HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-05-1997 - 10b 1
' ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 5, 1997
Action Agenda
Item No. O-b
SUBJECT: Capital Needs Advisory Task Force Final Report
DEPARTMENT: Budget/County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/1)
BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/1)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Task Force Report Sally Kost, Budget Director
ext 2151
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive the final report and recommendations from the Capital Needs Advisory
Task Force.
BACKGROUND: In January 1997,the Board of Commissioners appointed a task force of
citizens to review the County's long-range capital funding plan, and to make recommendations to
the Board of Commissioners regarding elements and size of the proposed November 1997 bond
referendum for Schools and County capital projects.
The task force met eight times from early February to mid-April. At its final meeting, the Task
Force voted 14-3 to recommend that the Board of Commissioners pursue a November 1997 bond
referendum of roughly $60 million. Details of the projects and amounts recommended for inclusion
in the bond are contained in the attached task force report. A minority opinion, along with an
appendix of amplifying comments from various task force members, is also included. Task Force
Chair Bob Seymour, along with other task force members, can respond to Board questions about the
review process and the specific project recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report as
information, and provide direction to staff concerning how the task force recommendations should
be incorporated into the 1997-2007 Capital Improvements Plan,which will be presented in late
May.
2
Capital Needs Advisory Task Force
Contents
i. Majority Report
2. Minority Report
Appendices
A. Capital Needs Advisory Task Force Members
B. Description of Capital Projects
c. School Population Projections
D. School Standards for Elementary and Middle Schools
E. Impact on Orange County Schools Capital Improvements Plan
when debt service on Private Placement Financing for a new
High School is paid from these funds
F. Comments from the Task Force Members
3
Capital Needs Advisory Task Force
Majority Report to the Board of County Commissioners
May 5, 1997
Background
The Board of County Commissioners adopted a funding plan for School and County capital
projects in October 1996 to address future capital needs. The plan included a $40 million bond
referendum. Restructuring the formula for allocating funds for Capital Improvements Plan
projects allows for the additional debt service on $40 million in bonds to be paid without
increasing taxes. The $40 million bond package included renovation funds, which allowed the
County and the Schools to continue projects already planned in the Capital Improvements Plan.
The total plan, using a combination of County funds, impact fees, State bond proceeds, and the
proceeds of the $40 million bond funded the following facilities:
Project Description Total Project Cost Amount from the$40
Million Bond
Southem Village Elementary School $14,100,000 -
East Chapel Hill High School $11,800,000 -
Addition
New Middle School - Chapel $22,500,000 $20,735,185
Hill/Carrboro City Schools
Renovations -Chapel Hill/Carrboro $3,002,535
City Schools
Elementary School -OCS $14,500,000 $7,466,297
Renovations - Orange County Schools $4,795,983
Renovations - County facilities $2,000,000
Unspecified $2,000,000
Total $40,000,000
The Board of County Commissioners appointed a 22 member advisory task force in January
1997 to review the plan and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners elements
and size of the proposed November 1997 bond referendum for Schools and County projects.
The Board of County Commissioners charged the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force with the
following:
Schools
1. Review the needs for new schools in the ten year Capital Improvements Plan as
identified by the Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools.
2. Familiarize itself with the current long-range school capital funding plan approved
by the Board of Commissioners at the October 15, 1996, meeting.
3. Confirm the need for, and timing of, new school construction projects, considering
current and projected student populations.
1
4
County Projects
1. Review the capital needs recommended by the County Manager for the 1997-2007
Capital Improvements Plan and follow any priorities identified by the Board of
Commissioners.
2. Identify the need for and the timing of County capital projects, including those for
parks and recreation.
The Task Force met in a series of eight meetings, beginning in February. The initial meetings
oriented members to the capital needs of the Schools and of the County. To help Task Force
members become familiar with the projects and conditions of existing facilities, the group
toured some of the schools and held its meetings at various School and County locations.
During the orientation sessions, several new projects, not considered in the $40 million bond
package, were introduced. The Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools told the Task Force that the
original plan to spend $11.8 million to complete the East Chapel Hill High School would not
be adequate. Bond funds had not been included in the $40 million package for this project,
since State Bond proceeds and funds from impact fees had been planned to cover the amount
needed. However, revised estimates from the School System indicated that an additional $3
million would be needed to complete this facility, bringing the total additional cost to complete
this facility to $14.8 million. The Task Force was asked to consider adding the shortfall ($3
million) to the bond package being considered.
The Orange County School Board introduced the need for a second high school in their
district. The total cost of the facility is estimated by the Orange County Schools to be $25
million, with a planned opening in 2002-03. This facility was not included in the $40 million
package.
The Task Force received information on Recreation and Parks, Affordable Housing, Senior
Centers, and the Efland Sewer. Funding for all of these areas in the original $40 million
package totaled $2 million, which was not specified for any particular project.
The Task Force developed criteria to be used to evaluate both School and County projects. The
criteria for evaluating School projects were as follows:
• Projects should meet the philosophical criteria for bonds, that is, they should have a
useful life of 15 to 20 years, such as a new school project or a major renovation.
(This would not include computer hardware and maintenance of facilities.)
• Consider the number and spectrum of present and future citizens who would benefit
both directly and indirectly from the proposed project.
• Look for efficiencies, such as, when multiple needs can be met (such as combining
school sites with parks).
• Schools should be given the highest priority and addressed by the Task Force first.
• Projects should be "big ticket" only (suggestion of$1 million or more) or projects
that, when combined, are considered "big ticket."
• Capital projects must respond to a need identified by the appropriate elected board.
2
5
The criteria used for evaluating non-School projects was similar. These criteria, as adopted by
the Task Force, are as follows:
• Consider the number and spectrum of people affected.
• Consider the timing of the needs.
• Consider whether the project serves a diversity of needs.
• Consider whether it is a reasonable package that voters would support.
• Consider whether a project addresses inequities in different parts of the county.
• Is the County legally required to provide for the project?
