HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-29-2014 - 2ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 29, 2014
76
Action Agenda
Item No. 2
SUBJECT: Potential Bond Issuance Schedule and Timeline for a May 2016 Bond
Referendum
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Administrative PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Services
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Proposed Bond Schedule for a
May 2016 Referendum
B. Chapel Hill — Carrboro City
Schools Letter and Information in
regards to older facility needs.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clarence Grier, 919 - 245 -2453
Bob Jessup, 919 - 989 -9391
PURPOSE: To receive information on a potential May 2016 bond referendum schedule.
BACKGROUND: In recent meetings over the past few months, the Board of County
Commissioners has discussed the need for a future bond referendum to fund County and
School long -range capital needs. This item was also discussed at the September 3, 2013
County /School Collaboration Meeting, and the Board of County Commissioners Board Retreat
on January 31, 2014. Originally, there were two potential dates for the voters to consider a
bond referendum — November 2014 and November 2015. Recently, the Board of County
Commissioners decided to change the proposed bond referendum to May 2016. Bob Jessup,
Orange County Bond Counsel, and Orange County staff have provided schedules for both
dates including a brief timeline comparison related to both dates.
Currently, although some projects were discussed preliminarily in previous meetings, such as
Middle School #5 for the Chapel Hill — Carrboro City School District, the Board of County
Commissioners has not finalized the components of any potential bond referendum. Both
School Districts have older facility needs that total approximately $330 million that could be
included as potential projects of the proposed referendum. Additionally, in previous bond
referendums, the Board of County Commissioners appointed a Capital Needs Task Force to
discuss and recommend the components of the bond referendums, and the use of an
educational campaign to educate the public about the needs and purpose of the bond
referendum.
Additionally, Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools has requested $750,000 in planning funds to address
the older facility needs of their school district that could be potentially funded with the proceeds from a
potential bond referendum.
77
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with the attached report
and calendar.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report and
calendar and provide feedback to staff.
Attachment A 78
Sanford Holshouser LLP
Memorandum
To: Orange County Officials
Date: March 17, 2014
Regarding Required Procedures and Possible Schedule for
General Obligation Bond Referendum in May, 2016
From: Sanford Holshouser LLP
-- Robert M. Jessup Jr.
This memorandum describes the steps required for Orange County to
conduct a general obligation bond referendum on May 3, 2016, and sets out a
proposed schedule. I have attached a schedule in table form that summarizes these
steps.
Please note that in general the dates indicated are the last available dates for
the indicated action; steps can certainly be accomplished prior to the indicated
deadlines. As we do not have an official Board meeting schedule for this time
period, I have assumed Board meeting dates of the first and third Mondays of each
month. Further, changes to State law between now and then may change some of
the dates related to the May primary.
Here are the required steps and suggested dates for action:
1. Determine tentative plan for bond purposes and amounts.
Although Step 5 provides for the first formal Board action to determine what will
be presented to the voters, the bond program needs to be substantially worked out
before we begin the formal process. In addition, the plan for what projects are to be
included in the bond package is something that LGC representatives will want to
discuss in detail with County representatives as part of the meeting described in the
next step.
Each separate general purpose for bonds has to be the subject of a separate
ballot question. The statutes assume that each question put to voters will propose a
dollar amount for a separate generic purpose, such as paying "capital costs of
school facilities. " Although the statutes allow the purpose to be stated with more
specificity, it is highly recommended that the purpose in the ballot question be left
as general as possible. The more specific plans underlying the planning for the
79
Sanford Holshouser LLP
bond issue do not legally hind the County to a particular future plan of action in
the issuance of the bonds or construction of specified facilities.
2. Give informal notice to the County Board of Elections. Because
the Board of Elections will need to coordinate its own procedures for the bond
referendum, it would help the Board of Elections to receive a phone call to inform
the Board of the County's plans, even if the plans are still subject to change. In
addition, State law generally requires that absentee ballots be available at least 50
days prior to the election date (in this case, by March 14), and we want to be sure
that our schedule is generally acceptable to the Board of Elections.
3. Meet with LGC staff. The County should arrange a meeting with
LGC staff about the proposed referendum. Although LGC staff would be happy to
meet with County staff at any time, it would probably be most efficient to schedule
this meeting close to the completion of the process described in Step 1.
4. Obtain School Board Resolutions. If any of the bonds will be
proposed for school purposes, the statutes contemplate that the affected school
boards should provide a formal referendum request to the Commissioners. This
request usually proposes a maximum amount of bonds to be considered at the
referendum. This schedule assumes that each school board could provide this
resolution to the Commissioners by mid - December of 2015.
