budget) Total Revenues $17,758,620 $19,309,572 $22,210,736 $24,137,100 $26,702,042 $31,256,331 $34,748,481 $35,569,568 Total Expenditures $18,214,697 $18,102,836 $22,775,693 $23,903,793 $25,612,776 $30,058,939 $33,444,810 $34,838,402 Revenues Less Expenditures -$456,077 $1,206,736 -$564,957 $233,307 $1,089,266 $1,197,392 $1,303,671 $731,166 Less: Operating Transfers $0 $0 $0 $446,547 $35,113 $0 $0 $0 Beginning Fund Balance $2,295,629 $1,839,552 $3,046,288 $2,481,331 $2,268,091 $3,322,244 $4,519,636 $4,519,636 Ending Fund Balance $1,839,552 $3,046,288 $2,481,331 $2,268,091 $3,322,244 $4,519,636 $5,823,307 $5,250,802 Less: Fund Balance Reserved(1) $818,6261 $2,077,905 $1,775,740 $802,876 $144,171 $1,157,139 $994,900 $1,158,495 Less: Fund Balance Designated for Subsequent Year(2) $281,126 $400,000 $300,000 $431,562 $500,000 $900,000 $900,000 $1,513,123 Undesignated Fund Balance $739,800 $568,383 $405,591 $1,033,653 $2,678,073 $2,462,497 $3,928,407 $2,579,184 Fund Balance%of Current Year Expenditures 4.06% 3.14% 1.78% 4.32% 10.46% 8.19% 11.75% 7.40% (1)This represents the amounts of year end accounts receivable,inventories and outstanding encumbrances that are not available for budgetary appropriation at year end. (2)Represents the amount of fund balance appropriated to the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. - Orange County Schools General Fund-Fund Balance Historical Comparison 2000-01 2000-01 Estimate Preliminary Final (Presented (Unaudited;Based during Spring on Year-End 2001 Budget Estimates and 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Work BOE Approved Actual Actual Actual Actual Acutal Actual Sessions) 2001-02 Budget) Total Revenues $9,105,553 $9,733,640 $10,755,716 $12,275,083 $14,075,752 $15,323,719 $16;822,257 $16,568,091 Total Expenditures $8,408,655 $8,842,753 $9,635,784 $11,577,476 $14,173,378 $15,049,586 $16,974,646 $16,608,201 Revenues Less Expenditures $696,898 $890,887 $1,119,932 $697,607 $97,626 $274,133 $152,389 $40,110 Beginning Fund Balance $473,495 $1,167,289 $2,058,176 $2,978,047 $3,675,654 $3,578,028 $3,843,583 $3,691,194 Less: Equity Transfers $3,104 $0 $200,061 $0 $0 $8,578 $0 Ending Fund Balance $1,167,289 $2,058,176 $2,978,047 $3,675,654 $3,578,028 $3,843,583 $3,691,194 $3,651,084 Less: Fund Balance Reserved(1) $201,173 $373,162 $237,575 $72,893 $338,602 $309,284 $300,250 $300,250 Less: Fund Balance Designated for Subsequent Year r2> $200,000 1 $753,865 $1,200,000 $1,845,215 $1,845,215 $2,089,580 $2,044,027 $2,184,158 Undesignated Fund Balance $766,116 $931,149 $1,540,472 $1,757,546 $1,394,211 $1,444,719 $1,346,917 $1,166,676 Current Year Expenditures 9.11% 10.53% 15.99% 15.18% 9.84% 9.60% 7.93% 7.02% (1)This represents the amounts of year end accounts receivable,inventories and outstanding encumbrances that are not available for budgetary appropriation at year end. (2)Represents the amount of fund balance appropriated to the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Approved 11/21100 ORANGE COUNTY Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects (This document is intended to clarify the expectations of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in collaborating with the Boards of Education in planning for and implementing school capital projects) 1. Background The County's ten year capital investment plan is a planning document that is updated annually. Before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Board of County Commissioners approves the funding plan in concept. However, funding of individual projects is contingent upon the scope of work required to complete the project. • Level 1 Projects: Level one projects are those projects that have a relatively small scope of work and can be accomplished using a single prime contractor, in-house staff or entail purchasing equipment and vehicles. Specific examples of Level I projects include roofing projects,parking lot paving and re-wiring of existing buildings. The Board approves the entire project ordinance at one time. • Level 2 Projects: Level two projects are major projects that require several phases to complete. For these projects,the Board of County Commissioners approves a four-phase appropriation process to include: • Concept/Pre-Planning Phase (includes preliminary programming and design work that would result in conceptual drawings and preliminary cost estimates. • Planning Phase (including siting&infrastructure) • Design and Construction Approval Phase (including final design, equipment, furnishings, non-recurring start up, technology, contingency) • Schools have the latitude to shift funds between major components without prior BOCC approval, providing that the actual cost of the project does not exceed budget. • Superintendents will provide the County Manager with written project updates at their regular monthly meetings. In tum,the County Manager will provide the Board of County Commissioners with written progress reports related to the project. • Final Accounting Phase • Upon completion of the project, School and County staff will reconcile actual project expenditures with approved budget and provide the BOCC with a "final accounting"of project. Page I of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/00 2. Site Standards In accordance with North Carolina State Statutes, a local board of education cannot execute a contract nor expend funds to purchase a facility site without the consent of the local board of county commissioners. As each school system in Orange County plans for future school-related facilities, it is important that they adhere to the following guidelines related to the potential acquisition, either by purchase or donation, of a site, in addition to any siting criteria they may have established internally: Potential Sites-The Board of Education is to notify the Orange County Board of Commissioners, in writing,whenever they have tentatively identified a potential school site for purchase, or if a potential donor indicates interest in donating a site to the system. The written correspondence should provide the following information for Commissioner consideration: • Location, including tax map numbers,of the potential site; • Opportunities for additional facilities to be co-located as a park site, as outlined in the"Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning"; • The availability of public utilities within the urban services boundaries of the County; • If a donated site: • Any knowledge of a donor's plans for adjacent development; • Special considerations or expectations the donor may have referenced in initial discussions pertaining to the donation; Upon receipt of the Board of Education's notification,the Commissioners will appoint,by a majority vote of the Board, a representative to work directly with the Board of Education. As a partner with the school system,the Commissioner representative will receive information and provide input regarding talks and negotiations related to the potential site. The Commissioner representative will share information regarding the progress of talks and negotiations of the potential site with other members of the Board of Commissioners. Environmental Factors—A school system is to pay particular attention to the physical environment surrounding the site and new facility. • In order to avoid future flood hazards, a facility should not be located in close proximity to wetlands, stream buffers, or in a flood plain. Facility siting should also avoid other physical factors that create either additional construction or longer-term maintenance problems,or other unfavorable environmental impacts. Page 2 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/oo • Once a system acquires a site and before grading begins, each school system receives State approval of its erosion control plan and additional County review to ensure that unnecessary cutting of trees or clearing of land does not occur. Adequate natural buffers are to be left intact with existing trees, or replanted if the areas are disturbed during construction. Special attention should be paid to "specimen"trees as outlined in the County land development code. Road and Utility Requirements—Major elements for a system to consider in siting a new facility relate to infrastructure requirements by a Town or other public utility. In some recent instances,the systems have been required to provide costly infrastructure such as sidewalks and road improvements. These elements greatly inflate construction costs of new facilities. As a system begins initial planning, there should be a joint meeting between elected Town, County and Education officials to discuss particular requirements that all parties expect of other project partners. 3. Building Design Standards As a school system selects a particular facility design, it is important that the most cost-effective design alternative be pursued. Historically in Orange County, new school buildings have been designed uniquely for each particular project. The Board of Commissioners encourages systems to pursue non-traditional, or prototype, designs that can be replicated for use on more than one project. Should a system choose a unique design, it is to provide a detailed cost comparison analysis and justification in writing of why that particular approach was chosen over a prototype design. 4. Construction Standards Over the past few years,the County has given special attention to defining construction standards for each school level—elementary, middle and high schools. The standards provide a minimum and maximum square footage and student capacity for each level. As a system undertakes construction of a new facility, it is critical that the system adheres to the most recent school construction standards (estimated project cost should include a reasonable allowance for inflation). The Commissioners agree to provide funding for new school facilities that are designed within the adopted standards. They do not agree to fund projects that go beyond the adopted standards unless there is sufficient justification provided in writing by the Board of Education. One justification for going beyond the standards relates to co-location of facilities, in particular recreational facilities. In this case, the system must provide detailed explanations outlining the benefits to be offered to the community and citizens, in the context of the intergovernmental "Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning" and the "Orange County Parklands Acquisition and Evaluation Criteria"adopted by the Board of Commissioners on December 7, 1999. Page 3 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects 3 Approved 11/21/00 5. Project Approval A project's inclusion in the ten-year plan does not give the Schools or the County legal authority to expend funds. The legal authority to expend funds lies in County Commissioner approved capital project ordinances. Therefore, the schools should not incur any expenses for any capital project until the Board of County Commissioners approves the capital project ordinance. In order to provide timely flow of the approval process and ensure that all elements are addressed, the following steps should be followed: • Details included in each system's ten-year Capital Investment Plans regarding the scope and timing of various phases of individual capital projects is limited. To that end, as individual Boards of Education begin discussions related to new capital projects (new construction, site acquisitions, major renovations, etc),they will be expected, in writing,to notify the Board of County Commissioners of the substance of those discussions. The memorandum from the School Board will: • Provide the Commissioners with an overview of the project concept along with other project specifics that the Board of Education has defined to that point; • Justify the need based on current school capacities and projected student enrollments consistent with the School Adequate Public Facility Ordinance(if the Ordinance is in effect at this time); • Provide a preliminary cost projection of the project based upon the adopted school construction standards and provisions of the Cost Effective Facilities Initiative (CEFI), which has derived from earlier discussions about "value engineering" (if this policy is in effect at this time); • Request that the Board of Commissioners approve.a capital project ordinance to provide funding for the initial planning phase of the project; • Instruct the Superintendent to update the County Manager, in writing, of the project's progress at his/her monthly meetings with the County Manager. • Upon receipt of the memorandum from the Board of Education,the Board of Commissioners will: • Act upon the project concept by either approving it or asking the Board of Education to amend the concept plan; • Instruct County staff to confirm the project's cost estimate and student capacity in accordance with the County's adopted School Construction Standards Reports along with student enrollment projections; Page 4 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects 3 Approved 11/21/00 • If the Board of Commissioners approves the project concept, the County Budget Director will prepare an agenda abstract and related capital project ordinance that provides funding for the concept and pre-planning phase of the project; • Appoint, by majority vote of the Board, either a Commissioner representative (preferably the same representative that participated in the siting phase of the project) and one staff representative, or two staff representatives, to partner with the school system as the plans develop; • Instruct the County Manager to update the Commissioners on a regular basis regarding the written information shared by the School Superintendent. 6. Expenditure of Project Funds Funding for Project Planning- School systems will not expend or encumber for planning of any project until the Board of County Commissioners has approved the plan concept. Background-For several years,the Board of Commissioners has approved a capital project ordinance entitled Planning for Future Projects for each school system. The creation of these ordinances enabled a system to expend a portion of their pay-as-you-go funds for planning during a project's conceptual stages. Once a project grew beyond the concept stages, systems requested the Commissioners to approve a"project specific" capital project ordinance allocating all funds anticipated to carry out the planned project. In turn, each district expended their monies up-front for planning, design, architect, construction, furniture and equipment. In return, the County reimbursed each District with all of the project-related expenditures up to the total project budget. With the changes implemented by the County Commissioners in June 1999,this process has changed. It is important to note that unless a County approved capital project ordinance is in place (i.e. adopted by the County Commissioners), that the County is not legally or otherwise obligated to reimburse the school system for their expenditures. If the Board of County Commissioners approve the project concept and capital project ordinance as outlined in Item 5 above, the following steps occur • Following Board of Commissioner approval of final plans for the project,the school system advertises for construction bids; • Once the system receives the bids,the School Superintendent notifies the County Manager,in writing,of the result of all bids received. • The County Manager informs the Board of Commissioners, in writing, of the construction bid results. 7. Submission Timelines • While the Board of Education may receive the bids, it should not execute any contract until the Board of County Commissioners receives bid information and approves a capital project ordinance for the construction phase of the project; Page 5 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/00 • Generally, the Board of Commissioners conducts regular meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month. To allow for timely preparation of the meeting agenda, the following timelines should be followed by staff: • Twenty-one days prior to the Board of Commissioners meeting,the School Finance or Budget Director or the Director of Facilities provides the County Budget Director with: • Bid Tabulation of School Construction or Major Renovation Project(example included as Attachment 1 of this Memorandum) • Any other pertinent information regarding the project. • Fourteen days prior to the meeting,the County Budget Director submits a draft agenda abstract including the bid tabulation and capital project ordinance to the County Manager's office for review. The Budget Director forwards (via e-mail or fax) a copy of the abstract and attachments to the School Finance or Budget Director and the Director of Facilities for review and comments. • Ten days prior to the meeting,the School Finance or Budget Director and the Director of Facilities provide abstract revisions and comments to the County Budget Director. • Seven days prior to the meeting the County Budget Director submits final agenda abstract and attachments to the County Manager's Office. A copy of the abstract and attachments are forwarded(via e-mail or fax)to the school system. Upon adoption by the Board of Commissioners,the County Budget Director informs the School Finance and Budget Director and the County Finance Director of the abstract approval and the assigned account number(s). This is done via a standard memorandum that.indicates purpose and account codes. • All requests for payment from the School Finance Directors are forwarded to the County Finance Department for payment. The County Finance Department ensures that the requisition for payment falls within the purposes approved by the Board of Education. S. Change Orders The School Superintendent submits, in writing, to the County Manager all contract change orders for the project. Upon receipt of the information, the County Budget Director prepares an agenda abstract and an amended capital project ordinance for approval by the Board of Commissioners at their next scheduled meeting. If there are change orders that cause project expenditures to be over budget,the School district must receive approval from the Board of Commissioners prior to approving the change order. Page 6 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects (Adopted 12/7196) (Revised 2/3/98) Orange County Board of Commissioners Capital Funding Policy A. Source of Funds The following sources of funds will be allocated for Capital Projects and Debt Service: 1. All proceeds form the Article 40 and Article 42 one half sales tax. The North Carolina General Statutes require that 30 percent of the Article 40 and 60 percent of the Article 42 sales tax revenue be earmarked for school capital projects or debt service on debt issued for school capital projects. 