• Is the project a "big ticket" project?
In the final meetings, the Task Force began developing a bond package. Individual members
were asked to develop their own bond package, applying the evaluation criteria. The results
were tallied and presented to the group. After discussing these results and further information
on the projects, the Task Force voted on the final package. The vote was based on what
members would recommend to be fully funded, to be partially funded, and projects not to be
funded. In some instances, the Task Force decided to present a range to the Board of
Commissioners. The final vote on the Task Force's package was 14 members in the
affirmative, 3 members in the negative, and 3 members absent, and, therefore not voting.
The Recommended Bond Package
The Capital Needs Advisory Task Force is recommending to the Board of County
Commissioners a bond package totaling $59,932,500 to $61,757,500 (ranges were given for
affordable housing and a new senior center in central Orange County). This would require an
estimated general fund property tax increase of between 3.5 and 4 cents per $100 of assessed
valuation. The proposed bond includes two new schools, and a portion of the costs for a
second high school in the Orange County School District. The Task Force is recommending
that the other half of the costs for a new high school be paid by borrowing funds by private
placement, with the payments made from the Orange County Capital Improvements Plan funds
(for the impact on the Orange County Capital Improvements Plan, see Appendix E).
The bond package recommended by the Task Force is shown on the following page.
3
6
Capital Needs Advisory Task Force - Recommendation for Bond Package
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Middle School Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools $ 20,735,185
East CH High School $ 3,000,000
Renovations Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools $ 3,002,535
Total Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools $ 26,737.720
Orange County Schools
Elementary School Orange County Schools $ 7,466,297
High School Orange County Schools $ 12,500,000
Renovations Orange County Schools $ 4,795,983
Total Orange County Schools 24,762.280
Parks
Efland-Cheeks Community School Park $ 400,000
Fairview Community Park $ 700,000
Northern Orange Human Services Center $ 500,000
Parkland Acquisition $ 1,000,000
Total Parks 2,600,000
Senior Centers
Central Orange Multipurpose Senior Center(new $ 1,000,000 - $ 2,025,000
building)
Purchase existing Chapel Hill Multipurpose Center $
Northern Orange Senior Center Renovations $ 20,000
Efland Cheeks Senior Center Addition $ 112,500
Carrboro Senior Center $ 500,000
Total Senior Centers 2,657.500
Affordable Housing (no stipulations attached) $ 1,000,000 - 1,800,000
Efland Sewer Expansion 1,200,
County Human Services Centers
Renovations Whitted Human Srvs Center $ 1,000,000
Renovations Northern Human Srvs Center $ 1,000,000
Total County HS Centers 2,000,000
Total Bond Package $ 59,932,500 - $ 61,757,500
4
7
At the upper end of the range, the distribution of the proposed bond is as follows:
CHCCS 44.3%
I
Parks 2.0%
ounty 3.3%
Efland Sewer 2.0%
Afford Housing 3.0
Senior Centers 4.4%
OCS 41.0%
The Task Force used the tier B costs for elementary and middle schools, which provides for
community use of the facilities (see Appendix D). Annual costs were increased by five percent
of the construction costs for each year until the project is bid. Since no high school standards
were studied and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, the Task Force accepted the
estimates of the Orange County Schools and used $25 million for this facility.
The costs of the senior centers, recreation projects, affordable housing and Efland Sewer were
based on estimates made by County staff. A complete listing of all the projects is shown at
Appendix B.
The general fund tax rate impact of the Task Force's recommendation is between 3.5 and 4.0
cents per $100 of assessed valuation. To the property owner of a $100,000 house, this equals
between $35 and $40 per year.
5
8
Conclusion
The Capital Needs Advisory Task Force is recommending a bond package that includes
funding (or a portion of) for three new schools:
Orange County System
• high school
• elementary school
CHCCS
• middle school
The proposed bond package also includes funds to help complete East Chapel Hill High School
and nearly $8 million for school renovations. Funds are also included to complete the next
phase of the Efland Sewer. The recommendation also includes funds for additional park and
recreation facilities, for senior centers and affordable housing. Renovation funds are included
for the Northern Human Services Center and for the Whitted Human Services Center.
Final written comments were solicited from the Task Force for those members wishing to
provide additional information or comment to the Board of County Commissioners. Because of
the importance of these comments, they have been included in Appendix F.
Members voting against the final recommendation to the Board of Commissioners are
providing a Minority Report.
6
APR 29 197 11:02AM TUNL 9196602634 P,2
9
Minority Report
CapitcW Needs Advisory Task Force
Orange County, North Carolina
Orange County is rich in its diversity and we want to encourage that for many
years to come.This diversity is being challenged everyday from all directions including
our own government. Taxes and fees of all kinds add to the cost of living in Orange
County. Essential services such as educating our children, public health, and fulfilling
prior commitments must be provided for by our Commissioners, in addition to
evaluating funding additional citizen services and projects. These factors, the Task
Force's charge and evaluation criteria, as well as the guidance and information of
many documents provided to the Task Force, including the Capital Improvement Plan
and a funding plan for School and County projects adopted in October of 1996, helped
shape our opinion that a bond as recommended in the majority report would be
difficult to pass and would further impact those citizens who could ill afford additional
tax burden.
The following examples are just a few areas of concern for us
- New middle school for Chapel HiII/Carrboro City Schools is a tier "B" school
whereas in October, 1996 the Board of Commissioners agreed to fund new schools at
tier "A" level. This would reduce the cost of this school from 22.5 million dollars to Mr.
Mulkey's bond proposal of 16.4 million dollars (estimate based on School Facility
Construction Standards report). It should also be noted that this school's 700 student
capacity would only have 318 students as projected by the Department of Public
Instruction(DPI) when it opens in the year 2000 and DPI's projected middle school
growth declines in the years after. In the school tour, the Principle of Grey Culbreth
stated that there was room to build another wing at Culbreth in order to expand
capacity.
- New elementary school for Orange County Schools is a tier "B" school in
October, 1996 the Board of Commissioners agreed to fund new school at tier 'A" level.