5. Adopt "Findings" Resolution. As part of the application
process, the LGC wants to see a statement describing why the proposed projects
and bonds are necessary and desirable. This resolution will also state an estimated
tax rate impact of the borrowing. This resolution could be adopted at a mid -
December or early January County Board meeting.
6. Publish Notice of Intent To File Application. The County must
publish a notice of its intent to file an application for the LGC's approval of the
proposed bonds. The notice must be published at least 10 days before filing the
application. The notice needs to be published as soon as possible after the Board
adopts the findings resolution described in Step 5.
The own words resolution and the Notice of Intent establish the maximum
amount of bonds that can he proposed at the referendum for each of the specified
purposes. From this point, we can decrease the amount of bonds or eliminate
purposes, but we can increase an amount or add a purpose only by re- starting the
authorization process.
2
:1
Sanford Holshouser LLP
7. Make Legislative Committee 45 -day filing. The guidelines call for
this filing to go in 45 days before the LGC considers your application. Because the
LGC only needs to "accept" your application in advance of the referendum — it
doesn't technically have to "approve" the application prior to the referendum -- I'd
suggest we send in the legislative filing when we're ready to file the LGC
application, and just ask the LCG to defer formal action until our 45 -day period has
expired. So that would mean making the filing promptly after the completion of
Step 5.
8. File LGC Application. As stated above, this cannot happen until
at least 10 days have elapsed since the publication of the notice of intent. The
application needs to be filed and formally accepted by the LGC before we have the
County Board take its next steps as described in Step 9.
Although we have to submit the LGC application as part of the referendum
process, it is not necessary to receive LGC approval until we are ready to proceed
with the actual sale of bonds, which of course will he after the referendum. The
LGC may or may not act on the application prior to the referendum, although the
current LGC practice is in fact to consider applications as they are received
(instead of waiting for the time of a bond issuance).
9. Introduce Bond Orders; Set public hearing. After the County
files its application, the Board needs to introduce the "Bond Orders" and set a date
for the required public hearing. We can take these actions at any time after the
LGC accepts the application (even the same day). Our schedule shows these steps
occurring at a mid - January County Board meeting. At the time the Bond Orders are
introduced, the Finance Officer must also file a statement as to the estimated
amount of interest to be payable on the Bonds over their term.
The "Bond Order" is the basic authorization for bonds approved by the
County Board. The statutes provide for the format and most of the text of a bond
order; the bond order is a short, general statement of the Board's determination to
proceed. Each of the separate generic purposes for which bonds are to he
proposed will he the subject of a separate bond order: The details of an actual bond
issue are further approved by the Board at the time of a bond issue.
10. File sworn statement of debt. This is a statement, required by
statute, that details outstanding County debt. This document will be similar, but not
quite identical, to a debt statement that appears in the LGC application. This
statement needs to be filed after the bond orders are introduced but before the
publication of the notice of public hearing (as described in the next step).
3
Sanford Holshouser LLP
11. Publish Notice of Public Hearing. We need to publish notice of
the required public hearing at least six days prior to the hearing. The notice must
also include a calculation of the estimated interest to be paid on the bonds over
their term.
12. Hold Public Hearing; Adopt Bond Order; Set Ballot Question and
Referendum Date. After holding a public hearing, the Board needs to adopt the
Bond Orders and adopt a resolution that formally sets the ballot questions and the
date for the referendum. Our schedule shows these steps occurring at a mid -
February County Board meeting. The Board Clerk must then send a copy of the
resolution setting the date and the ballot question to the County Board of Elections
within three days after the Board meeting.
We can arrange the schedule to have the public hearing at a meeting hefore
the Board takes final action on the Bond Orders and ballot questions. For
absentee ballots to he available by March 14, the mid- Fehruary Board meeting is
just about as late as we can go for the final Board action and still allow for
convenient printing of the ballots. The adoption of the bond order establishes the
final amount of bonds that will go hefore the voters.
13. Publish Bond Order as Adopted. This should be done as soon as
possible after the Bond Order is adopted. There is no particular deadline for
publishing this notice, but the notice starts a 30 -day period for court challenges to
the authorization process that must lapse before any bonds can be issued.
14. Publish Notice of Bond Referendum. This notice must be
published twice, once not less than 14 days and once not less than 7 days before
the close of voter registration. State law permits registration until the 25th day prior
to the election date. That puts the date registration closes at April 8 for a
referendum on May 3. The first publication, then, needs to be at least 14 days
earlier, or on or before March 25, and the second publication no more than one
week later (by April 1). I would certainly encourage you, however, to plan to
publish at least a week before the final legal date, in order to leave time to re-
publish in case of any problems with publication.