2. Revenue from the property tax as follows: • $800,000 • The equivalent of 2.7 cents on the tax rate based on valuation as of 1996-97. • The amount necessary to retire the 1992 School Bonds. (In 1997-98,this amount is $4.7 million.) • The amount of the reduction in the Human Services function of the County budget (equivalent of one half of one percent of the budget or$50,000)in 1994-95 for automation projects in Human Services. • Utilities Extension Fund—This amount may vary in that it is based on the increase in property tax base as a result of expenditures in the Utilities Extension Capital project. The amount currently planned is $35,000 for 1997-98 and$25,000 for each year thereafter. 3. Impact Fees for each school system. 4. Public School Building Fund 5. Other revenues that are restricted including,payment-in-lieu, grant funds,rental revenue and inmate fees as a result of the new jail addition. B. Debt Service Prior to funds being allocated for specific projects, all debt service, including private placement financing will be subtracted from the unrestricted funding sources. As an exception,the Orange County Schools are responsible for funding directly from their pay-as- you-go capital allocations,that portion of the cost of a new high school in the Orange County School system beyond the$12.5 million bonds approved by voters for that school in November 1997. C. Allocation All sources of unrestricted revenue, less debt service, is then allocated between County and School projects based on 50 percent of the net amount for School projects and 50 percent of the net amount for County projects. Funding between the two school systems will be allocated based on the 20'b day enrollment adjusted each year. For example,the 20'h day enrollment as of September 1998 will be the basis of the 1999-2009 Capital Improvements Plan. These percentages will be rounded to one decimal place. Impact fees will be projected and allocated to each school system, although these fees may be used to pay debt service. When impact fees are used to pay debt service,the equivalent amount of the projected impact fee will be allocated to each school system. For the first three years of the planning period(1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000)impact fees are dedicated to the cost of the new schools. All funds allocated to capital projects are to be accounted for in a Capital Project Fund under a Project Ordinance adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The Project Ordinance will include a detailed breakdown of each cost category related to the project, as outlined in the Sample Capital Project Ordinance at Attachment 1,which is incorporated by reference into this policy. Whenever County or School project bids exceed budget or come in lower than projected, or any other factor affecting the project budget occurs, County departments or the school systems would be expected to present revised capital project ordinances for adoption by the Board of Commissioners. D. Funding Levels It is the intent of the Board of Commissioners to"hold harmless" School projects and County projects as identified by the amount of funding projected in the 1996-2006 Capital Improvements Plan. To achieve this intention,the following funding options will be used: • The difference between the amount of general obligation debt service payments at the peak year of the debt schedule and the actual debt service payment will be earmarked for the Orange County Schools until the time that any shortfall that would have been realized by that system is made up. • For County projects,beginning in 1998-99 the equivalent of one cent on the general fund property tax rate will be necessary. The Board of Commissioners in adopting this policy instructed staff to identify other funding options rather than a tax increase to make up this shortfall. The Board of Commissioners may consider shifting the one cent capital reserve fund to be dedicated to County projects(see Capital Reserve section below). E. School/Parks Capital Reserve The school/parks capital reserve fund, established by the Board of Commissioners in 1995- 96,receives annual allocations equivalent to one cent on the General Fund Property Tax Rate (not adjusted for the 1997 revaluation of property but adjusted for revaluation of real property beyond the 1997 revaluation.) This reserve will accumulate during 1996-97 and 1997-98 with these funds used for site acquisition for schools and or recreation, or the combination of both. The Board of Commissioners will evaluate this reserve fund during 1998-99 to determine if this one cent reserve should continue. F. School/Parks/Recreation It is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to evaluate each new proposed school in both School Districts for joint use to include park and recreation use. G. Recurring Capital Recurring capital for each School System will be based on the equivalent of three cents on the General Fund Property Tax Rate (not adjusted for the 1997 revaluation of real property but adjusted each revaluation thereafter.) Funds will be allocated to each school system based on the State Department of Public Instruction planning allocation,which is the same method used to allocate current expense appropriation. H. Planning Period During each fiscal year,the Board of Commissioners shall adopt a ten year Capital Improvements Plan. The ten year plan shall include anticipated County capital expenditures costing$30,000 or more(excluding equipment)and anticipated school capital expenditures costing$50,000 or more(excluding equipment). Equipment costing$1,000 or more can be considered as part of the Capital Improvements Plan. The first year of the adopted Ten Year Capital Improvements Plan shall be incorporated into the next annual operating budget recommended by the County Manager. Review of Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Background In November 2000, the Commissioners approved a "Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects" that was intended to clarify expectations of the Commissioners in working with the school boards regarding the development of school capital projects. The information provided in Section 1 of this report briefly reviews key components of the policy, including siting and funding school facilities. Section 2 of the report provides information regarding how the items in the previous section relate to new school projects, particularly CHCCS Elementary Schools#9 and #10 and OCS Middle School #3. 1. Siting and Funding School Facilities • Siting of School Facilities As outlined on page 2 of the Policy (Attachment 1f— 1), when Boards of Education identify potential school sites, they are to notify the Commissioners, in writing. At that point, the Commissioners would appoint a representative to work directly with the respective Board of Education as talks and negotiations related to the potential site(s) . progress. • Funding School Facilities Construction of new school facilities and major additions to existing facilities are Level 2 projects. As defined by the Policy, Level 2 projects are those that require several phases to complete, and the Commissioners appropriate funds at the following three stages: • Concept/Pre-Planning Phase — provides funding for preliminary programming and design work that would result in conceptual drawings and preliminary cost estimates. • Planning Phase — includes funding related to siting the facility and construction of infrastructure • Design and Construction Approval Phase — provides funding for final design, equipment, furnishings, non-recurring start-up costs, technology, and project contingency. Upon completion of the project, the last phase, Final Accounting Phase, would provide a reconciliation of actual project expenditures with approved budget. 2. Project Updates • CHCCS Elementary School #9 Update The Commissioners and CHCCS Board of Education have agreed that the site for Elementary School #9 is at the donated Meadowmont site. To date, the Commissioners have approved funding for the following phases of this particular project: Approved Phase Funding Concept/Pre-Planning Phase (Approved by BOCC 12/06/01) Schematic Design $107,184 Town Approval Process $25,000 Total Concept/Pre-Planning Phase $132,184 Planning Phase (Approved by BOCC 3/06/01) Design Development $142,911 Town Approval Process $72,000 Construction Documents $225,367 Total Planning Phase $440,278 Total BOCC Approved Funding For Elementary #9 Located at Meadowmont $572,462 Funding for these initial phases has come from pay-as-you-go funds such as savings from the Smith Middle School Construction project and an appropriation from the School Capital Fund Balance. The next approval phase for the Commissioners is the Design and Construction Approval Phase. Funding for this phase would come from the November 6 bond proceeds. • CHCCS Elementary School #10 Update Also included on the November 6 bond referendum for CHCCS are funds to plan and construct Elementary School #10. A potential site for this facility is the Eubanks Road/Old Highway 86 property that the County recently purchased. The Commissioners appointed an internal work group to consider and evaluate the potential opportunities of the 193-acre Eubanks Road/Old Highway 86 site and discuss a process for master site planning and development. The work group consists of Commissioners Brown and Gordon, County Manager, John Link, and Environment Resource Conservation Director David Stancil. Attachment 1f-4 provides a suggested outline of the master plan process for the Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus. The outline proposes that the work group could share its initial findings and thoughts on the Eubanks Road/Old Highway 86 site with the Commissioners at the October 22 work session. Staff suggests that the Commissioners invite representatives from the Town of Carrboro and the CHCCS Board of Education to attend the work session. Attachment 1f— 5 is a letter of request from the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Board of Education asking the Commissioners to approve funding for the Concept/Pre-Planning Phase of this project. Should the Commissioners pursue the suggestion of examining the Elementary School #10 site at the October 22 work session, it would seem reasonable to wait two weeks until the bond referendum is passed before addressing the Board of Education's funding request. • OCS Middle School #3 Funding is also included on the November bond referendum to site and construct a new middle school for the Orange County School (OCS) District. At this time, we are .not aware of potential sites that the district may have identified for the new middle school, and the Board of Education has not requested funds to do preliminary planning of the new facility. As with Elementary School #10, should the OCS Board request funds for initial phases of the -new middle school, the Commissioners may wish to wait until the voters decide the November bond referendum before advancing funds. As we plan develop our plans for these three major school facilities, it is also important to plan for other priority projects that would be funded with alternative means such as private placement funding, Certificates of Participation (COPs), and impact fees. We are pleased to provide you with good news regarding the balance in each district's current impact fee account. CHCCS has $6.2 million currently available to address priority capital needs and OCS has more than $537,000 available. In addition, we anticipate that with the recent increases approved by the BOCC effective July 1, 2001, impact fees would generate $2.3 million annually for CHCCS and $1 million annually for OCS (refer to Agenda Item 4b for additional information). I have indicated to the School Superintendents that the County needs each district's potential timetables for all planned projects including those funded with bond proceeds as well as those funded from other sources. The information that they provide will allow us to develop a comprehensive fiscal plan, that would include bond and alternative financing, to address priority capital needs for both school districts and the County. `vk lf"_ - INITIAL DRAFT Possible Outline of Master Plan Process (Staff Proposal), Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus August 27, 2001 The following is staffs initial attempt to outline a decision-making process for this site. This may or may not be the appropriate process to be used, pending the Board's discussion. Description 1 Step 1 Form BOCC Work Group to discuss uses, July-September, 2001 guiding principles for site and planning process 2 Recommendations from Work Group on October 22, 2001 Conceptual Site Plan, Master Planning Process and Guiding Principles (basic uses for the site, general locations for said uses, operating rinci les 3 Board of Commissioners deliberations on November-December, Work Group report 2001 3 A Master Plan Work Group is created and January - June 2002 meets to develop details of the Master Phasing Plan for the site 4 Master Plan Work Group August, 2002 recommendations presented to BOCC 4 BOCC Deliberations, Proposal for Phase I September, 2002 of Park/Campus 5 Detailed Site Plans (engineering detail) October-November 2002 are prepared for Phase I 6 Carrboro Conditional Use Permit Process November 2002 —April for both Phase I and overall Master Plan 2003 7 Tentative Phase I Construction May 2003—April 2004 October 2001 Report from BOCC Work Group This report would set a strong framework and outline parameters for the master plan process. In' this arrangement, the Board of Commissioners would define expectations and direction of the Master Plan work - defining all primary uses and the locations of uses, including the type of schools/school facilities, what type of playing fields, what type of major park amenities (leaving the smaller details for the Master Plan work group). The Master Plan Work Group would then develop,the details of the phasing of the site development and the specific design of t'he facility, within the scope and charge consistent with the Board of Commissioners' principles. An example of operating principles the BOCC Work Group might recommend to the Board of Commissioners could include: • The operation, maintenance and programming of active recreation facilities (who does it, when, how is it maintained and by whom) • The use of xeriscaping (native vegetation getation and minimal water use) for all of park • That all portions of the park not identified for playing fields should adhere to Olmstead-style park design (open spaces, meadows, fields flexibly used for a variety of public leisure uses— such as Central Park in NYC) • Other principles that ensure that educational facilities and park amenities are inter-twined and have a seamless transition, as possible • Others The Master Plan Work Group As stated above, in this scenario, the Master Plan Work Group would use the direction, primary uses and principles from the Board of Commissioners to focus efforts on the details of how schools and the park work together, where amenities such as picnic areas and restrooms are located, lighting, and other specific details of the site design in accord with the preliminary design concepts. As members, the Master Plan Work Group might include: • 2 County Commissioners • 1 Carrboro Alderman • 1 School Board member • 2 Citizens who live near the site • 1 Commission for the Environment Member 0 1-2 IP Work Group members (perhaps from Carrboro and County) • Duke Forest Manager • Other? To accomplish the Master (concept) Plan work, the new Open Space Design Specialist (position approved in escrow for 1/1/01) or a consultant would be needed to work on site design and pahsing. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #14 Background in December 1999, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board of Education approved the formation of a facilities task force. The Task Force was charged with the responsibility to analyze the district's growth in student enrollment and corresponding need for new facilities. The Task Force met through the first half of the year and presented a comprehensive analysis detailing the need for new school facilities. The June 2000 Long Range Facilities Task Force Report recommended that planning proceed not only for a 90 elementary school at Meadowmont but also for a 10`" elementary school. The report identified a potential school site for#10 in the northwest area of the district. The need for Elementary School#10 was further strengthened by very high increase in 2000-01 elementary school enrollment and enrollment projections by the Mate, County, and school district. All indications point to continued growth in elementary school enrollment and support the need for a 10th elementary school The 10"' elementary school was included in the district's 2001-11 Capital Investment Plan and has been identified as a priority for funding in the November 2001 county bond referendum. The school district is currently designing Elementary School#9 that will be built on donated property in the Meadowmont development. Preliminary schematic plans for the new school have been presented to the School Board and County Commissioners. The schematic design reflects the required educational specifications and a commitment to environmental sensitivity through the use of daylighting and other techniques. The facility's design is being developed as a prototype elementary school building. It Is intended that the prototype design be used not only for Elementary School#9 but also for Elementary School#10. In addition to assuring the new elementary school design contains the necessary educational elements, the reuse of a prototype design saves valuable planning time in the project schedule. Use of a prototype design also reduces design costs. Justification Elementary school enrollment has experienced a tremendous increase again this year. The districts current 2000-01 elementary school enrollment is 4,486. This enrollment represents an increase of 227 over last year's end-of-year total and 1 95 more than the State projection. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools is the only Triangle area school system to exceed enrollment projections and has the State's highest percentage increase in student enrollment. The attached Exhibit A details enrollment and capacity at each elementary school and depicts the acute need for additional elementary schools to relieve overcrowding. The exhibit also includes information regarding each school's enrollment compared to the acceptable Level of Service. An acceptable Level of Service was enacted by the School Board in anticipation of the implementation of a School Adequate Public Facility Ordinance. In;June 2000, the School Board approved 105% as an acceptable Level of Service for elementary school enrollment. Based on past growth patterns, the 105% level of service will be exceeded this current school year. Growth In elementary school enrollment will produce a Level of Service in excess of 105% even after the opening of Elementary School#9. Project Budget In developing the attached project budget, the most recent construction bids from Smith Middle School were used as a basis to project estimates. While future construction costs can be difficult to accurately forecast, using the middle school's 1999 actual bids provides a solid basis for the projections. The 1999 costs were inflated for a two year period to meet a scheduled construction bid in late 2001. Additionally, the size of the new school is based on Scroggs Elementary School's 90,980 square footage. The project budget of$14,348,362 is outlined on Exhibit B and conforms to the model advanced as part of Orange County's School Facility Construction Standards. It contains individual amounts for specific project components such as construction, site development, fees, furniture,technology, start up costs, and contingency. The project budget includes$900,000 for utility extensions. This is a projected cost that is expected with the development of a school site at the Eubanks Road and Old 86 area. It should also be noted that the budget's contingency estimate is 4%. Exhibit C presents the project schedule and indicates a very aggressive plan to open the new school for the 2003-04 school year. In order to meet the schedule, architectural and engineering planning services must begin immediately and filings must be submitted to local regulatory agencies. $339,000 is required for the pre-grading phase, building construction documents and Town approval process. The need for Elementary School#10 was identified for inclusion in the November 2001 bond referendum. Complete project funding is anticipated at that time. Re nest The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education requests the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to approve a capital project ordinance for the construction of Elementary School#10 and provide funding of$339.000 for the initial phases of planning. It is also requested that Elementary School#10 be built on a suitable site in the Eubanks Road and Old 86 area. CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS EXHIBIT B ELEMENTARY SCHOOL#10 PROJECT BUDGET Feb. 2001 Budget Category(1) Project Budget Site Acquisition - County purchase of property Construction: 9,552,900 90,980 square foot(2) at$105 per square foot(3) Site Development: { 10%of construction cost 955,290 off site utility extensions 900,000 l Con. + Dev. Sub total 11,408,190 i Professional Fees: 855,614 . 7.5%of construction and site development cost t' (use of prototype) Fumiture and Equipment: 477,645 5%of construction cost Technology: 750,585 8.25 per sf for infrastructure and equipment Non-personnel Start Up Costs 400,000 Contingency: 456,328 4%of construction and site development costs PROJECT COST $ 14,348,362 ; a (1) Budget format conforms to the model established In the Orange County School Facility t Construction Standards and includes the specified categorizes with unit measurements. (2) Elementary#10 size is based on Scroggs Elementary School's 90,980 square feet. (3)Construction cost estimate is based on Smith Middle School"s 1999 construction bid t, of$98.54 inflated 3%a year for two years. 1 rul ae 1 SCkOJ �Olci4ies Tois� �orce f 4 Repo-r'E- to 1 � r Je O -ri�.Oun �y POO • ' 'Count4 Comrni �6oners April 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Task Force Charge and Membership......................................................................................................4 Background................................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 1. Orange County's Ten-Year Investment in New Schools.............................................. 5 Chapel Hill-Corrboro City Schools..................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Ten Year Investment in Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools..........................................6 OrangeCounty Schools................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Ten Year Investment in Orange County Schools.......................................................... 7 School Construction Standards....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4. Current Capacity and Square Feet Standards............................................................ 9 ReportSummary....................................................................................................................................... 10 StudentCapacity....................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5. Student Capacity by School District............................................................................ 13 Use of Mobile or Relocatable Units............................................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Levels of Service Standards Identified in Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(SAPFO)........................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 7 School Districts Use of Mobile Units............................................................................... 15 Figure 8. Elementary School Capacity........................................................................................ 15 Figure 9. MiddleSchooi Capacity................................................................................................ 17 Figure 10. High School Capacity................................................................................................. 18 Best Practice for Projecting Number of Students................................................................................. 18 Determining Current Students....................................................................................................... 19 Methodologies Used in Projecting Future Students....................................................................21 Currently Available Methodologies..............................................................................................21 State Department of Public Instruction Model............................................................................22 Figure 12. Comparison of DPI Projections and Final ADM-CHCCS..................................................22 Figure 13. Comparison of DPI Projections and Final ADM-OCS.............................................22 Student Generation Report(771shcler)Model...............................................................................22 Figure 14. lishler Method Applied to CHCCS Membership......................................................23 Figure 15. lishler Method Applied to OCS Membership...........................................................24 Orange County Planning Department Model............................................................................24 Figure 16. Orange County Planning Projections-CHCCS Membership.................................24 Figure 17. Orange County Planning Projections- OCS Membership.....................................25 CohortSurvival Model....................................................................................................................26 Figure 18. Cohort Survival Analysis(5 Year Growth)-CHCCS Membership..........................26 Figure 19. Cohort Survival Analysis(5 Year Growth)- OCS Membership...............................26 Figure 20. Cohort Survival Analysis(3 Year Growth)- CHCCS Membership..........................27 Figure 21. Cohort Survival Analysis(3 Year Growth)- OCS Membership...............................27 Comparison of Available Models.................................................................................................28 Figure 22. CHCCS Projected Elementary Membership.............................................................29 Figure 23. CHCCS Projected Middle School Membership........................................................28 Figure 24. CHCCS Projected High School Membership............................................................29 Figure 25. OCS Projected Elementary Membership..................................................................29 Figure 26. OCS Projected Middle School Membership.............................................................30 Figure 27. OCS Projected High School Membership................................................................. 30 2 Methodology Available in the Future..........................................................................................30 Consideration of Charter School Students..................................................................................31 Clarification of Project Components.....................................................................................................31 Figure 28. Recommended Definitions and Examples of Project Components.......................32 Allowances for Expenditures Related to Meeting State and/or Local Ordinances and Codes...............................................................................................................................................32 FacilityDesign...........................................................................................................................................33 PrototypeDesigns...........................................................................................................................34 Value Engineering and Life Cycle Costing.................................................................................. 34 ProjectContingency................................................................................................................................36 InflationFactor..........................................................................................................................................37 OtherConsiderations...............................................................................................................................38 Appendix A. Resolution and Task Force Charge Appendix B. Actual Costs of School Construction Projects Appendix C. Current School Construction Standards Appendix D. School Construction Planning and Funding Policy Appendix E. Prototype and Value Engineering Survey Results 3 J � In October 2000, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners created a School Facilities'Task force to address matters of mutual interest to the County and both school systems. As its initial charge, the Commissioners directed the task force to review School Construction Standards and student capacity as they relate to the development of a possible November 2001 bond referendum. The Board was particularly interested in receiving input from school elected officials regarding how these components affected each system's need for future schools. Appendix A provides a copy of the resolution appointing the task force. The following elected officials were designated by their respective board to serve on the Task Force: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. Stephen Halkiotis Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education Gloria Faley Roger Waldon Orange County Schools Board of Education Keith Cook Susan Halkiotis The County Manager and School superintendents, along with their respective staffs provided management, technical and administrative support to the task force. 