This would reduce the cost of this school from 14.5 million dollars to Mr. Mulkey's bond
proposal of 12.3 million dollars (estimate based on School Facility Construction
Standards report) .
- East Chapel Hill High School addition (3 million dollars) is a request based
on expectations of potential budget over runs. There was no hard-core facts, or
updated cost estimates given to verify this request. It should be noted that in the
funding plan adopted last October (1996) by the Board of Commissioners the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro -School System would have a 4,54 million dollar surplus in the year
2005-6. On page 17 of the Capitol Improvement Plan the Chapel HiIVCarrboro System
also has a 6.98 million dollars surplus for special projects in the same year. This huge
surplus of tax dollars, 11.52 million dollars, needs to be directed to more pressing
concerns for the entire County, not as a surplus, "to be determined".
7
APR 29 '97 11:02AM TUNL 9196602634 P.3
10
The following itma are just a few areas of real need that should be a priority for bond
Money.
- Renovations for each school system should be funded at the level requested.
We must upgrade and maintain our existing schools. No student or parent should be
made to feel as if they are inferior by attending an older school.
- New high school for the Orange County Schools (25 million dollars). Orange
High School is at its maximum now. The site cannot support an addition due to land
constraints and due to space limitations within the core areas i.e. cafeteria, library,
gyms, hallways, media center, etc.. Classrooms that are substandard by state
guidelines, teachers who have no classroom but have to roam from room to room each
period. We would recommend that each of the Commissioners (Crowther, Carey, and
Gordon) tour the school in order to view for themselves these teaching and learning
conditions that our students endure each day.
- Efland Sewer (1.2 million dollars) and Recreation and Parks (2.8 million
dollars) are two projects that have prior commitments(1988) from the Board of
Commissioners. Both these projects have received very little funding in the years past
and need to be bought up to speed now. Responsibility to public health as in the
sewer project cannot continue to be delayed. It is also a matter of integrity for the
Board of Commissioners to honor the commitments that it makes to the citizen.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick Mulkey, Vice Chairman
Mike Drowns
Bob Bateman
8
11
Appendix A. Capital Needs Advisory Task Force
Members
Robert Seymour, Chair
Patrick Mulkey, Vice Chair
David Adams Martin Feinstein
Matthew Barton Harvey Goldstein
Robert Bateman Stephen Halkiotis
Rutha Brooks David Kolbinsky
Margaret Brown Trish Love
Mary Bushnell Judy Margolis
Keith Cook Mark Royster
Susan Dovenbarger Lisa Stuckey
Mike Drowns Bill Waddell
Jerry Eidener Robert Wiggins
9
12
Appendix B. Description of Capital Projects
The following summarizes inforcmation about the various projects that the Task Force has been asked to
consider. The sources of this information are handouts prepared by various School and County staff throughout
the review process.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
1. Middle School
Total Amount of Project $22,500,000
Funded by Other Sources $1,764,815
Amount Requested to be funded by the Bond $20,735,185
Description of the Project:
• 700 Student Middle School
• Planned to Open in 2000
• Based on 132,192 square feet based on Basic School plus both tiers
• Current plan is facility will be constructed on donated land at Meadowmont
2. East Chapel Hill High School Addition
Total Amount of Project 14,800,000
Funded by Other Sources 11,800,000
Amount Requested to be funded by the Bond $3,000,000
Description of the Project:
• Increase the capacity from 1,000 to 1,500
• Construct Cultural Arts Wing
3. Renovations
Total Amount of CEP Projects $28,395,518
Funded by Other Sources (1) $25,392,983
Amount Requested to be funded by the Bond $3,002,535
(1) CIP funds, primarily from sales tax, over the 10 year planning period.
Description of the projects:
• Chapel Hill High School auditorium ($614,215), Culbreth HVAC replacement
($381,500), Glenwood Renovations ($952,600), and Estes Hills Renovations
($1,002,800)
10
a
13
Orange County Schools
4. Elementary School
Total Amount of Project $14,500,000
Funded by Other Sources $7,033,703
Amount Requested to be funded by the Bond $7,466,297
Description of the Project:
• 600 Student Elementary School
• Location - not known
• Planned for 1999
• Based on square footage of 95,235 (Basic School plus Tier A and Tier B)
5. New High School
Option 1:
Total Amount of Project $25,000,000
Funded by Other Sources $12,500,000
Amount Requested to be funded by the Bond $12,500,000
Option 2:
Total Amount of Project $25,000,000
Funded by Other Sources 0
Amount Requested to be funded by the Bond $25,000,000
Description of the Project:
Option 1 - Bond funds pay for half of the facility and funds allocated for the CIP pay
the other half, either through private placement financing or directly payment toward
the facility (see notes below).
Option 2 - Bond funds are used entirely for the new high school.
6. Renovations
Total Amount of CIP Projects $26,608,993
Funded by Other Sources (1) $28,395,518
Amount Requested to be funded by the Bond $4,795,983
(1) CIP funds, primarily from sales tax, over the 10 year planning period.
11
14
Description of the Projects:
• Major renovations include Cameron Park ($270,000), electrical upgrades
($450,000), Orange High School ($725,000), kitchen improvements ($405,000) and
maintenance ship ($155,000)
Note: Of the $28.3 million available to the OCS over the 10 year planning period, nearly
$12.6 million is earmarked for a new high school. This money could be used in one of two
ways:
(1) Pay-as-you-go
Based on the schedule submitted by the Orange County Schools, if CIP funds
were used to pay for half the construction costs directly with the other half
paid by general obligation bonds, the full $12.5 million would not be available
until the year 2006-07.
(2) To pay debt service on a private placement financing plan
Under one scenario presented by the Orange County Schools, the County could
borrow an additional $12.5 million for the facility through a private placement
financing plan (which does not require a vote of the people) and combine these
funds with $12.5 million in general obligation bonds (requires a vote of the
people). The debt service amount would then be paid from CIP funds. (See
previous green sheet handed out at the 3124197 meeting for the impact on the
Orange County Schools CIP.) Note this type arrangement can legally done, but
that it must be approved by the Local Government Commission.
Parks and Recreation
7. Efland Cheeks Community School Park $400,
• Existing small community center adjacent to Efland Cheeks Elementary School
• Proposed park is on 16+ acres
• Includes new playground equipment, picnic shelter and outdoor classroom, nature
interpretive trail and lecture station, multi-purpose field, walking/fitness trail, upgraded
basketball court
8. Fairview Community Park $700,000
• Existing 42 acre tract
• Present park includes a playground and picnic area
• Possible joint venture to develop this park with picnic shelters, soccer fields, softball fields
and other amenities.
9. Northern Orange Human Services Center $500,000
(building renovations not included here)
• Existing 8 acre tract includes softball field and playground area
• 20 acre expansion to develop a community park to increase the active recreation areas and
add restrooms, picnic areas, parking and septic system.
12
15
1
10. Parkland Acquisition $1,000,000
• Purchase 25 to 30 acres for future development of a community park in Little River
Township
• Purchase 75 to 100 acres in Chapel Hill-Bingham Township for future development of a
district park.
Senior Centers
11. Construction of Central Orange Multipurpose Center $2,025,000
• A 15,000 square foot center in Hillsborough area
• Would include adult day care
• Current Hillsborough center is the oldest center, located in the Whitted Human Services
Center (which is a large government building shared with other human service agencies)
• Facility lacks space to accommodate large groups of 40 or more
• Parking at current facility is limited
12. Purchase existing Chapel Hill Multipurpose Center $3,000,000
• Existing center, located in the Galleria Shopping Center
• Established in 1991
• Houses an auditorium, three meeting/activity rooms, offices for Retired Senior Volunteer
Program (RSVP), a Wellness Center, Information and Case Assistance
• Chapel Hill township has the highest concentration of older adults
• Center averages over 200 people each day.
• The Center is a public-private partnership involving the county, the Town of Chapel Hill,
and the Friends of the CH Senior Center.
• Funding includes purchase of the entire shopping center, with the additional space being
leased.
13. Northern Orange Center $20,000
• Located in former Cedar Grove school
• Senior center rooms are scattered throughout the facility
• Average nutrition attendance is 25 persons per day
14. Efland Cheeks Center $112,500
• Facility established in 1990
• Center has one multi-purpose room
• Average daily nutrition attendance is 26 persons.
15. Construct Addition to Carrboro Center $750,000
• Limited space- two rooms (1,800), a large multi-purose room and a small Arts/Crafts
room.
13
16
Affordable Housing
16. Affordable Housing $1,800,000
• Several local organizations produce about 20 units per year: Orange Community Housing,
Habitat for Humanity, Knolls Development.
• Subsidies of $10-20,000 per year would increase affordability for between 50 to 100 home
buyers over a 4 to 5 year period
• Local funds of between $500,000 and $800,000 would be needed to assist 50 families to
have affordable rental opportunity, or $10,000 to $16,000 per unit.
Efland Sewer
17. Expansion of Efland Sewer $1,200,000
• Current system serves approximately 125 residential accounts and 6 non-residential
accounts
• Two largest sewer generators are Efland Cheeks Elementary School and Hancor
Manufacturing
• System that would have served areas of the Efland sewer system mater plan designated as
Phase II and the eastern portion of Phase I were not constructed during the original 1987-
88 construction primarily because of insufficient funds
• Estimated expansion would provide sewer service to 81 existing single family homes, 3
churches and 12 non-residential units.
County Buildings
18. Renovations to Whitted Human Services Center $1,000,000
19. Renovations to Northern Human Services Center $1,000,000
• Renovations to these facilities were originally included in the County Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP). With the funding plan approved by the Board of Commissioners for a no tax
increase bond referendum, additional bond funds were necessary to make up "lost" funds
for County projects. This $2 million is included to hold County projects "harmless" in
changes in the funding formula for capital projects.
• Renovations include HVAC replacement, major roof replacement, energy retrofitting and
general improvements.
• Both of these facilities are old schools that have been adapted for different use.
14
17
Appendix C. School Population Projects
The Task Force discussed the student population projections made by the State
Department of Public Instruction and by the private company, Or-Ed. In
addition, the Orange County School staff prepared local projections based on
current enrollment, and the influx of students from Alamance County.
The Task Force accepted the projections by default, although many members of
the committee expressed concern because they felt the projections were too low.
The projections reviewed by the committee are shown on the following pages.
15
18
School Population Projections
Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools STATE
Year ADM" Capacity"
1993-94 3531 3092 4500 Elementary
1994-95 3706 3092
1995-96 3831 3092 4
1996-97 3910 3684 3500
3000
1997-98 3955 3684 2500
1998-99 3946 3684 2000 ADM*
1999-00 3874 4284 + 1500 Capacity**
2000-01 3850 4284 1000
2001-02 3851 4284 500
2002-03 3820 4284 0
2003-04 3796 4284 9; a a $ 0 4 q q
Cn
2004-05 3782 4284 8 8 8 8 8 8
2005-06 3770 4284 r
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1722 1440 ADM
2500 Capacity!
1995-96 1994-95 1805 2108
1995-96 1893 2108 20
1996-97 1991 2108
1997-98 2082 2108 1500
1998-99 2224 2108
1999-00 2358 2108 1000
2000-01 2426 2108 Soo
2001-02 2411 2108
2002-03 2361 2108 0
2003-04 2341 2108 a ; M
2004-05 2344 2108 8 8 8 8 8
2005-06 2309 2108
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1880 1645 3500 ADM
1994-95 1998 1645 3000 Capacity
1995-96 2087 1645
1996-97 2174 2665 i 2500
1997-98 2291 2665 2000
1998-99 2380 2665 1500
1999-00 2506 3165 ++ j 1000
2000-01 2633 3165
2001-02 2766 3165 500
2002-03 2958 3165 0
2003-04 3039 3165 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20
2004-05 3047 3165 93- 94- 95- 96- 97- 98- 99- 00- 01- 02- 03-
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
2005-06 3058 3165
'Projected ADM by Department of Public Instruction,Statistical Research Section 10/96.