4 J Over the last ten years, the Board of Commissioners has provided funding for nine new schools — five in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District and four in the Orange County District. These schools have added more than 1.2 million permanent square feet between the two districts, and increased permanent student capacity for both districts by about 66 percent or 7,145 seats. In 1990, the combined student seating capacity was 10,836. This compares to a projected capacity of 17,981 with the anticipated opening of Cedar Ridge High School in 2002. More than $156 million in local and state bonds, local pay-as-you-go funds, local non-bond debt (such as private placement funding), and State Public School Building Funds has been invested in these nine new schools. (This amount does not include renovations at existing schools.) Figure 1. Orange County's Ten Year Investment in New Schools By School Level Student Total Square Total Project School Year Opened Capacity Feet Cost New Hoe Elementary OCS 1991 621 100,164 $8,853,508 (') McDou le Elementary CHCCS 1996 596 98,000 $11,548,824 (2) Scroggs Elementary CHCCS (3) 2000 609 90,980 $12,600,000 (21 Pathways Elementary (OCS) 2000 600 85,282 $11,437,720 (2) Total Elementary 2,426 374,426 $44,440,052 McDou le Middle School CHCCS 1994 732 136,221 $13,917,622 t'i A.L. Stanback Middle School OCS 1995 740 136,000 $14,242,000 2001 Smith Middle School (CHCCS) (anticipated) 7321 128,764 $19,420,000 (2) Total Middle 2,204 400,985 $47,579,622 1996 (Phase 1) / 1999 East Chapel Hill High CHCCS Addition 1,515 255,948 $36,758,518 2002 Cedar Ridge High (OCS) (anticipated) 1,000 206,900 $27,929,000 t'1 Total High 2,515 462,848 $64,687,518 Total Investment in New Schools 7,145 1,238,2591 $156,707,192 Project cost includes site acquisition 2'Project cost does not include site acquisition; site either donated or previously purchased by system Capacity as approved by CHCCS Board of Education in January 2001 5 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Over the last seven years, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District has constructed five new schools. These schools have increased seating capacity at all levels by 69.8 percent or 4,184 seats, going from a capacity of 5,993 in 1993 (McDougle Middle School opened in fall 1994) to 10,177 with the opening of Smith Middle School next fall. Two new elementary schools, McDougle and Scroggs, have provided 1,205 additional seats for children in kindergarten through grade five. With the opening of Smith Middle School, the number of middle school seats in the District will have increased by 1,464, and East Chapel Hill High has provided 1,515 additional seats for students in grades nine through twelve. The capital investment for the recently constructed schools (currently in operation) totals about $74.8 million or $21,675 per seat. The opening of Smith Middle School in fall 2001 will provide another 732 seats bringing the total investment in the five newly constructed schools in this District to $94.2 million or$22,524 per seat. Figure 2. Orange County's Ten Year Investment in New Schools Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Site Acquisition Site Develo ment&Facility Construction Total Investment Cost Per Total Cost Project Costs Square Per Square Capital Cost School Acreage Total Site Cost Cost Per Acre Square Feet (excluding land) Foot Total Project Cost Foot Per Seat Schools Currently in Operation McDougle Elementary included in McDou le Middle 98.000 $11,548,824 $ 118 $11,548,824 $118 $ 19,377 Scroggs Elementary 13.00 $ donated 90,980 $12,600.000 $ 138 $12,600,000 $138 S 20,690 Total Elementary 13.00 SO 188,980 $24,148,824 S 128 $24,148,824 $128 $ 20,041 McDougle Middle 39.98 $900,050 $22,513 136,221 $13,014,572 5 96 $13,914,622 $102 $ 19,009 Total Middle 39.98 $900,050 - 136,221 513,014,572 S 96 $13,914,622 $102 $ 19,009 East Chapel Hill High 74.80 $1,850,000 524,733 170,200 $20,858,518 $ 123 $22,708,518 $133 $ 22,263 East Chapel Hill High Addition site owned b district 85,748 514,050,000 $ 164 $14,050,000 $164 S 28,384 Total High 74.80 $1,850,000 S 24,733 255,948 $34,908,518 S 136 538,758,518 $144 $ 24,263 Total 13.00 scresip donated or owned bX dlalrlct 114.78 $2,750,050 S 23,959 581,149 $72,071,914 S 124 $74,821,984 $129 S 21,675 Schools Currently Under Construction Smith Middle School site owned b district 128,764 $19,420,000 S 151 1 $19,420,000 $151 IS 26.530 Total Investment In New 13.00 scream donated or owned by dlatrio! Schools for CHCCS 114.78 52,750,050 S 23,959 709,913 1 591,491,914 S 129 594,241,984 $133 S 22,524 6 Orange County Schools The Orange County Schools District has constructed three new schools, two elementary schools and one middle school, since 1991 increasing capacity by 1,961 seats. In addition, the District is currently constructing a new 1,000-student high school, Cedar Ridge High School. In 1990 (New Hope Elementary opened in fall 1991), the District's capacity was 4,843 students. With the opening of Cedar Ridge High in fall 2002, capacity will be 7,804. The two new elementary schools have provided 1,221 additional seats for elementary students while A. L. Stanback Middle School has provided 740 new seats. Since 1991, more than $34.9 million has been invested in new schools (schools currently in operation) in the Orange County Schools District. This equates to $10,117 per seat. The projected cost of Cedar Ridge High is just over $27.9 million bringing the total new school investment for this district to $62.8 million or$15,023 per seat. Figure 3. Orange County's Ten Year Investment in New Schools Orange County Schools Site Acquisition Site Development&Facility Construction Total Investment Cost Per Total Cost Project Costs Square Per Square Capital Cost School Acreage Total Site Cost Cost Per Acre Square Feet (excluding land) Foot Total Project Cost Foot Per Seat Schools Currently In Operation New Hope Elementary 26.00 5415,630 $15,986 100,164 $8,437,878 $ 84 $8,853,508 $88 $ 14,855 Pathways Elementary 18.00 $ donated 85,282 $11,437,720 $ 134 $11,437,720 $134 $ 18.781 Total Elementary 44.00 5415,630 185,446 519,875,598 S 107 S20,291,228 S109 S 16,839 A.L.Stanback 35.90 $807,959 522,506 136,000 513,826,370 $ 102 $14,634,329 5108 $ 19,992 Total Middle 35.90 1 136,000 $13,826,370 S 102 514,634,329 5108 S 19,992 Total 18.00 dottsted a owned b district 61.90 $1,223,589 S 19,767 321,446 533,701,968 S 105 I 534,925,557 5109 S 10,117 Schools Currently Under Construction Cedar Ridge High 71.00 5660,636 $9,305 206,900 $27,268,364 S 132 $27,929,000 $135 $ 38,154 Total Investment In New 18.00 scmW domlied or owned la district Schools for OCS 132.90 51,884,225 S 14,178 528,346 S60,970,332 S 115 562,854,557 S119 J$ 15,023 7 It is important to note that actual development and construction cost per square foot for the two districts vary - $129 for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and $115 for Orange County Schools — and there are significant differences in the site acquisition costs. On average, the cost per acre in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro District is almost $24,000 per acre compared to a per acre cost in the Orange County District of just over$14,000. Appendix B of this report provides detailed information regarding costs of each component of the individual projects. 8 School Constructions Standards As school construction began to peak in the mid-to-late 1990's, the Orange County Commissioners adopted School Construction Standards for elementary, middle and high schools. These standards provided both school systems with construction guidelines including student capacity, total square feet, education program requirements, state facility standards, facilities management costs, and effective school design. Figure 4 provides a summary of current capacity and square feet standards for each school level (details regarding the current School Construction Standards are included in Appendix C of this report): Figure 4. Current Capacity and Square Feet Standards School Level Capacity Square Feet Basic—81,463 Elementary School 600 students Tier A—83,325 Tier B—95,235 Basic— 113,373 Middle School 700 students Tier A— 114,993 Tier B— 132,192 High School 1,000 students Range of 151,049 to 182,710 1;500 students Range of 211,487 to 251,345 Five of the nine schools listed in Figure 1 on page 4 of this report were constructed before the Board adopted the School Construction Standards. These include New Hope and McDougle Elementary, A.L. Stanback and McDougle Middle and both phases of East Chapel Hill High. The remaining projects, Smith Middle School and Cedar Ridge High School, have gotten underway after the Board adopted the current standards. In addition to the School Construction Standards, the Board adopted the Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects in November 2000 (Appendix D). This policy provides additional guidelines to both school districts as they plan for and construct new facilities. 9 The School Facilities Task Force presents the following recommendations to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. Detailed information related to each recommendation is include in the remainder of this report: The levels outlined in the current School Construction Standards are adequate. Student Capacity (page 15) • Elementary—500 students • Middle —700 students • High — 1,000 to 1,500 students Mobile unit seating should not add to the permanent seating capacity of a school. Use of Mobile Units (page 17) Instead, the capacity of a mobile unit should serve as a temporary buffer during construction of new facilities. Membership provides the most realistic picture of the actual number of students attending schools. This method accounts Best Practice for Determining Current for new student enrollees as well as those Students (page 21) no longer attending class. The Task Force agreed that student membership on the second month (fortieth day of school) each year should be the base number to use in planning for future school facilities. The Task Force agreed that it is important to distinguish between the projected number of students used in planning for annual current expense budgets and the number used for planning for future capital facilities. Using a compilation of methods for Methodologies to Use in Projecting Future projecting future students is an important Students (page 23) consideration in making the most accurate projections. Three readily available methods that are recommended are: • State Department of Instruction Model • School ImpactlStudent Generation Report • Orange County Planning Department Model • Cohort Survival Method 10 It is important to recognize the fact that there is a potential for charter students to return to the public school systems. The Consideration of Charter Students (page Task Force recommends that as School 33) and County staffs annually update current and projected student membership, they also update the number of charter students that each system has. The current construction standards identify eight major elements of capital projects including site acquisition, site Clarification of Project Components (page development, construction costs, fees, 34) technology, moveable equipment, start-up costs and contingency. The Task Force provides definitions and examples of project components. Both districts identified items specific to meeting State or Local codes. These Allowances for Expenditures Related to particular items have potential to increase meeting State and/or Local Ordinances project costs significantly. The Task Force and Codes (page 35) recommends that, when necessary, the Board allow each system to include these items in the project budgets. Many counties throughout the State have recognized benefits and cost savings by using the same school design time after Use of Prototype Designs (page 36) time. The Task Force recommends that the Board continue to encourage both systems to pursue use of prototype designs as new projects are planned. Members of the Task Force agreed that both districts have adopted some internal measures to address this aspect of project planning. The committee recommends that the Commissioners continue to encourage both systems to pursue value engineering Value Engineering and Life Cycle Costing to the extent possible. The Task Force (page 36) also recommends that the Board consider making the High Performance Building Standards (a report compiled by the Triangle J COG and due out in the near future) an addendum to the County's adopted School Construction Standards report. 11 The Task Force recommends budgeting project contingency at the State accepted level of 3 '/2 to 4 percent of construction and site development costs. In The Project Contingency (page 38) accordance with the County's Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects, the last phase of a project is a final accounting of expenditures. Inflation Factor (page 39) Based on recent construction (only) costs the Task Force recommends an annual inflation factor of 2 1/2 percent be applied to the County's current Construction Standards. Other Considerations (page 40) The Task Force recommends that the Board of Commissioners encourage both districts to consider the following items as they begin construction of a new facility: • Energy efficiency measures ■ Possibilities of joint bidding ■ Designing buildings for ease in future building additions ■ School siting and acreage 12 Student capacity refers to the number of permanent seats available in schools. This number does not represent the number of seats provided in mobile or relocatable units. The chart below outlines student capacity and membership for each system. For purposes of this report, the membership numbers used for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools reflect the third month of school year 2000-01. For the Orange County Schools, membership numbers reflect the fourth month of the 2000-01 school year. In addition, membership numbers do not account for the number of students from each district who are members of charter schools, nor does it reflect the number of students attending the "Hospital School' operated by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. Figure 5. Student Capacity by School District Permanent Structures Only,No Mobile Units(Including Projects Under Construction) CHCCS OCS Square Member Square Member Elementary Feet Capacity ship(1) Elementary Feet Capacity ship(1) Carrboro 60,832 563 523 Cameron Park 70,812 598 577 Ephesus 66,952 472 580 Central 52,492 483 427 Estes Hills 56,299 549 540 Efland Cheeks 64,316 529 539 Glenwood 50,764 445 369 Grady Brown 74,016 575 522 FP Graham 63,541 570 579 Hillsborough 51,106 414 398 McDougle 98,000 596 676 New Hope 100,164 621 615 Scroggs (2) 90980 609 554 Pathways 85,282 600 (4) Seawell 52,869 498 623 Total CHCCS Total OCS Elementary 540,237 4,302 4,444 Elementary 498,188 3,820 3,07 Middle Middle Culbreth_ 104,798 670 655 A.L. Stanback 136,000 740 717 McDougle 136,221 732 861 C.W. Stanford 107,620 726 787 Phillips 109,498 706 810 Smith * 128,764 732 (3) Total CHCCS Total OCS Middle School 479,281 2,840 2,326 Middle School 243,620 1,466 1,504 High High Chapel Hill 238,074 1,520 1,540 Orange 213,509 1,518 1,672 East Chapel Hill 255,948 1,515 1,275 Cedar Ridge 206,500 1,000 (3) Total CHCCS Total OCS High High School 494,022 3,035 2,815 School 420,009 2,518 1,672 Total All Levels 1,513,540 10,177 9,585 Total All Levels 1,161,817 7,804 6,254 3rd Month Membership for CHCCS and 4th Month Membership for OCS (2)Capacity as approved by CHCCS Board of Education in January 2001 (3)Currently being constructed (4)Not in operation on 2nd month of 2000/01 School Year;opened December 2000 It is important to note that there are two unopened schools, Smith Middle School in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro District and Cedar Ridge High School in the Orange County 13 District included in Figure 5. These two schools are under construction at the time of this report. However, it is important to consider their capacity since they are currently underway and will provide space for current as well as new students. It is also important to note that the Board of County Commissioners recently approved planning funds for a new elementary school, currently referred to as Elementary #9, in the Chapel Hill Carrboro system. Since full funding of the project is not in place at the time of this report, the anticipated additional capacity that this school would offer is not included in Figure 5. The opening of Smith Middle School, anticipated for fall 2001, will increase capacity in the Chapel Hill Carrboro District by 732 students, bringing the District's total permanent capacity for all levels to 10,177 students. The following year, Orange County Schools anticipates the addition of 1,000 seats with the opening Cedar Ridge High School, increasing that District's total capacity to 7,804 for all levels. At that point, the combined student capacity for both systems will be almost 18,000. Members of the Task Force agreed, after reviewing the capacity levels and total square footage outlined in the School Construction Standards, that the current levels are sound and there is no need to change them. Use of Mobile or Relocatable Units Task Force members agreed that mobile or relocatable units should serve only as a temporary buffer to house students while new schools are constructed. Additional space provided by mobile units should not be considered part of system's permanent square footage. This recommendation is consistent with the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that identifies an acceptable Level of Service (capacity above 100 percent to serve as a buffer while new schools are constructed): Figure 6. Levels of Service Standards Identified in Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) Capacity As Outlined in Level of Capacity School Service as As Construction Identified in Defined School Level Standards SAPFO by SAPFO Elementary 600 105% 630 Middle 700 107% 749 High School 1000 110% 1100 (range) 1500 110% 1650 Figure 7 on the following page provides a listing of each district's current use of mobile units: 14 Figure 7. School Districts Use of Mobile Units Usage for 2000-01 School Year CHCCS OCS Elementary Units Assigned Usage Elementary Units Assigned Usage Carrboro 1 Classroom Cameron Park 1 Resource Room, Supply Storage Classrooms and Ephesus 7 Small Group Central 0 No Units Instruction BEH Self Occupational Estes Hills 1 Contained Room Efland Cheeks 1 Therapy and After School Classrooms, Glenwood 2 Resource Room, Grady Brown 3 Classrooms and Family Specialist Resource Rooms Room FP Graham 4 Classrooms Hillsborough 0 No Units McDougle 0 No Units New Hope 0 No Units Scroggs 0 No Units Pathways 0 No Units Seawell 6 Classrooms Total CHCCS Total OCS Elementary 21 Elementary 5 Middle Middle Culbreth 0 No Units A.L. Stanback. , 1 Classroom McDougle 2 Classrooms C.W. Stanford 6 Classrooms, Resource Rooms Phillips 0 No Units Smith ' 0 Total CHCCS Total OCS Middle School 2 Middle School 7 High High Chapel Hill 6 Classrooms Orange 2 Classrooms East Chapel Hill 0 No Units Cedar Ridge ' 0 Phoenix Acaden 2 Classrooms Total CHCCS Total OCS High School 6 High School 2 Total All 29 Total All 14 Levels Levels Currently being constructed 15 Elementary Capacity At the end of the second month of the current school year, elementary capacity in the individual districts was within the 105 percent level of service, with a combined capacity for the two systems of about 92 percent. Membership in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District is less