""Capacity as stated by the Schools.Does not include mobile units.
+ Southern Village Elementary School-600 students.
++Addition to East Chapel Hill High-500 students
Shaded student populations are actuals. 16
19
r
School Population Projections
Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools OR-ED
Year ADM' Capacity"
1993-94 3531 3092 4500 Elementary
1994-95 3706 3092 4000
1995-96 3831 3092 3500
1996-97 3938 3684 3000
1997-98 4011 3684
2500 1111111111011ADW
1998-99 4067 3684 2000 Capacity**
1500
1999-00 4037 4284 +! 1000
2000-01 4025 4284 500
2001-02 3994 4284 0
2002-03 3971 4284
2003-04 3963 4284 9 00 8 8
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1722 1440 2500
1994-95 1805 2108 2000
1995-96 1893 2108
1996-97 1865 2108 1500 ADM
1997-98 1967 2108 1000 --*---Capacity
1998-99 2108 2108 soo
1999-00 2281 2108
2000-01 2368 2108 0
2001-02 2457 2108 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20
93- 94- 95- 96- 97- 98- 99- 00- 01- 02- 03-
2002-03 2441 2108 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
2003-04 2341 2108
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1880 1645 4000 Hl h School
1994-95 1998 1645 3500
1995-96 2087 1645 3000
1996-97 2484 2665 2500
1997-98 2687 2665 2000
ADM
1998-99 2775 2665 1500 Capacity
1999-00 2901 3165 ++'; loon
2000-01 3085 3165 ' Soo
0
2001-02 3226 3165 G, a $ q 4 $
2002-03 3507 3165 8 8 S
2003-04 3675 3165
*Projected ADM by OR/ED Laboratories
"Capacity as stated by the Schools.Does not include mobile units.
+ Southern Village Elementary School-600 students.
++Addition to East Chapel Hill High -500 students
Shaded student populations are actuals.
17
20
School Population Projections
Orange County Schools LOCAL
Year ADM Capacity Elementary ADM
1993-94 2650 2928 3500 -Capacity
1994-95 2758 2928 3000
1995-96 2822 2928 2500
1996-97 3040 3348
1997-98 3213 3348 2000
1998-99 3211 3348 1500
1999-00 3223 3348 1000
2000-01 3216 3348
2001-02 3175 3348 sao
2002-03 3233 3348
2003-04 3197 3348 ° a $ 4 4
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1325 1232
1994-95 1310 1232 lsoo Midffle
1995-96 1284 1526 ; 1600
1996-97 1343 1526 1400 ADM
1997-98 1422 1526 I; 1000000 —4—Capacity!,
1998-99 1490 1526 soo
1999-00 1489 1526 600
2000-01 1559 1526 j 400
2001-02 1595 1526 200
2002-03 1642 1526
2003-04 1634 1526 8 8 8
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1379 1520 2500 Higb School
1994-95 1396 1520
1995-96 1455 1520 2000 ADM
1996-97 1588 1520 1500 —*--Capacity
1997-98 1733 1520
1998-99 1873 1520 1000
1999-00 1946 1520 f 5o0
2000-01 1863 1520
2001-02 1966 1520 o $ 4 4
2002-03 2014 1520 $ 8 8 8
2003-04 2047 1520
Projected ADM by Orange County Schools
**Capacity as stated by the Schools.Does not include mobile units.
18
21
School Population Projections
Orange County Schools STATE
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 2650 2928 Elementary
1994-95 2758 2928 3500
1995-96 2822 2928 3000
1996-97 2924 3348 2500
1997-98 3027 3348 2000 ADM
1998-99 3092 3348 �-Capacity
1999-00 3163 3348 lsoo
2000-01 3194 3348 1000
2001-02 3198 3348 500
2002-03 3173 3348 0
2003-04 3153 3348 G $ 4 4 4 4
2004-05 3141 3348 �A 8 8 8 8
2005-06 3131 3348
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1325 1232
1994-95 1310 1232 1800 Middle
1995-96 1284 1526 1600
1996-97 1301 1526 1400
1997-98 1341 1526 1200
1998-99 1400 1526 ADM
1999-00 1412 1526 l000
2000-01 1485 .1526 800 i�—Capacity
2001-02 1546 1526 600
2002-03 1642 1526 aoo
2003-04 1676 1526 200
2004-05 1684 1526 ° 6, a $ 4 4 4
2005-06 1659 1526 8 8
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1379 1520 1800 Hl h School
1994-95 1396 1520 j
1600
1995-96 1455 1520 1400
1996-97 1515 1520 1200
1997-98 1499 1520 1000
1998-99 1506 1520 ADM
1999-00 1537 1520 soo Capacity
2000-01 1548 1520 600
2001-02 1610 1520 aoo
2002-03 1646 1520 200
2003-04 1718 1520 0
2004-05 1797 1520 9 9 9 & & $ 8 8 8
2005-06 1875 1520 ~ _ ^ -- -- N N N N N
Projected ADM by Department of Public Instruction,Statistical Research Section 1996. 19
—Capacity as stated by the Schools. Does not include mobile units.
22
School Population Projections
Orange County Schools OR-ED
I♦ADM
Year ADM Capacity Elementary
1993-94 2650 2928 3500 —*--Capacity
1994-95 2758 2928 3000
1995-96 2822 2928 2500
1996-97 2853 3348
1997-98 2906 3348 2°00
1998-99 2924 3348 1500
1999-00 2948 3348 1000
2000-01 2939 3348 soo
2001-02 2918 3348
2002-03 2900 3348 j $ c 4
2003-04 2893 3348 8 8 8
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1325 1232
1994-95 1310 1232 1600 Nliddle
1995-96 1284 1526 1400
1996-97 1235 1526 ' 1200
1997-98 1275 1526 1000 ADM
1998-99 1325 1526 1 800 --+-Capacity
1999-00 1345 1526 ' 600
2000-01 1405 1526 400
2001-02 1439 1526 200
2002-03 1473 1526 ° $ 4 4
2003-04 1465 1526 $ 8 8
Year ADM Capacity
1993-94 1379 1520 1800 High School
1994-95 1396 1520 1600
1995-96 1455 1520 1400
1996-97 1550 1520 1200 ADM
1997-98 1509 1520 1000 Capacity
soo
1998-99 1507 1520 I 600
1999-00 1521 1520 400
2000-01 1530 1520 1 200
2001-02 1600 1520 1 0 a $ 4 q
2002-03 1638 1520 $ 8 8
2003-04 1689 1520
Projected ADM b Or-Ed Laboratories.
1 Y
**Capacity as stated by the Schools.Does not include mobile units.
20
Appendix D. School Standards for Elementary and Middle 23
Schools
Excerpts from the School Construction Standards Report
Elementary School
The total square footage of the Basic School, as outlined in this section of the report, is
83,160 square feet. There are two tiers added to the Basic School. Tier A provides
additional storage space for use of the facility for after school programs. The additional
storage space is 1,400 square feet with 462 square feet for circulation, bringing the total
for Tier A to 1,862 additional square feet. Tier B includes space identified by the School
Systems as desirable for an elementary school. Tier B adds 13,240 square feet with
approximately 5,920 square feet for storage, 1,000 square feet for a Student Commons
area and the balance primarily for additional teacher workspace and conference rooms.
Middle.School
The total square footage of the Basic School, as outlined in this section of the report, is
approximately 113,400 square feet. There are two added to the Basic School.. Tier A
includes increased space for the after school programs, increasing the square footage by
a total of 1,620 square feet. The remaining tier includes nearly 17,200 square feet of
which a large portion is for special project rooms, additional commons space and
additional teacher workspace.
21
24 ,
Estimated Cost of New Facilities
Includes Tier A and Tier B
Elementary School Capacity = 600 students Square Footage 95,225
Square Ft.per Student 158.7
Construction Cost Cost Per Square Foot $ 104 $ 9,903,400
Site Acquisition Acres: 16
Average Cost Per Acre: 25,000 $ 400,000
Site Development As a percentage of Construction Cost 10% $ 990,340
Fees As a percentage of Construction Costs and Site Development 10% 1,089,374
Moveable Equipment As a percentage of Construction Cost 5% $ 495,170
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% $ 544,687
Start-Up Costs Non Personnel One time start-up costs $ 330,000
Total $ 14,538,577
Middle School Capacity = 700 students Square Footage 132,192
Square Ft.per Student 188.8
Construction Cost Cost Per Square Foot $ 121 $ 15,995,232
Site Acquisition Acres: 22
Average Cost Per Acre 25,000 $ 550,000
Site Development As a percentage of Construction Cost 10% $ 1,599,523
Fees As a percentage of Construction Costs and Site Development 10% 1,759,476
Moveable Equipment As a percentage of Construction Cost 5% $ 799,762
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% $ 879,738
Start-Up Costs Non Personnel Start Up-one time $ 350,000
Total $ 23,024,314
R
4/7/97 22
A
25
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&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 rooms) 4,800 850 5,650
Art Education and Music 2,400 450 2,850
Physical Education 5,050 200 5,250
Media Center 4,206 4,200
Small Group Resource Rooms 1,350 1,350
Administration 1,650 300 1,950
Student Support Areas 1,100 100 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 500 500
General Conference Room 200 200
Speech/Language Conference Room 400 400
Teachers' Lounge/Workarea 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 81,463 1,362 11,910 1 95,235 23
Middle School 26
Capacity 700 students
Basic Additions to Basic School
School Tier A Tier B Total
Classrooms and Associated Storage 32,500 2,550 35,050
Regular Classrooms(22) 22,000 300 22,300
Science Classrooms(6) 7,200 7,200
Exceptional Education Classroom
(1)/Rescurce 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 Soo 13,700
Media Center 5,640 60 5,700
Parent/Community Center 400 400
Administration 1,300 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 3,300 2,000 5,800
Teachers' Offices/Workrooms 3,350 1,250 4,600
Conference Rooms(one per grade level) 750 750
Teachers' Lounge/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 1,300 1,500
Activities Lobby Soo S00
Academic House Centtums(3 01000 sq.R
each) 3.000 3,000
Subtotal 83,980 1,200 12,740 97,920
Circulation at 35% of Subtotal 29,393 420 4,359 34,272
Total Square Foota 1 113,3731 1,6201 17,1991 132,192
24
27
Appendix E. Impact on Orange County Schools Capital
Improvements Plan when debt service on Private Placement
Financing for a new high school is paid from these funds
Debt Service on $12.5M for the OCS High School project would be about $1.4
million annually. This exceeds the amount available to the OCS for CIP projects
in the years 1997-98 through 2000-2001. The following table shows how this
debt service amount would impact Capital Improvements Plan projects for the
Orange County Schools:
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
Available Non-Bond $1,033,947 $1,539,197 $2,125,690 $2,745,237 $3,299,001 $3,937,329 $4,289,570
Funds
Less Amount of Private $1,372,400 $1,372,400 $1,372,400 $1,372,400 $1,372,400 $1,372,400 $1,372,400
Placement Debt Service
Net Amount available for ($338,453) $166,797 $753,290 $1,372,837 $1,926,601 $2,564,929 $2,917,170
Projects
25
28
Appendix F. Comments from Task Force Members
Individual comments from Task Force Members are included in this
appendix.
26
29
MINORITY REPORT RELATIVE TO CHAPEL HILL SENIOR CENTER
Of the 19 items on the table for the final voting of the Task Force, only one did not
receive either full or partial funding. That was the Chapel Hill Senior Center.