than two percent of the acceptable level of service allowing for growth of approximately 73 students at the elementary level. The opening of Pathways Elementary in December 2000 expanded the Orange County School District's capacity by 600 students, providing a growth factor of 933 students at the elementary level before reaching the 105 percent level. Figure S. Elementary School Capacity Permanent Structures Only, No Mobile Units CHCCS ocS Capa member % of caps member % of School city ship (') Capacity School city ship (') Capacity Carrboro 563 523 92.9% Cameron Park 598 577 96.5% Ephesus 472 580 122.9% Central 483 427 - 88.4% Estes Hills 549 540 98.4% Efland Cheeks 529 539 101.9% Glenwood 445 369 82.9% Grady Brown 575 522 90.8% FP Graham 570 579 101.6% Hillsborough 414 398 96.1% McDougle 596 676 113.4% New Hope 621 615 99.0% Scroggs 609 554 91.0% Pathways 600 (Z) Seawell 498 623 125.1% Total CHCCS Total OCS Elementary Elementary School 4,302 4,444 103.3% School 3,820 3,078 80.6% CHCCS - Elementary OCS Elementary Capacity at 105% Capacity at 105% Level of Service 4,517 4,444 98.4% Level of Service 4,011 3,078 76.7% % of Cape Combined Elementary Capacity Capacity Membership (') city 100% Level of Service 8,122 7,522 92.6% 105% Level of Service 8,528 7,522 88.2% 3rd Month Membership for CHCCS and 4th Month Membership for OCS (2) School not open on 40th day; opened December 2000 16 Middle School Capacity Figure 9 provides individual and combined capacity for middle schools in both districts. It is important to note that in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro District, the current membership is 2,326 students, which surpasses the 107 percent level of service standard (Culbreth, McDougle, and Phillips Middle Schools) by 70 students. The opening of Smith Middle School in fall 2001 will allow for District growth of 720 new students at this level. Figure 9 below indicates that membership at the Middle School Level in the Orange County School District has surpassed the 100 percent mark but is still slightly below the 107 percent Level of Service. There is a growth factor of 65 students before the District meets the 107 percent level. The opening of Smith Middle School will increase the combined middle school capacity in both districts to 5,038 students at the 107 percent level of service. Figure 9. Middle School Capacity Permanent Structures Only, No Mobile Units CHCCS OCS Capa Member %of Capac Member %of School city ship(') Capacity School ity ship(') Capacity Culbreth 670 655 97.8% A.L. Stanback 740 717 96.9% McDougle 732 861 117.6% C.W. Stanford 726 787 108.4% Phillips 706 - 810 114.7% Smith (2) 732 0 0.0% Total CHCCS Total OCS Middle Middle School 2,840 2,326 81.9% School 1,466 1,504 102.6% CHCCS Middle OCS Middle School Capacity School Capacity at 107% Level of at 107% Level of Service 3,039 2,326 76.5%1 Service 1,569 1,504 95.9% %of Capa Combined Middle School Capacity Capacity Membership(') city 100% Level of Service 4,306 3,830 88.9% 107%Level of Service 5,038 3,830 76.0% 3rd Month Membership for CHCCS and 4th Month Membership for OCS (2) Opening Fall 2001 17 High School Capacity Current capacity at the high school level in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro District is 3,035 compared to a membership of 2,815. This equates to about 93 percent of capacity compared to the level of service standard of 3,339 students (110 percent). On the other hand, Orange County High School has surpassed the 110 percent level by two students. The opening of Cedar Ridge High School in fall 2002 will bring Orange County District's capacity to 2,518. In addition, the combined high school capacity at the 100 percent capacity level will increase to 5,553. It is also important to note that with the opening of Cedar Ridge, the 110 percent level of capacity for the two districts will be 6,108. Figure 10. High School Capacity Permanent Structures Only, No Mobile Units CHCCS OCS Capa Member %of Capa member %of School city ship(') Capacity School city ship(') Capacity Chapel Hill 1,520 1,540 101.3% Orange 1,518 1,672 110.1% East Chapel Hill 1,515 1,275 84.2% Cedar Ridge(2) 1,000 Total CHCCS Total OCS High High School 3,035 2,815 92.8% School 2,518 1,672 66.4% CHCCS High School Capacity OCS High School at 110% Level of Capacity at 110% Service 3,339 2,815 84.3% Level of Service 2,770 1,672 60.4% %Of Capa Combined High School Capacity Capacity Membership(1) city 100% Level of Service 5,553 4,487 80.8% 110% Level of Service 6,108 4,487 73.5% 3rd Month Membership for CHCCS and 4th Month Membership for OCS (2) Opening Fall 2002 18 i 1w ? ruj :4 I J I J., U 111 ,U :4 r U :Ah i The Task Force recognized that determining the present and future number of students in a district is an important component to planning future facilities. The members felt that It was important to distinguish between the projected number of students used in planning for annual current expense budgets and the number used for planning for future capital facilities. The Task Force considered three major elements as it formulated recommendations for projecting the number of students for capital purposes: (1) identifying the actual number of students currently in a school system at a particular point in time; (2) developing sound methodologies to project the future number of students in a school district; (3) comparing the current and projected numbers with existing student capacity in a system's permanent structures. Identifying the number of students actually occupying seats provides a base on which to project future growth in student population. Determining Current Students The Task Force reviewed the following methods for determining the number of students currently attending class in a school district: • Membership — This method takes into account the actual number of students attending school (at a particular point in time) in a school system by considering the number of students enrolled and making adjustments for withdrawals, dropouts, deaths, retentions and promotions. Each system calculates its membership based on monthly reports completed by each principal. • Enrollment— The term enrollment represents the number of students registered in the school system, regardless of whether or not the student actually attends classes. Once the system initially counts a student in Its enrollment figure, that student remains In the school district's count throughout the school year. A district does not reduce its enrollment for transfers, withdrawals, deaths or midyear graduations. Therefore, the district's end of the year enrollment shows a higher count than the actual number of students attending classes. • Average Daily Membership (ADM) — Average Daily Membership is based on the total number of school days that a student's name is on the current roll of a class, regardless of whether that student is present or absent. To calculate a district's ADM, total the number of days in membership for all students and divide that total by the number of school days in the term. The final ADM is the total days in membership for all students over the school year divided by the number of days school was in session. 19 • Average Daily Attendance (ADA) — ADA is based on the number of students that are present when school is in session. To calculate ADA, total the number of days each student is present and divide that total by the total number of school days in that period. After considering each of the methodologies outlined above, the Task Force agreed that membership provides the most realistic picture of the actual number of students attending schools. This is the only method that accounts for new student enrollees as well as those no longer attending class. The other three methods account for increases to membership, but they do not provide a mechanism to account for students no longer attending class. In order to provide consistency in comparing actual year-to-year growth, it is important that both systems report the same monthly count to the County. The State requires school districts to report membership at the end of the second (fortieth day of school) and fifth (one.hundredth day of school) months. After considering staff input, the Task Force agreed that student membership on the second month (fortieth day of school) each year should be the base number to use in planning for future school facilities. 20 Methodologies to Use in Projecting Future Students Several student projection models were discussed by the Task Force including models that are currently available as well as ones that will be at hand in the future. Reviewing historical growth patterns would be a good starting point for making membership projections. The average annual increase in students fluctuates somewhat depending on the period used. • 10 year average annual increase • CHCCS - 361 new students per year • OCS - 126 new students per year • 5 year average annual increase • CHCCS - 355 new students per year • OCS - 139 new students per year • 3 year average annual Increase • CHCCS - 427 new students per year • OCS - 87 new students per year Task Force members recognized that using a compilation of methods for projecting the number of students is an important consideration in making the most accurate projections. It is also important to look at historical growth patterns for each district. In order to provide consistency in projections from year to year, it is also important that the methodologies outlined in this report are the only ones used unless the Board of Commissioners approves an alternative method. This consistency allows for "best practice" projections that provide consistency from year-to-year. Currently Available Methodologies Readily available projection models include • North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) model, • Student Generation Report prepared by Tischler and Associates, • Orange County Planning Department model, • Cohort Survival Method, a model used widely by education statisticians 21 DPI Model Historically, projections made by State DPI have been low when compared to actual student membership growth. Figures 12 and 13 compare the 1998 DPI projections for the past three years with actual membership numbers for both districts. While the Task Force discussed this model, it was not highly recommended. Figure 12. Comparison of DPI Projections and Final ADM CHCCS 10,000 9616 9,000 8984 8,000 7,000 1919 99 Op 99 '00 --*--Oct'98 DPI Projection Final, Figure 13. Comparison of DPI Projections and Final ADM OCs 6,500 6254 ' 6188 6075 6298 6,000 ,4. 5,500 190 99 00 99 O� o7 tOct'98 DPI Projection Final I Student Generation Report The County recently contracted with Tischler and Associates to update its School Impact Fee/Student Generation Report. While the Tischler method projects future student population numbers based on an Average Daily Membership (ADM) basis, this methodology is sound and can be applied to membership numbers as well. The Task Force agreed that this model is one that can be used in making projections. This model takes population statistics, housing starts, and student membership into account. In addition, this methodology projects student 22 generation rates based on historical trends in each of these areas. In order to reflect ongoing trends, it is important that the School Impact Fee/Student Generation Report be reviewed and updated on a regular basis such as every 4 to 5 years. The Tischler report projects an average annual growth of approximately 441 students for the two school districts. Current school year membership for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system totals 9,585 (third month) and 6,254 for the Orange County system (fourth month) for a combined membership of 15,839. The report projects average annual growth of 441 students each year (285 for Chapel Hill- Carrboro and 156 for Orange County). Using the current year membership as a base, Figures 14 and 15 provide ten-year membership projections for the individual districts. Figure 14. Tischler Method CHCCS 15,000 11170 11488118M 12123 1 10634 1ae53 10,000 5,000 200, 2000 1200312004 12005 12005 2007 2006 ZOOS 2010 2011 ■ . 2815 2981 3009 3135 3234 3332 3429 3627 3524 3722 3820 O Ndit 12M Z25/I 2285 I 2380 I 2433 1 2507 2580 2W41 ZM71 2500 2874 In 4444 4501145M 147201485715014151611 W07154541 5501 I 5748 Elementary 0 Middle M High 13 23 Figure 15. Tischler Method OCS 8723 8,0m- 6410 8563 6879 7036 7192 7348 8254 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2001 2002 12003 1.2004 2005 12006 12007 2008 2009 2010 2011 RHqh 1986 12016 12064 2112 2160 12208 2258 2304 2352 2400 Mkk% 11504 1481 11517 11553 1589 11625 11661 1697 1734 1770 1806 INEWm 3078 2981 13030 13108 3178 132511 3323 3395 3487 1 3539 3612 IN Elementary O Middle ■High 14 Orange County Planning Department Model The Orange County Planning Department has also developed a projection model. This linear model assumes the following projections: Chapel Hill Carrdoro City Schools—360 new students in school year 2001-02. Each year following that year, the model projects a decrease in the "growth" of 15 students per year (i.e. 345 new students in school year 2002-03, 330 new students Q n school year 2003-04, etc.). Figure 16. Orange County Planning Projections CHCCS 15,000 1zo4s lzzea 1251 9845 10290 10820 10935 11235 11520 11790 9585 10,000 5,000 0 2001 12002 12003 2004 12005 12006 2007 12008 12009 2010 2011 ■WI 2815 3083 3189 3271 13368 13460 3548 13631 13710 3784 3853 OMIddIe 12326 1 2297 12 377 2453 2526 2595 2681 12723 12782 2838 2890 ■E1ements 4444 1 4585 I,714 4898 15041 15179 5311 15435 15553 5883 5767 ■Elementary ®Middle ■High 16 Orange County Schools— 140 new students in school year 2001-02. Each year following that year, the model projects an increase in the "growth" of 5 students per 24 year (i.e. 145 new students in school year 2002-03, 150 new students in school year 2003-04, etc.). Figure 17. Orange County Planning Projections OCS 8,000 8254 8811 6744 7019 71 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2001 2002 12003 12004 12005 12006 12007 12008 12009 2010 2011 ■FN 1872 2037 2077 2119 2182 2208 2253 2300 2350 2400 2453 O Middle 1504 1528 11558 11590 11622 1 16551 1690 1 1728 1763 1 1801 1 1840 0 Mom~13078 3049 13109 317 44 1 3235 3302 3371 33 1 3518 13593 13671 ■Elementary 17 Middle ■High 17 Cohort Survival Model This methodology uses historical trends to.calculate projected students by age group or grade level. While the Student Generation Model outlined in the previous section considers new housing starts, the Cohort Survival Model also provides for birth rates and migration. This is an important factor because live birth rates for Orange County residents have been relatively flat for some time. However, student populations continue to increase annually. The use of computer spreadsheet models provides ease in updating these numbers each year and in providing varying assumptions (for example, comparison of student growth in a three, five, or ten year period). Figures 18 and 19 apply the Cohort Survival Model and projects future growth based on growth over the last five years as a base. Figures 20 and 21 apply the same model but project on growth over the last three years. 25 Figure 18. Cohort Survival Analysis Using 5 Year CHCCS Growth 15,000- � 9931 10274 10585 1087511186 1143811887 11880 120781229 10,000 5,000 2001 2002 12003 12004 12005 12006 12007 2008 12009 12010 12011 ■High 2815 2902 3041 3174 3308 3488 3567 3611 3888 3801 3941 OMiddle 2328 2469 2579 12626 12640 12672 12795 2928 13014 3044 3074 IN Elementary 4444 14560 14653 14785 14927 15027 15077 15128 15179 15231 5283 IN Elementary ©Middle ■High 19 Figure 19. Cohort Survival Analysis Using 5 Year OCS Growth 8,000 8254 8 84 8471 8540 6581 8588 SO 6,000 4,000 2,000 2001 12002 12003 12004 1 2005 12006 12007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0 High 11672 L1782 117M 1 1812 1929 11960 11967 1985 1943 1907 1908 OMidcb 1504 1574 1642 1684 ISM 1572 1588 1580 1587 1582 1598 ■E*nwta 3078 3015 2984 2995 3022 3023 3053 3083 3114 3145 3177 ■Elementary 0 Middle ■Hlgh 20 26 Figure 20. Cohort Survival Analysis Using 3 Year CHCCS Growth 15,000 122401 12944 13254 9ses 1006010527 10984 1140811853 10,000 5,000 0 2001 20021200311 200a 2005 2005 2007 2000120091201011 2011 ■ h 2815 2929 3104 3275 3438 3855 3794 3915 4076 4298 4522 aMMddb 12326 12478 12613 1 2710 2784 2877 1 3072 1 3281 1 3358 134201 3454 ■Ebmeft 4"414M 14810 14M 16187 5321 1 5374 154M 1 5482 1 5537 I 5592 ■Elementary 0 Middle■High 18 -Figure 21 . Cohort Survival Analysis Using 3 Year OCS Growth s,000 8254 8341 8417 8421 8 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2001 1200212003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ■Hi h 1672 1785 1808 1844 1955 1980 1985 1941 1893 1837 1824 O Midtlb 115M 115701 1828 1628 11536 11499 11481 1479 1464 1478 1493 ■Ebmenla 3078 2988 2934 2930 12942 12941 12970 3000 3030 3060 3091 IS Elementary O Middle ■High 19 The following charts provide a comparison of the models outlined on the preceding pages: 27 Figure 22. CHCCS Projected Elementary Membership Compared to Capacity 6,000 5,800 seoo 5,aoo 51M 5,000 4ADO 4,400 w if 4,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 200® 2010 2011 +Tisdyer 5 Year CrOW h -t-3 Yew QovAh t OC PIN I di +CHOW Projec dw t Capwky +106%L eM d Swvloa za Figure 23.CHCCS Projected Middle School Membership Compared to Capacity 3)= 3,400 3,200 aOW 2,800 z= — 2,400 2,200 z= 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 -+Thx*dor 5 Year Grow4h -r 3 Year Grvw1h ♦-oc PWIN xj -w all S Projac w t Qa=4 CIE-107%LzM d Service 25 28 Figure 24. CHCCS Projected High School Membership Compared to Capacity 5,000 45w- 1410W 3,500 x000 2,500 2001 20x2 2003 2004 2006 2006 204'7 2008 2000 2010 2011 +Tbchler 5 Yeer GmvAh -+-3 Year GmvAh -f-OC Plannh g +acm Projections Capacity -*-110p/O U Mel of Service 26 Figure 25. OCS Projected Elementary Membership Compared to Capacity 4,100 3,700 3,500 3,300 3,100 - - 2,900 2,700 zwo 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 tTk diw 5 Year c ma 3 Year GmvAh -o.-Oc Phn" f Capadty 105%UNW d sewice 29 Figure 26. OCS Projected Middle School Membership Compared to Capacity 1,900 1,800 1,700 11600 1,500 1 X100 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -4-Ttschier 5 Yew GooIMh -a-3 Yew OraMh t Oc PlarMft +OCS Pr*cdon -W Capecity 28 -CIE-107%UPM d Service Figure 27. OCS Projected High School Membership Compared to Capacity 2,800 Cedar Midge High School Projected to Come on Line 2,800 2,400 2,200 2,000 /• —• •— • 1,800 •• -r 1,800 1,400 1,200 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2009 2009 2010 2011 t Tbchler 5 Year Growth -� 3 Year Growth tOC Planning -W capacity X110%Level of Service 29 Methodology Available in the Future The Task Force endorses use of the County's Geographic Information System (GIS) to aid with student projections in the future. This technology will offer tools to pinpoint growth patterns in particular areas of the county and to allow for planning of potential new school sites in relation to population growth. 30 Consideration of Charter School Students In North Carolina, charter schools are a relatively new concept, and there have been a few instances across the state where these schools have closed. While regular membership counts do not consider these children, it is important to recognize the fact that there is a potential for charter students to return to the public school systems. The Task Force recommends that as School and County staffs annually update current and projected student membership, they also update the number of charter students that each system has. The Task Force feels that all projections should be reviewed annually during the County's ten-year capital planning process. Use of a compilation of the methodologies outlined above should provide more accurate projections than have been available in the past. 31 The current construction standards identify eight major elements of capital projects including site acquisition, site development, construction costs, fees, technology, moveable equipment, start-up costs and contingency. The following chart provides definitions and examples of project components: Figure 28. Recommended Definitions and Examples of Project Components • Purchase price of property • Survey • Deed recording Site Acquisition— . Appraisals Costs associated with . Soil testing acquiring a site Legal fees associated with purchase and recording • Pre-grading • Grading to include playing fields and playgrounds • Installation of storm water run-off drainage Site Development— . Soil borings (rock) Costs of preparing the . Utility extension/installation site for construction . Sidewalks • Turn lanes • Municipal Requirements • Prime Construction Contracts (includes general contractor, electrical Construction Costs— contractor, HVAC contractor, plumbing contractor) Costs of constructing a . Other construction related work new facility or Sprinkler renovating an existing ' one ' Expanded Water Flows • Architectural & engineering services (examples: educational specifications and programming, schematics and design development, bidding, construction documents, construction administration, reimbursables, furniture selection) Fees-Costs of • On-site engineering control inspections • Materials testing application and permit • Topographic and boundary studies fees and professional • Local government applications and permit fees (examples: special use fees permits, conditional use permits, zoning permits, building permits) • Specialized consultants (examples: traffic engineer, environmental specialist, project scheduler/expeditor) • Connect fees to utilities 32 • Technology infrastructure (examples: wiring or fiber optics) Technology— . Computer equipment (examples: computers, printers, scanners, servers technology routers, switchers, CD-ROM drives, laser disc players) infrastructure and • Fire/Security alarm systems equipment . Televisions, video recorders &cameras, satellite dishes • Telephone system • Technology consulting services • Office furniture (examples: desks, chairs, files, bookcases) Moveable Equipment • Cafeteria equipment (examples: tables, seating, ovens, stoves, —Readily moveable dishwashers) equipment • Conference room furniture • Gymnasium bleachers • Athletic field bleachers • Media center collections • Classroom textbooks & supplies (including musical instruments, science lab materials, art materials, etc) • Playground equipment • Cafeteria small wares (examples: utensils, trays) Start up Costs • Athletic supplies and equipment(examples: wrestling mats, basketball goals, scoreboards, etc.) • Athletic and band uniforms • Custodial cleaning equipment • Lawn maintenance equipment • Recycling &trash containers • Postage machines • Specialized equipment such as pianos • S ecialized si na e Allowances for Expenditures Related to Meeting State and/or Local Ordinances and Codes Both school districts identified particular items related to meeting State and/or Local codes and ordinances that may increase project costs. The chart below provides specific examples that the systems have encountered in recent projects: Examples of Requirements Potential Cost Construction application filing fees to Towns $50,000 Removal of site clearing debris instead of $150,000 burning Installation of building sprinkler systems $160,000 to required by local own codes $225,000 Storm water management measures to alleviate $200,000 soil erosion The Task Force recommends that, when necessary, the Board of Commissioners allow each system to budget for these items as new standards are developed. 33 r D i4w Z-0J 1J Prototype Designs One of the most important and time-consuming phases in constructing a new school occurs in the very early stages of the project - designing the facility. In its recently adopted County's Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects, the Board of Commissioners encourages the use of prototype designs. A prototype design is one that is easily replicated for use on more than one project. While one school system may chose to reproduce the same school several times within the district, other systems may choose a design that has been successfully constructed in another area of the state or nation. Using a design that has been used elsewhere offers several benefits designs: • Provides access to a wide range of architects and product manufacturers that specialize in school design and construction; • Increases awareness of current trends in school designs; • Offers some flexibility to individualize a school's appearance; • Potentially results in cost savings on design fees; • Reduces time spent in the pre-planning phase thereby allowing construction to begin earlier than with a uniquely designed facility; • Offers an opportunity for planning committee to visit a school before committing to a design; • Ideally, each time the facility is replicated, there is potential to find room for cost savings or building improvements. While the use of a prototypical design does not totally limit a school system's creativity and individuality, there are some limitations: • Site restrictions, such as topographical barriers, may limit the design; • Programmatic needs may not be easily accommodated; • Cost to adapt a design may be more than the cost of a unique design. The Task Force reviewed survey results (Appendix E) from entities across the state and found that many counties have recognized benefits of using the same school design time after time. There were no negative comments received from any of the counties that have used prototypes, and for the most part, these counties have realized sizeable savings. For example, officials in Cabarrus County cited cost savings of between $300,000 and $400,000 for each re-use of a previously designed school. In Buncombe County, architects have agreed to "site adapt" previously designed plans for both an elementary and a middle school for between 2.6 and 2.7 percent of construction costs. The Task Force recommends that the Board continue to encourage both systems to pursue use of prototype designs as new projects are planned. Value Engineering and Life Cycle Costing Survey results show that three counties, Buncombe, Cabarrus and Lincoln, use "value engineering" in some manner. Both Cabarrus and Lincoln Counties have outside firms 34 review project plans and identify areas where cost savings or other long-term efficiencies may be realized. Members of the Task Force agreed that both districts have adopted some internal measures to address this aspect of project planning. The committee recommends that the Commissioners continue to encourage both systems to pursue value engineering to the extent possible. Over the past few months, Triangle J Council of Governments has convened representatives from most Triangle governments and many school districts to discuss the establishment of high performance building standards. These standards are designed to lessen the impact of construction on the environment, while ensuring the building delivers the best long-term performance. Along with Triangle J staff, the study team included local and State government representatives, school representatives as well as area architects and construction contractors. The elements of the proposed standards incorporate a number of value-engineering elements. Elements include, but are not limited to the following: • Energy efficient heating and air conditioning systems; • Life-cycle cost analysis to ensure up-front savings are not accomplished to the detriment of the long-term use of the building; • Sensitivity to how the site is chosen and then subsequently prepared for construction; 0 Use of durable materials to ensure effective long-term performance. The release of the guidelines is imminent. The Task Force recommends that the Board of Commissioners consider making the High Performance Building Standards an addendum to the County's adopted School Construction Standards report. 35 tuil "t"m J., :Ail d 1W Regardless of how well planned a project is, there is certain to be some unanticipated expense that a school system has not included in the project budget. Project contingency is designed to allow for these unforeseen items. The County's current School Construction Standards allow for project contingency equivalent to 5 percent of construction and site development costs. State Department of Instruction guidelines use 4 percent as a guideline. The Task Force recommends budgeting project contingency at 3 '%2 to 4 percent of construction and site development costs. In accordance with the County's Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects, the last phase of a project is a final accounting of expenditures. This phase provides the mechanism to account for how budgeted contingency funds were spent. 36 rU �!) J J taufz One component not addressed in the County's current School Construction Standards Report is the rate of inflation to apply for future projects. Figure 29 compares the current standards with actual square footage costs for schools constructed since the School Construction Standards were adopted in 1996 (elementary and middle schools) and 1999 (high schools). Figure 29. New School Construction (Only)Costs Projects Completed After School Construction Standards Adopted by BOCC Construction Construction Total Square Cost Per School Year Opened (Only) Costs Feet Square Foot Elementary School Standards $8,570,250 95,225 $90 Scroggs Elementary(CHCCS) 2000 $9,131,851 90,980 $100 Pathways Elementary (OCS) 2000 $8,082,331 85,282 $95 Total Construction Cost for Elementa!y $17,214,182 176,262 $98 Middle School Standards $12,558,240 132,192 $95 2001 Smith Middle School (CHCCS) (anticipated) $12,905,699 128,764 $100 Total Construction Cost for Middle Schools $12,905,699 128,764 $100 High School Standards(1,000 student school) Ranges from Ranges from $16,615,390 to 151,049 to $20,098,100 182,710 $110 200-2- Cedar Ridge High (OCS) (anticipated) $18,748,526 206,900 $91 Total Construction Cost for High Schools $18,748,526 206,900 $91 Average Construction Cost for All Levels 7$48,868,407 511,926 $951 After considering information included in the chart above, the Task Force recommends that the Board use the average per square foot cost as a base in which to apply an annual inflationary factor. For example, average per square foot costs for the two recently constructed elementary schools, Scroggs and Pathways, was $98. This would become the new standard for projects planned after the upcoming fiscal year (2001-02) and beginning in fiscal year 2002-03; an annual inflation factor of two and one-half percent would be applied to per square foot costs. 37 y � Energy Efficiency Measures The Task Force highly recommends that the Board of Commissioners encourage both districts to incorporate the following energy efficiency measures as it plans for new facilities. • Natural Lighting in all classrooms. • Ice Storage Systems Possibilities of Joint Bidding Another area to explore includes collaborating with other area school districts that are constructing facilities in the same timeframe. There may be opportunities to bid building materials or equipment jointly with other districts. Design buildings for future additions (for example including building stub- outs). The Task Force recommends that all schools constructed in the future be designed in a manner that provides for ease in constructing future building additions. School Siting and Acreage State standards regarding school siting and acreage are mirrored in the County's current Construction Standards. The State is fairly flexible concerning acreage standards and will consider certain exceptions to the acreage standards. Examples of exceptions include whether the school is one story or multi-levels, whether the school is co-located with recreational or library facilities that can be used by the students and consideration of "off-site" parking. 38 Appendix A Re-solution and Task Force Charge Approved ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A TASK FORCE TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS MATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST TO ORANGE COUNTY, THE CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS, AND THE ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS Whereas, a task force comprised of two members each of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, and the Orange County Board of Education met productively several times in 2000 to discuss matters related to school funding options and a proposed policy on planning and funding school capital projects, and Whereas, a topic at the September 25, 2000 joint work session among those three governing boards was the possible establishment of a work group to meet periodically to discuss matters of mutual interest that arise out of such joint work sessions or through other circumstances, and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the need for a possible November 2001 bond referendum to fund some School and County long-range capital needs, and Whereas, the Board of Commissioners views school construction standards and school capacity as integral components in projecting the need for future capital facilities, and Whereas, the Board of Commissioners believes that it would be beneficial to receive direct input from school elected officials regarding these components and the need for future schools; Now, therefore be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby endorse the creation of a School Facilities Task Force that will meet periodically as needed to address matters of mutual interest, to be comprised of two members each from the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Orange County Board of Education, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, with those governing boards to designate their own representatives, and Be it further resolved that this task force should undertake as its first set of tasks the development of recommendations concerning school construction standards, school capacity, and any other related matters that have a bearing on the scope and elements for school facilities that might be included in a probable November 2001 bond referendum, with task force work to begin by November 2000, and delivery of a report on these matters to the Orange County Commissioners no later than January 18, 2001. This, the 17th day of October 2000. Appendix B Actual Costs of School Construction Projects B k m k - a C4 § 2 ° 3 k 2 2 k & ON \ / a 2 ■ � 0 � 0 c K § e § o o o A K ee m L 2 a � a � - - - ® _ ) f % § 2 f ) § o § e § ■ ■ 0 CL � § � & $ � $ 7 $ � % E a = 7 _ o # a ■ 2 k a ) 2 2 3 � k k k o 2 k 2 CL n c � Can- 2 � k �§ k a a � § , � a o § « a 2 ] ) a © § © � �7 � ® / ® a 22 � � 2 � � ■ g/ 5C / \2 ) 2 � 22 c e CL Ek % ] k) L c CD $ _ Z k k $ k \ k cc 0 G % A B U) 8 # k JI £ 7 . . vs . — . °..2 § s • a o. _� � . . . cn °s cq m o _ o CR r � � � N N N O ' Ch Qb O C cc n. u0 O . 