If the Commissioners follow the recommendations regarding other County Senior
Centers,the Chapel Hill Center will be the only one which will not be county owned.
Senior Centers did not warrant much detailed discussion by the Task Force.
Understandably, the major interest was in public schools, as indicated by a third of the
group being school board members(7 out of 22). I was the only person who voiced any
advocacy about the inclusion of the Chapel Hill Center, but it was awkward to be very
vocal while serving as Chair and seeking to be sensitive to the will of the whole group.
It was apparent from the beginning that some of the Task Force members were interested
only in schools.
I think that after the Task Force meeting at the Chapel Hill Senior Center, some members
were of the impression that we HAVE a fine Center in Chapel Hill. In fact, we do not
have a Center; we LEASE one. We have absolutely no assurance that after four years
there will be a Senior Center in Chapel Hill.
Unlike any of the other Centers,the Chapel Hill Center was initiated by local seniors who
have given of their time, talent, and financial resources to bring it into being. All of the
cost of uplifting the facility was funded privately(approximately$250,000). On an on-
going basis, local seniors raise an annual budget of about$80,000, and out of this pay a
third of the county's monthly rental cost(total lease payments to date are $481,219, and
$156,356 of this has come from contributions or fund raising by Chapel Hill seniors).
Recently, seniors raised$40,000 to complete the suite of offices for county employees in
the mezzanine space. If we lose this Center, I fear that local seniors who have invested so
much in it will be demoralized beyond a willingness to begin all over again.
What are the options?
I. We could hope that the Galleria will not be sold to someone else and that at the end of
our lease in the year 2001 we will be able to renew it under favorable conditions.. It is
clear, however,that the present owner will insist on a substantial raise beyond the current
annual payment of approximatel $92,000.(By the last year of the lease in 2001,the annual
payment will be $112,000.)
II. Full payment of$3,000,000 could be a part of the bond package to purchase the
Galleria, as recommended by the Advisory Committee to the Orange County Department
on Aging.
III. Partial payment for the purchase of the Galleria could be included in the November
27
1
30
bond, large enough to borrow private funding. Payments could be made in part from
income from other occupants of the Galleria until such time as the Senior Center needs
the space for the following:
1. More meeting rooms for classes. Currently we are not able to provide space
for all the activities we would like to schedule.
2. Adult day care. The only facility now available is Charles House which can
accommodate only a small number and at prices higher than those most in need
can afford.
3. A fitness center for exercise classes and exercise equipment.
4. A place for Peer and Shared Learning, a program involving over 300 seniors
which is now located at Binkley Church and the Church of the Reconciliation.
5. A bridge and bingo place. These are activities that could continue around the
clock if space were available.
AND
6. A medical clinic for seniors. UNC Hospitals is ready to explore the possibility
of staffing such a facility if space becomes available.
7. Space for the new Institute on Aging. Interest has been expressed in the new
Institute's having a base of operation in proximity to the Center for research
involving local seniors.
IV. Another option is to build a completely new Center. Is the County prepared to bear
the cost of a new site and a new building? This is now being done in a number of
counties across North Carolina. Nearby Chatham is a good example, having constructed
a large and beautiful Center(in partnership with some private gifts).
There is much to be said for keeping the Chapel Hill Center where it is. The Center is
established and easily located. It is on a bus line and is in a racially and economically
neutral place. We have demonstrated our ability to attract the full range of seniors, from
the privileged to the poor. Despite the image of affluence among Chapel Hill seniors,the
majority of those who participate are on fixed, marginal incomes.
I IMPLORE YOU TO EITHER INCLUDE FULL OR PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE
CHAPEL HILL CENTER IN THE BOND ISSUE OR GIVE TO CHAPEL HILL
SENIORS SOME ALTERNATE PLAN TO ENSURE THE FUTURE USE OF OUR
FACILITY BEFORE THE VOTE IN NOVEMBER. CHAPEL HILL SENIORS WILL
BE MORE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY OWNING ALL THE OTHER
SENIOR CENTERS IF THERE IS SOME ASSURANCE THAT THE COUNTY HAS A
COMPARABLE CONCERN FOR MAINTAINING A CENTER IN CHAPEL HILL.
If we are serious about adequate long range planning for older adults in Orange County,
we need to move forward on this now. Otherwise we may end up taking a major
backwards step from which it would take a long time to recover. The Chapel Hill Senior
28
31
Center serves not only Chapel Hill. IT IS THE FLAGSHIP CENTER FOR THE WHOLE
OF ORANGE COUNTY.
Submitted by Robert Seymour
29
1
32
From: <adams04 I @mc.duke.edu>
To: ocmail.ocmail(skost)
Date: 4/25/97 2:06pm
Subject: Comments on Bond Package
Sally:
I have just a couple comments on the bond package,which looks very
similar to what I had recommended. The first is to include in the
appendix a comment on the school enrollment and cost projections. The
task force spent a fair amount of time discussing the validity of the
enrollment projections for both school systems,with a majority
(including myself)feeling that the estimates could be low,especially
beyond the year 2000. In addition,the cost of the Meadowmont Middle
School does not take into account the$1 million in land costs
incurred if the deal with East-West Partners falls through. In short,
while the dollcfs in the bond devoted to schools appears large,the
need may be even greater.
A second point, is to translate the increase in tax rate into a
specific number per personal property valuation. This bond package is
so crucial to our school overcrowding problem,that the"marketing"
aspect should not be overlooked. That is,the taxpayers should know
that they are getting a great and diverse number of needs met for less
than the cost of a pair of name brand tennis shoes(for a$150,000
house). This tax increase is not the same as a federal increase where
we have no idea where the tax revenue is actually going. The voters
should have a very clear idea of the needs of the community and how
they are being met by this bond.
Finally,I enjoyed participating in the Task Force and appreciate all
the hard work you and the county staff did to make things happen. I
was especially impressed by the idea of having a facilitator present
to guide and focus our discussions,and in the end,use some
techniques that really helped bring us to some decisions. I look
forward to seeing both the majority and minority reports.