'O C a7 w M N a< m W C 1A m N K W Z O �O N tp O p uQp acoD O O N O r z 4 y yy N N ` V Q7 e o w v► °�4 $ a in °m ono 8 o 0 0 o v U is C S I'd C U mU W /A f9 M 40 app �p 8 to 8 N N N t0 l7 O N N .�•• _O O EOpp N Gi cq 4 Go' In ta� pp p W fA W W r W (? N N N r Qc M (J a 8 �, �, a 9 o c CL 3 40 h Cc CL t^ g 4 t 0 E in z' Cl) co i w $ g o a $ o Nc O CL a 3� 3 c m c 3 s 18 cl a V CL e t U U . g e z 145 lo a � y a°�L cg m V cg $ Uc CL U g � pe t� ice- V a a Z c O m in c E e E m s 2 0 m L ` c w U u) LL N r = N N M 64 N N N E E LL d C C .0. d F N � K fH �i O n Q) t7 O o o to o C 2 .C„ a ^ S 69 N O L R Q m co 0 ^ .. m �n g W N r 6 .C S ep pp a C N O aND 07 �[f n O m N N N a co S ccpp 01 rS N O O a• m to a N N N O a C O U 4-k 49 V a •. NONl Off O O of N C � � f L C CL o a � E 8 0 E no 0 Asp m a s a � w .0 G o� N �. O LL C C! m m a. p O. E U c of L y t� ,� v O m bi o Z o �. 1 m SL 3 t V � � pp o��g V 0 CJ y a y `� O " V '9 O Cl) � S � � E �°� v a ;0a9 ° � °o p as rL aww cV 4 G Q C u _C 3 � u, z m E e c r+ w O N O W a Q 7 m V; m o x . .. n pp .app pp. ^ �p pp W K § O Q /A O W ° n °� .. .. °f) 83 N M ° h~1 Ci � � ^ Gf s- +P.yy � N � M Lf) rs 44 c 81 n Q o O pQ uy pq �• .2E pV3 a N p tlD CY tacp� C n Of t0 � t+i 9 N N m MW � �(7� w h LV VtV' '- § CQ NN N N Q tttAAA N k( 0 Ml to C} Go Ln cV o pp pp �7 r Ai �apQ y� Q ypOt�[} C ap0 O h(VN Qe� fQ� *~- �Qp p^ •�- 'a R " Wa 1% LA Ql pM� N m .3 H 49 fN W 69 eri H !f� �y t/j N y MO q W O Cl O 40 ��Cy .W. � Op 8 � 0 NO "' tt} 4a�Vpp Oyi yM� "a c G t13 IJ3 � � tii ,� h O f9 C OS Ot 0 O r. �p rn U t0 CO CNQ N 'eh O N O b Q m � w w m _ o sa 2'i •�• � .. LL cis C O v1 � 4E a m z e N 6 C� CqN� C g N : 0Q �, bed Q U Q C C O � c •„ 4 Y� o W u 0 2 = > U N 8 8 v c LL a 8 $ `� rn 3 � o en w 44 yr E N Z O p •-� en Ln N � COC mg, 7 Z,U) C V W p O V 1 40* cp tp n 'o O^ COf n W Oi C4 n (� c°DV cnn o O C ^ opO f/l O f� N $ N I V! pN O ... lD O tl7 pm V! N N �+ N f; N K 4S en q Ny N C {9 M O p � E n O cc 0 to r� at 4" m o co i° as h $ v fjo oi o r � n °! v r `�, OR ^o tNp a of of �p � �1 N N a 1 l7 n r N N O N c 7 fffRRR cq Q � fn H N in Vl i^n {Nn N a N CL O - +� Q O ^ S O g W,C o Lo W) ot C N 8 4 c O � 0. W 409, N y H C U O po 4% $ C O CD 8 t7 IOC e V P CI N N LE)1f) 8O cCO7 p:O m $ f:elf t.�p- N �QNfi �M � !O c,� C ug N rte- ^ m K NC H tD r N N q e0+� (Wp O t00� C) 5 f0 W v! f/! Q N H N1 NM N C CL n _ � � � m _a a O C g ro —° 7 m S ma m � a � 0 2 r vV O C U a O o m ns m U 0. i Z y `o ae a e��� m y S CU h�S� c w a° vO 2 :t .4 t m C a- w z° a o O$y o w 3 a o w Q4 Z V o E :3 S S C C) 9 7 O m m S o _ pp O •n U v V-C __ __ _. _ n _. in _. •n m _ S __ C _ y Appendix C Current School Construction Standards Page 43 Elementary School Capacity 600 Students Basic Additions to Basic School Total School Tier A Tier B Classrooms and Associated Storage 34,100 1,200 4,650 39,950 Regular Classrooms (25) 26,400 1,200 3,400 31,000 Small Project Rooms(Grades 4 do 5)(2) 400 400 Science Project Room(1) 1,200 1,200 Pre-School Area(1) 1,700 1.700 Special/Exceptional Children/Speech Language(7 ems) 4,800 850 5,650 Art Education and Music 2,400 450 2,850 Physical Education 5,050 200 S,2S0 Media Center 4,200 4,200 Small Group Resource Rooms 1,350 1,350 Administration 1,650 300 1,950 Student Support Areas ,.1,100 loo 1,200 Health 200 100 300 Counseling 900 900 Staff Support Area 5,600 1,400 7,000 Teachers' Offices/Workrooms 4,300 300 4,600 Conference Rooms Soo Soo General Conference Room 200 200 Speech/Language Conference Room 400 400 Teachers' Lounge/Wakarea 1,000 1,000 Itinerant Support 300 300 Cafeteria/Food Service 4,500 200 4,700 Miscellaneous/Commons 1,300 - 1,855 3,155 Custodial General Storage S00 500 Book Storage 800 800 Student Commons 1,000 1,000 Additional Toilets above those Calculated as part of'Circulation' 855 855 Subtotal 61,250 1,400 8,955 71,605 Circulation at 33% of Subtotal 20,213 462 2,955 23,630 Total Square Footage 1 81,463 1,862 1 11,9101 95,235 Middle School Capacity 700 students Basic Additions to Basic School School Tier A Tier B Total Classrooms and Associated Storage 32,S00 2,550 35,050 Regular Classrooms(22) 22,000 300 22,300 Science Classrooms(6) 7,200 7,200 Exceptional Education Classroom M/Resource Rooms(4) 3,300 3,300 Student Project Rooms(3) 2,250 2,250 Art Education and Music (Cultural Arts) 9,600 1,130 10,730 Exploratories • 9,000 1,000 10,000 Foreign Language Classroom 2,000 2,000 Career Explorations Lab and Resource Room 1,000 1,000 Applied Technology Lab and Resource Room 3,500 3,500 Consumer Education Lab and Resource Room 1,500 1,500 Computer Lab and Resource Room 1,000 1,000 Video Production Lab 1,000 1,000 Physical Education 12,000 1,200 500 13,700 Media Center 5,640 60 5,700 Parent/Community Center 400 400 Administration 1,800 50 1,850 Student Support Areas 1,000 1,450 2,450 Health 200 500 700 Counseling/Guidance 800 950 1,750 Staff Support Area 3,800 2,000 5,800 Teachers' Offices/Workrooms .3,350 1,250 4,600 Conference Rooms(one per grade level) 750 750 Teachers' Lou nge/Workarea 450 450 Cafeteria/Food Service 5,240 5,240 Miscellaneous/Commons 3,400 3,600 7,000 Receiving Area 200 200 Book Storage/Central Supply Storage 1,700 100 1,800 Student Commons 1,500 11500 Activities Lobby 500 500 Academic House Centr ums(3 C1000 sq.ft each) 3,000 3,000 Subtotal 83,980 1,200 12,740 97,920 Circulation at 35% of Subtotal 29,393 420 4,459 34,272 Total Square Footage 1 113,373 1,620 17,199 132,192 Estimated Cast of New Facilities Elementary School Capacity = 600 students Square Footage _ 95,225 Square Ft.per Student 158.7 Construction Cost Cost Per Square Foot $ 90 $ 8,570,250 Site Acquisition Acres: 16 Average Cost Per Acre: 25,000 $ 400,000 Site Development As a percentage of Construction Cost 10% $ 857,025 Fees As a percentage of Construction Costs and Site Development 10% 942,728 Moveable Equipment As a percentage of Construction Cost 5% $ 428,513 Technology Cost per square foot $ 8.25 $ 785,606 (includes cabling and equipment for voice, video and data distribution systems) Construction Contingency As a percentage of Construction Cost and Site Development 5% $ 471,364 Start-Up Costs Non Personnel One time start-up costs $ 330,000 Total $ 12,785t485 Middle School Capacity = 700 students Square Footage 132,192 Square Ft.per Student 188.8 Construction Cost Cost Per Square Foot $ 95 $ 12,558,240 Site Acquisition Acres: 22 Average Cost Per Acre 25,000 $ 550,000 Site Development As a percentage of Construction Cost 10% $ 1,255,824 Fees As a percentage of Construction Costs and Site Development 10% 1,381,406 Moveable Equipment As a percentage of Construction Cost 5% $ 627,912 Technology Cost per square foot $ 8.25 $ 1,090,584 (includes cabling and equipment for voice, video and data distribution systems) Construction Contingency As a percentage of Construction Cost and Site Development 5% $ 690,703 'tart-Up Costs Non Personnel Start Up-one time $ 350,000 Total $ 18,504,670 R Approved 4/20/99 High School Construction Standards Appendix A Space Allocation/Square Footage Assignments (1,000 Student Capacity) 1000 student capacity Square Footage I Total Square Ft From L To I #rooms From To Classrooms Regular classroom with 5 computers 8501 950 22 18,700 20,900 Sub-Total 1, 18,700 20,900 Science Labs, Prep and Storage Physical Science 1 1,200 1,200 1 1,200 1,200 Biology 1,200 1,200 2 2,400 2,400 Physics 1,200 1,200 1 1,200 1,200 Earth Science 1,400 1,400 1 1,400 1,400 Chemistry 1,500 1�:Ot 50 1 1,500 1,500 Storage/Prep Rooms (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) 250 per 2 500 500 labs Sub-Tofa 8,200 8,200 Remediation & resource labs 4501 4501 1 450 450 Sub-Tots 450 450 Exce tional Children Exceptional Children Self-Contained (8 to 12 800 1,200 1 800 1,200 student capacity) Exceptional Education Resource Room (for groups 450 450 1 450 450 up to 12 Sub-Tote 1,250 1,650 Arts Education Instrumental Classroom w/lockers 1,800 2,100 1 1,800 20100 Vocal Classroom 1,000 1,500 1 1,000 1,500 Instrument storage room 400 600 1 400 600 Music Library 200 200 1 200 200 Instrument Repair 150 150 1 150 150 Office each 150 150 1 150 150 Uniform Storage 400 600 1 400 600 Practice Room 55 601 1 55 60 Ensemble Practice Room 150 2001 1 150 200 Visual Arts Classroom 1,200 1,5001 1 1,200 1,500 Kiln/Clay Storage 40 60 1 40 60 Art Material Storage 80 150 1 80 150 Theater Arts Classroom 1,800 2,000 1 1,800 2,000 Theater Arts Auditorium 8/seat; capacity 333 to 500 2,667 4,000 1/3 to 1/2 ADM seats Stage, Storage & Dressing Rooms 3,000 5,000 1 3,000 5,000 Light, Lock Vestibule, Lobby, Concession 800 2,000 1 800 2,000 Dance Classroom (including storage) 1,800 2,000 _ 1 1,800 2,000 Sub-rota 15,692 22,270 Approved 4120/99 High School Construction Standards Appendix A Space Allocation/Square Footage Assi nments 1,000 Student Capacity) 1000 student capacity S uare.Foota a I Total Square Ft From To #rooms From To Workforce Development -Agricultural Education 2,500 3,000 1 2,500 3,000 Business Education 1,200 1,400 1 1,200 1,400 Family and Consumer Sciences Education 1,400 2,000 1 1,400 2,000 Health Occupations 2,000 2,500 1 2,000 2,500 Marketing Education (including store) 11500 2,000 1 1,500 2,000 Technology Education 1,3001 2,200 1 1,300 2,200 Trade and Industrial Education 8501 3,000 1 850 3,000 Sub-Totai 10,750 16,100 Media Center Main Room 5 sq ft per ADM 1 5,000 5,000 Support Areas 2,000 2,000 1 2,000 2,000 Video Studio 400 400 1 400 400 Control/Editing 1 260 260 1 260 260 Equipment Storage 80 801 11 801 80 Sub-Tots 7,7401 7,740 Physical Education Gymnasium Play Area 2 play courts 62 x 100 court 12,400 12,400 Spectator Seating 400 per 500 per 4,000 5,000 100 100 seats seats Gymnasium Dressing, Shower, Storage, Lobby 3,000 3,000 Wrestling (competitive) 3,0001 3,000 1 3,000 3,000 Resistive Exercise (weight lifting) 2,0001 3,0001 1 2,000 3,000 Auxiliary Gymnasium recommended for high schools with 1,200 or more students Sub-Tote) --T24,4001 26,400 Administration. Principal's Office 200 200 1 200 200 Assistant Principal (each) 150 150 2 300 300 Reception Area 400 400 1 400 400 Secretary 150 150 2 300 300 SIMS 9-12 200 200 1 200 200 Other Student Services 200 200 1 200 200 Workroom/Storage 200 200 1 200 200 Conference Room 200 200 1 200 200 Record Storage 100 100 1 100 100 General Storage 1001 100 1 100 100 Sub-Total 2,200 2,200 Approved 412099 High School Construction Standards Appendix A Space Allocation/Square Footage Assi nments (1,000 Student Capacity) 1000 student ca acity Square Footage Total Square Ft From To #rooms From To Student Support Areas Guidance 300 300 1 300 300 Reception/Career Center 400 400 1 4001 400 Counselor Office 1501 150 3 450 450 Other Student Services 200 200 1 200 200 Health Room &Toilet 200 200 1 200 200 Sub-Tota 1,550 1,550 Staff Support Areas Group Teacher Office/Plannin (per teacher 80 El 45 3,600 4,500 Special Assistant/Itinerant Teacher Office/Workspace 80 7 560 700 (per teacher) Workroom 3001 800 1 300 800 Lounge 3001 1,3331 1 300 1,333 Sub-rota 4,760 7,333 Cafeteria/Food Service Dining Room Seating Area (square feet per pupil) 14 20 333 4,667 6,667 assumes 3 seatings Serving (20%-25% of dining area) 9331 1,667 Kitchen (assumes 1,500 lunches served for 1,000 2,880 2,880 1 2,880 2,880 capacity) Sub-Tote . - 8,480 11,213 Total Assigned Space 104,172 126,007 Commons/Circulation/Entries/Building Support 46,877 56,703 46,877 56,703 45% Total Building Area Total Square Feet per Student 151 "183 Approved 4120/99 High School Construction Standards Appendix B Space Allocation/Square Footage Assignments (1,500 Student Capacity) 1500 student capacity Square Footage Total Square Ft From I To #rooms From To Classrooms Regular classroom with 5 computers 8501 950 40 33,575 37,525 Sub-Total . 33,575 37,525 Science Labs, Prep and Storage Physical Science 1,200 1,200 3 3,000 3,000 Biology 1,200 1,200 4 4,200 4,200 Physics 1,200 1,200 1 1,200 1,200 Earth Science 1,400 1,4001 1 1,4001 1,400 Chemistry 1,500 1,500 3 3,750 3,750 Storage/Prep Rooms (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) 250 per 2 4 875 875 labs Sub-Tote 14,425 14,425 Remediation & resource labs 4501 4501 4 1,800 1,800 Sub-Tota 1,800 1,800 Exceptional Children Exceptional Children Self-Contained (8 to 12 800 1,200 2 1,600 2,400 student capacity) Exceptional Education Resource Room (for groups 450 450 2 900 900 up to 12 Sub-Tote 2,500 3,300 Arts Education Instrumental Classroom w/lockers 1,800 2,100 1 1,800 2,100 Vocal Classroom 1,000 1,500 1 1,000 . 1,500 Instrument storage room 400 600 1 400 600 Music Library 200 2001 1 200 200 Instrument Repair 150 1501 1 150 150 Office (each) 150 1501 1 150 150 Uniform Storage 400 600 1 400 600 Practice Room 55 60 1 551 60 Ensemble Practice Room 150 200 1 150 200 Visual Arts Classroom 1,200 1,500 1 1,200 1,500 Kiln/Clay Storage 40 60 1 40 60 Art Material Storage 80 150 1 80 150 Theater Arts Classroom 1,800 2,000 1 1,8001 2,000 Theater Arts Auditorium 8/seat; capacity 500 to 750 4,000 6,000 1/3 to 1/2 ADM seats Stage, Storage & Dressing Rooms 3,000 5,000 1 3,000 5,000 Light, Lock Vestibule, Lobby, Concession 800 2,000 1 800 2,000 Dance Classroom (including storage) 1,800 2000, 1 1,800 2,000 Sub-TotaJI, 1 17,025 24,270 Approved 4120199 High School Construction Standards Appendix B Space AllocationlSquare Footage Assignm nts (1,500 Student Capacity) 1500 student capacity Square Footage Total Square Ft From To #rooms From To - Workforce Development jAgricultural Education 2,500 3,000 1 2,500 3,000 Business Education 1,200 1,400 1 1,200 1,400 Family and Consumer Sciences Education 1,400 2,000 1 1,400 2,000 Health Occupations 2,000, 2,500 1 2,000 2,500 Marketing Education (including store) 1,500 2,000 1 1,500 2,000 ITechnology Education 1,300 2,200 1 1,300 2,2001 ITrade and Industrial Education 850 3,000 1 860 3,000 Sub-Total 1 10,750 16,100 Media Center Main Room 4 sq ft per ADM 1 6,000 6,000 Support Areas 2,000 2,000 1 2,000 2,000 Video Studio 400 400 1 400 400 Control/Editing 260 260 1 260 260 Equipment Storage 80 801 1 801 - 80 Sub-Tots) 8,7401 8,740 Physical Education Gymnasium Play Area 2 play courts 62 x 100 court 12,400 12,400 Spectator Seating 400 per 500 per 6,000 7,500 100 100 seats seats Gymnasium Dressing, Shower, Storage, Lobby 4,000 4,000 Wrestling (competitive) 3,000 3,000 1 3,000 3,000, Resistive Exercise (weight lifting) 2,000 3,000 1 2,000 3,000 Auxiliary Gymnasium 6,500 6,500 1 6,5001 6,500 Sub-rota) 33,9001 36,400 Administration Principal's Office 200 200 1 200 200 Assistant Principal each 150 150 3 450 450 Reception Area 400 400 1 400 400 Secretary 150 150 2 300 300 SIMS 9-12 2001 200 1 200 200 Other Student Services 200 200 1 200 200 Workroom/Storage 200 200 1 200 200 Conference Room 200 200 1 200 200 Record Storage 100 100 1 100 100 General Storage 100 100 1 100 1 2,350 Sub-Total 2,3501 im " Approved 4120199 High School Construction Standards Appendix B Space Allocation/Square Footage Assi nments 1,500 Student Capacity) 1500 student capacity Square Footage I Total Square Ft From To #rooms From To Student Support Areas Guidance 300 300 1 3001 300 Reception/Career Center 400 400 1 4001 400 Counselor Office 150 150 5 7501 750 Other Student Services 2001 2001 1 200 200 Health Room &Toilet 2001 2001 1 200 200 Sub-Totai 1,850 1,850 Staff Support Areas Group Teacher Office/Planning (per teacher 80 100 45 3,600 4,500 Special Assistant/Itinerant Teacher Office/Workspace 80 100 10 800 1,000 (per teacher) Workroom 300 800 2 600 1,600 Lounge 300 1,333 1 300 1,333 Sub-rota 5,300 8,433 Cafeteria/Food Service Dining Room Seating Area (square feet per pupil) 14 20 550 7,700 11,000 assumes 3 seatin s Serving 20% - 25% of dining area) 1,540 2,750 Kitchen (assumes 2,000 lunches served for 1,500 4,398 4,398 1 4,398 4,398 capacity) Sub-Tots 13,638 18,148 Total Assigned Space 145,853 173,341 Commons/Circulation/Entries/Building Support 65,634 78,004 65,634 78,0 45% Total Building Area Total Square Feet per Student 1411 168 f Approved 4120/99 High School Construction Standards Appendix C Estimated Cost of New High School Student Capacity 1000 1500 Total Square Ft Total Square Ft From To From To Total Square Footage 151,049 182,710 211,487 251,34 Construction Cost Cost Per Square Foot $110 $16,615,381 $20,098,063 $23,263,554 $27,647,943 Site Acquisition Acres 40 50 45 60 Average Cost Per Acre $30,000 $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $1,350,000 $1,800,000 Site Development As a percentage of 10% $1,661,538 $2,009,806 $2,326,355 $2,764,794 Construction Cost Fees As a percentage of 10% $1,827,692 $2,210,787 $2,558,991 $3,041,274 Construction Cost and Site Development Moveable Equipment As a percentage of 5% $830,769 $1,004,903 $1,163,178 $1,382,397 Construction Cost Technology Cost Per Square foot $8.25 $1,246,154 $1,507,355 $1,744,767 $2,073,596 (includes scaling and