David
30
33
coh M IM FOR BOND CONSMEItAT_ION
1 served on the CIP Committee;and was present at all of the meetings. I also voted
no on the$60 million plus recommendation to the County Commissioners.
When the original concept of a committee was first talked about,the idea was to
address school needs in both districts. I thought,at that time, this is a good idea for us to
get together and lay all ideas and:needs on the table and discuss those ideas. Then the
charge carne out after the committee was formed,and we were to look at all of the needs
"county wide." This change in direction took what I considered a school needs
committee and its direction and infused it with a much wider horizon which includes
senior needs,Parks&Recreation;affoirdable housing,and centers,etc.
I fully support the needs of both school systems,evert though there is some doubt in
my mind about paying 36 trillion for East Chapel Hill High School and 20 million for the
middle school.
All of the other needs and fund sources for them should be funded as usual and/or
made CIP needs and funded as CIP Hw items.Both the CIP and general funding should
be able to handle.
I want the Commissioners to give.me a bond package which I can endorse and go to
the voters in rural Orange County and sell. I cannot endorse or sell anything beyond the
identified school needs.
Please help me to be able to`help-you,to help our schools.
Bob Bateman
April 24, 1997
t 31
04/24/1997 16:07 9199293100 PATRICIA;LOVE PAGE 34
Comment:
I did trot oppose funding for the Chapel Hill Senior Center on any grounds except my hesitation to place this
unusual purchase in a bond issue_ I fully support the purchase of the buildings involved and will appear before the
Orange County Commissioners to voice my support for them from some other lbxbng source.
Patricia S.Lave
32
35
My thanks to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for allowing me to serve on the
Capital Needs Task Force. I am pleased with the outcome of the deliberations of that group
and would like to add the following brief comments:
Schools:
1. Although the group eliminated short life cycle technology as a bond funded item,
I'm certain that it is clear to all of us that technology resources are a vital
component of an effective education system and should be fully funded from other
sources.
2. We would achieve considerable savings and we would create schools that were
more functional community resources if we were to change our elementary school
construction standards to include a middle school sized gymnasium rather than a
3600 square foot multipurpose room. The gymnasium could still be used by the
school as an expanded multipurpose area and could also be used by the Parks and
Recreation Department to schedule community recreation programs. Our recent
experience in Chapel Hill indicated that expanding the multipurpose room at the
Southern Village Elementary School would have cost about $650,000. By
contrast, a "free standing" gym at the Hargraves Community Center will cost
$1,500,000.
With this in mind, I would urge you to include a gymnasium in the new Orange
County elementary school that will be constructed with funds from the proposed
1997 bond.
Senior Centers:
1. Please consider siting the new Orange Multipurpose Senior Center on a school
campus if that option is available. Siting schools, parks, and senior centers in close
proximity provides, I believe, both financial and functional benefits.
2. The Chapel Hill Senior Center is an effective and model resource that deserves
continued support. While it is probably appropriate for funding for the purchase of
the facility to come from private partnership, please make certain that there are
sufficient County resources available to ensure that the effort does not fail.
Martin Feinstein
33
APR 28 '97 11:56AM TUNL 9196602634
36
Commissioners,
I voted against the 60 million plus dollar bond that is contain within this report. I
believe that we are at the over taxation threshold, families are having to make .
decisions on if they can afford to live in Orange County. What you do, does affect the
cost of living in this County. Please take the time to read the minority report. It will
cause you to think.
At times I felt the school administrations' as well as the county staff were
playing a shell game with the task force. There were questions raised that went
unanswered.
In closing I would like to offer a bond proposal that I believe can win the support
throughout the County. If you have any questions please contact me my phone
number is 942.3814.
49 Million Qollar Bond Proposal ($1.68 tax rate impact)
1. Schools
Orange County Schools
Total Cost State Bond end Proposal
New High School $25,000,000 $5,980,160 $19,000,000
Renovations " $ 4,795,983 $ 4.800.000
OCS total $ 23,800,000
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools
Middle School #4 $16,400,000 (Tier "A" school bldg.) $ 16,000,000
Renovations $ 31002,535 CHCCS total $ 19,10,000
Current Bond
Fund Bequest Bond EM12osal
2. Efland Sewer $1,200,000 $ 1,000,000
3. Recreation & Parks $2,600,000 $ 2,600,000
4. Renovations Whitted &
Northern Centers $2,000,000 $ 1,500,000
5. Affordable Housing $1,800,000 $ 1.000.000
*Note: Orange County Schools Renovations - include $1 million to adjust for negative impact
of debt service that would have resulted In OCS receiving $1 million less (per Action Agenda Item#9-9
dated 1 0-15-96)
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick Mulkey, Vice Chairman
34
• APR-29-97 TUE 01 :41 AM
' 37
To: Sally Kost
From: Lisa Stuckey
Re: Comments on the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force
Report
Date: April 28, 1997
1 would ,like to comment on the recommendations of the
Task Force as they pertain to the Senior Centers.
I am disappointed with our recommendations for three
reasons. First, we failed to abide by our criteria for
evaluating projects when we voted to support several small
projects of substantially less than $1, 000, 000. Second, we
recommended partial funding for the multipurpose center and
the Carrboro center, ensuring that neither can be done well.
Third, no reasons were articulated by our task force for
these decisions.
We allocated money as follows:
$1,000, 000 to 2, 025, 000 to the multipurpose center
(2, 025, 000 was requested)
$20, 000 to Northern Orange renovations
$112, 500 to the Efland addition
$500, 000 to the Carrboro center
(750, 000 was requested)
I would urge the County Commissioners to consider
funding the Senior's highest priority, the multipurpose
center, fully. The need for the center is well explained in
the report entitled orange County Senior Centers Development
Plan: 1996-2000. The multipurpose center would meet the
needs of a large group of seniors residing in northern and
central Orange county. it would balance the center in
Chapel Hill, and provide a single location for a variety of
services.
35