equipment for voice, video and data distribution systems) Construction As a percentage of 5% $913,846 $1,105,393 $1,279,495 $1,520,637 Contingency Construction Cost and Site Development Start-Up Costs Non-personnel, one time start-up $399,927 $483,754 $559,946 $665,477 costs Total Estimated Cost $24,695,346 $29,920,112 $34,246,330 $40,896,177 Appendix D School Construction Planning and Funding Policy Approved 11/21/00 ORANGE COUNTY Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects (This document is intended to clarify the expectations of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in collaborating with the Boards of Education in planning for and implementing school capital projects) 1. Background The County's ten year capital investment plan is a planning document that is updated annually. Before the beginning of each fiscal year,the Board of County Commissioners approves the funding plan in concept. However,funding of individual projects is contingent upon the scope of work required to complete the project. • Level 1 Projects: Level one projects are those projects that have a relatively small scope of work and can be accomplished using a single prime contractor, in-house staff or entail purchasing equipment and vehicles. Specific examples of Level 1 projects include roofing projects,parking lot paving and re-wiring of existing buildings. The Board approves the entire project ordinance at one time. • Level 2 Projects: Level two projects are major projects that require several phases to complete. For these projects,the Board of County Commissioners approves a four-phase appropriation process to include: • Concept/Pre-Planning Phase (includes preliminary programming and design work that would result in conceptual drawings and preliminary cost estimates. • Planning Phase (including siting&infrastructure) • Design and Construction Approval Phase (including final design, equipment, furnishings, non-recurring start up,technology, contingency) • Schools have the latitude to shift funds between major components without prior BOCC approval, providing that the actual cost of the project does not exceed budget. • Superintendents will provide the County Manager with written project updates at their regular monthly meetings. In turn, the County Manager will provide the Board of County Commissioners with written progress reports related to the project. • Final Accounting Phase ■ Upon completion of the project, School and County staff will reconcile actual project expenditures with approved budget and provide the BOCC with a "final accounting"of project. Page 1 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/00 2. Site Standards In accordance with North Carolina State Statutes, a local board of education cannot execute a contract nor expend funds to purchase a facility site without the consent of the local board of county commissioners. As each school system in Orange County plans for future school-related facilities, it is important that they adhere to the following guidelines related to the potential acquisition, either by purchase or donation, of a site, in addition to any siting criteria they may have established internally: Potential Sites-The Board of Education is to notify the Orange County Board of Commissioners, in writing,whenever they have tentatively identified a potential school site for purchase, or if a potential donor indicates interest in donating a site to the system. The written correspondence should provide the following information for Commissioner consideration: • Location, including tax map numbers,of the potential site; • Opportunities for additional facilities to be co-located as a park site, as outlined in the"Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning"; • The availability of public utilities within the urban services boundaries of the County; • If a donated site: • Any knowledge of a donor's plans for adjacent development; • Special considerations or expectations the donor may have referenced in initial discussions pertaining to the donation; Upon receipt of the Board of Education's notification,the Commissioners will appoint,by a majority vote of the Board, a representative to work directly with the Board of Education. As a partner with the school system,the Commissioner representative will receive information and provide input regarding talks and negotiations related to the potential site. The Commissioner representative will share information regarding the progress of talks and negotiations of the potential site with other members of the Board of Commissioners. Environmental Factors—A school system is to pay particular attention to the physical environment surrounding the site and new facility. • In order to avoid future flood hazards, a facility should not be located in close proximity to wetlands, stream buffers, or in a flood plain. Facility siting should also avoid other physical factors that create either additional construction or longer-term maintenance problems, or other unfavorable environmental impacts. Page 2 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/00 • Once a system acquires a site and before grading begins, each school system receives State approval of its erosion control plan and additional County review to ensure that unnecessary cutting of trees or clearing of land does not occur. Adequate natural buffers are to be left intact with existing trees, or replanted if the areas are disturbed during construction. Special attention should be paid to "specimen"trees as outlined in the County land development code. Road and Utility Requirements—Major elements for a system to consider in siting a new facility relate to infrastructure requirements by a Town or other public utility. In some recent instances, the systems have been required to provide costly infrastructure such as sidewalks and road improvements. These elements greatly inflate construction costs of new facilities. As a system begins initial planning,there should be a joint meeting between elected Town,County and Education officials to discuss particular requirements that all parties expect of other project partners. 3. Building Design Standards As a school system selects a particular facility design, it is important that the most cost-effective design alternative be pursued. Historically in Orange County, new school buildings have been designed uniquely for each particular project. The Board of Commissioners encourages systems to pursue non-traditional,or prototype, designs that can be replicated for use on more than one project. Should a system choose a unique design, it is to provide a detailed cost comparison analysis and justification in writing of why that particular approach was chosen over a prototype design. 4. Construction Standards Over the past few years,the County has given special attention to defining construction standards for each school level—elementary,middle and high schools. The standards provide a minimum and maximum square footage and student capacity for each level. As a system undertakes construction of a new facility, it is critical that the system adheres to the most recent school construction standards(estimated project cost should include a reasonable allowance for inflation). The Commissioners agree to provide funding for-new school facilities that are designed within the adopted standards. They do not agree to fund projects that go beyond the adopted standards unless there is sufficient justification provided in writing by the Board of Education. One justification for going beyond the standards relates to co-location of facilities, in particular recreational facilities. In this case,the system must provide detailed explanations outlining the benefits to be offered to the community and citizens, in the context of the intergovernmental "Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning"and the "Orange County Parklands Acquisition and Evaluation Criteria"adopted by the Board of Commissioners on December 7, 1999. Page 3 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/00 ` 5. Project Approval A project's inclusion in the ten-year plan does not give the Schools or the County legal authority to expend funds. The legal authority to expend funds lies in County Commissioner approved capital project ordinances. Therefore, the schools should not incur any expenses for any capital project until the Board of County Commissioners approves the capital project ordinance. In order to provide timely flow of the approval process and ensure that all elements are addressed,the following steps should be followed: • Details included in each system's ten-year Capital Investment Plans regarding the scope and timing of various phases of individual capital projects is limited. To that end, as individual Boards of Education begin discussions related to new capital projects(new construction, site acquisitions,major renovations,etc), they will be expected, in writing,to notify the Board of County Commissioners of the substance of those discussions. The memorandum from the School Board will: • Provide the Commissioners with an overview of the project concept along with other project specifics that the Board of Education has defined to that point; • Justify the need based on current school capacities and projected student enrollments consistent with the School Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (if the Ordinance is in effect at this time); • Provide a preliminary cost projection of the project based upon the adopted school construction standards and provisions of the Cost Effective Facilities Initiative (CEFI), which has derived from earlier discussions about"value engineering"(if this policy is in effect at this time); • Request that the Board of Commissioners approve a capital project ordinance to provide funding for the initial planning phase of the project; • Instruct the Superintendent to update the County Manager, in writing,of the project's progress at his/her monthly meetings with the County Manager. • Upon receipt of the memorandum from the Board of Education,the Board of Commissioners will: • Act upon the project concept by either approving it or asking the Board of Education to amend the concept plan; • Instruct County staff to confine the project's cost estimate and student capacity in accordance with the County's adopted School Construction Standards Reports along with student enrollment projections; Page 4 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/00 • If the Board of Commissioners approves the project concept,the County Budget Director will prepare an agenda abstract and related capital project ordinance that provides funding for the concept and pre-planning phase of the project; • Appoint, by majority vote of the Board, either a Commissioner representative (preferably the same representative that participated in the siting phase of the project)and one staff representative,or two staff representatives,to partner with the school system as the plans develop; • Instruct the County Manager to update the Commissioners on a regular basis regarding the written information shared by the School Superintendent. 6. Expenditure of Project Funds Funding for Project Planning- School systems will not expend or encumber for planning of any project until the Board of County Commissioners has approved the plan concept. Background-For several years, the Board of Commissioners has approved a capital project ordinance entitled Planning for Future Projects for each school system. The creation of these ordinances enabled a system to expend a portion of their pay-as-you-go funds for planning during a project's conceptual stages. Once a project grew beyond the concept stages, systems requested the Commissioners to approve a"project specific"capital project ordinance allocating all funds anticipated to carry out the planned project. In turn, each district expended their monies up-front for planning,design, architect, construction, furniture and equipment. In return,the County reimbursed each District with all of the project-related expenditures up to the total project budget. With the changes implemented by the County Commissioners in June 1999,this process has changed. It is important to note that unless a County approved capital project ordinance is in place(i.e. adopted by the County Commissioners),that the County is not legally or otherwise obligated to reimburse the school system for their expenditures. If the Board of County Commissioners approve the project concept and capital project ordinance as outlined in Item 5 above, the following steps occur: • Following Board of Commissioner approval of final plans for the project,the school system advertises for construction bids; • Once the system receives the bids,the School Superintendent notifies the County Manager, in writing,of the result of all bids received. • The County Manager informs the Board of Commissioners, in writing, of the construction bid results. 7. Submission Timelines • While the Board of Education may receive the bids, it should not execute any contract until the Board of County Commissioners receives bid information and approves a capital project ordinance for the construction phase of the project; Page 5 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Approved 11/21/00 • Generally, the Board of Commissioners conducts regular meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month. To allow for timely preparation of the meeting agenda, the following timelines should be followed by staff: • Twenty-one days prior to the Board of Commissioners meeting,the School Finance or Budget Director or the Director of Facilities provides the County Budget Director with: • Bid Tabulation of School Construction or Major Renovation Project(example included as Attachment 1 of this Memorandum) • Any other pertinent information regarding the project. • Fourteen days prior to the meeting, the County Budget Director submits a draft agenda abstract including the bid tabulation and capital project ordinance to the County Manager's office for review. The Budget Director forwards(via e-mail or fax) a copy of the abstract and attachments to the School Finance or Budget Director and the Director of Facilities for review and comments. • Ten days prior to the meeting,the School Finance or Budget Director and the Director of Facilities provide abstract revisions and comments to the County Budget Director. • Seven days prior to the meeting the County Budget Director submits final agenda abstract and attachments to the County Manager's Office. A copy of the abstract and attachments are forwarded(via e-mail or fax)to the school system. Upon adoption by the Board of Commissioners,the County Budget Director informs the School Finance and Budget Director and the County Finance Director of the abstract approval and the assigned account number(s). This is done via a standard memorandum that indicates purpose and account codes. • All requests for payment from the School Finance Directors are forwarded to the County Finance Department for payment.The County Finance Department ensures that the requisition for payment falls within the purposes approved by the Board of Education. 8. Change Orders The School Superintendent submits, in writing, to the County Manager all contract change orders for the project. Upon receipt of the information,the County Budget Director prepares an agenda abstract and an amended capital project ordinance for approval by the Board of Commissioners at their next scheduled meeting. If there are change orders that cause project expenditures to be over budget,the School district must receive approval from the Board of Commissioners prior to approving the change order. Page 6 of 6 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects Appendix E Prototype and Value Engineering Survey Results c rn o x y o � � a C ►. cd � ... v A.o Q u Ci � � H R.•� r N N ° y 'L7 t�if •b � •C? � � o o .$ aW u y •� 3 °' v � � a�i °.3 ° o > ri . Sao . 36 a 12 45 06 W .00 � �, � � qi0 0 �°'t � � ea� qan •o � ' > � one c o .4 S 6? o v oVn C c U �, = xU Z a oa %~ " ° ° te n c 2 ci � .' ,oa°i '� as 3 o 0 3 $ .: a. °�.' � o ad ;a° -�'c o a C2 Q 1C g L7 Q u O O ° O O 0 � Lem} o p U m 0 C •y�► b N ��'`�� 'p� Bi t/°� ° ,� oho �^p d ~�O vvi 6�i � o (� O 69�I "�� v � � 'C� .�► � .� !. ,moo^ lJ W 0 � a4 ~ $ ,° 'o A � w00 w � oovs • 'w � owa � �, ,$ ca cs _$ � ° >,8 ON 13 46 s = UthU �Adww� cv tvaiUCQa � " U �, °a ; $ $ $ •� S o 0 Q g ~ U v ' A aa�o v ov� V G°4 C dU Ml S w � oCq G4A tiA $ c CQ U U C t O� ►�+ bi0 N N tw OQQl), in z -�40 SE 0 a a>i a V a[i ti O O pEa aaj 0 y N O p . o ° ci S c"ai � one v, E � *'O a o a A 3 0 = ° ° 0 4E c°i a o ° o ° i c°> a� a ° v >% a 3 w w .+ V t., �' 00 a> v ~� O .8 E a t� ; aE .° to 0E � � wL7 raffia aiayow V GA , > � $ 3u b w `. 0 g3 240. 10 O O D 4 A (.7 c4 v E cn n3 O w 3 ce aai p d Ei ey4 0 .°, �' •; sa° ti v •� , � •9 °o• °� e`3gc°iaai E ,�' 8 oa. E a"'i E .flSo a �E aV° rottf i, yr ,� y ai E � �a kE ", »a t E 1 m. w p o .a ,a ey O° o '+- .. •° > is E d ` *� 'w E 2 'b 48. b Z vii C. e0 di vv, C. c> `a' c°� F� A.arJ � vii ego rrr of v t� ;Z k�+ .�J • • • • • F .0 � .`L"i v�'i cd w o 2 H w3mtr� � ~� QCp .rda y° -W �. � av Aw w � r� Acn n aA � vv} c°> � o A 0 o t? o U , qU ° y O `°