Once the voters have approved the bonds, you are looking at a minimum of
90 to 120 days to get through the process to actually issue bonds. The County
Board must adopt a resolution to formally approve the election results, and the
4
Sanford Holshouser LLP
County must publish a notice of the results that triggers a 30 -day period during
which people can bring legal challenges to the bond election process. Then, to
approve the issuance of bonds takes only one more Board resolution, with no other
required public hearings or published notices.
The real timing issue in proceeding with a bond issue centers around the
progress of the projects that are going to be financed. In general, the LGC wants
you to have firm construction numbers for most of the projects to be financed
before you close on the financing — the LGC wants to be sure you don't borrow too
much money, or too little money, or borrow it earlier than you need it. This is only
LGC policy — not the law — so the LGC has flexibility in how it administers this
policy. In general, the LGC will give you some more leeway in the timing of
issuing voter - approved bonds than for other types of financing, but it still wants to
see that you are close to construction — usually with construction bids in hand for
projects representing the majority of the amount to be borrowed.
Approval at a bond referendum gives the County seven years from the
referendum date to issue the bonds. The law allows the LGC to extend that time for
an additional three years, and in my experience the LGC routinely grants these
extensions. The bonds can be issued in as many different installments as the
County chooses, and there is never any obligation actually to issue bonds approved
at a referendum.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this information, or if I
can be of any other assistance.
-- RMJ
5
Sanford Holshouser LLP
Orange County -- Proposed Timetable for May '16 Bond Referendum
Event
Date
FW
1. Determine referendum plan — As soon as possible
tentative amounts and purposes,
and target election date
2. Give informal notice to County Board As soon as possible after informal
of Elections decision to proceed with a May
referendum
3. Meet with LGC staff As soon as possible after informal
decision on referendum plan— prior to
Event 5
4. Obtain school board resolutions Prior to Event 5 — school boards to act by
mid - December 2015
5. Board adopts preliminary resolution 12/21/15 or 1/4/2016 BOCC meeting
explaining purpose for referendum
and authorizing publication of notice
of intent to file LGC application
6. Publish notice of intent to file
application
7. Legislative committee 45 -day filing
8. File LGC application
9. Board introduces bond orders and
schedules public hearing
10. Clerk files sworn statement of debt
11. Publish notice of public hearing
ro
As soon as possible after Event 5
As soon as possible after Event 5
Must be at least 10 days after Event 6 and
prior to Event 9
1/18 BOCC meeting
Any time between Event 9 and Event 11
After Event 10 and at least six days prior
to Event 12
Sanford Holshouser LLP
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Hold public hearing; adopt bond
orders; formally set ballot questions
and referendum date
Absentee ballots to be available
Publish bond order as adopted
Publish notice of referendum (twice)
Referendum occurs
:I
2/15 BOCC meeting
By March 14
As soon as possible after Event 13
By 3/25; then by 4/1
5/3
85
Attachment B
Date: April 22, 2014
To: Barry Jacobs, Chair of the Board of Orange County Commissioners
From: Jamezetta Bedford, Chair of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Board of Education
Re: Older Facility Needs
On April 17, 2014, the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Board unanimously approved
recommendations to address the facility needs at our 10 oldest schools. The recommendations
would correct facility deficiencies, address life /safety code and handicap accessibility concerns,
and improve safety and security. The recommendations also increase capacity at the elementary
and high school levels. The Board approved sharing our facility needs and requests financial
support to implement the recommendations.
The recommended plans provide additional student capacity and would change Schools
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO) projections. The added capacity would delay the
need for Elementary School #12 and the high school expansion beyond our current 10 -year
SAFPO projection. The corrective work and added school capacity must be started soon to avoid
the SAPFO projected need for another elementary school in 2020. Our district continues to grow
and to implement the recommendations at the 10 locations will require careful planning and
project phasing.
Based on recent discussions about the timing of a potential bond referendum, the Board of
Education is very concerned that the opportunity to make facility improvements and increase
capacity may be in jeopardy. Development of construction documents and local regulatory
approval requires approximately 18 months and bidding and construction can take another 18 to
24 months.
Since it is uncertain when a future bond referendum might occur and recognizing the necessity to
move forward with corrective work and increase capacity before we need another elementary
school, at our April 10, 2014 meeting, our board unanimously approved requesting $750,000 in
preliminary renovation planning funds. The preliminary renovation planning funds would be
used to develop architectural and engineering plans and construction documents to correct
conditions and increase capacity in one of the projects. The preliminary planning funds would
ensure that work could start immediately ( "shovel ready ") after a successful bond approval.
Depending on the date of the proposed bond referendum, we may also need to request that the
county fund a project separate and in advance of the referendum.
Lincoln Center. 750 S. Merritt Mill Road - Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -2878 - (919) 967 -8211 - www.chccs.kl2.nc,US
:
Please know that the Board remains committed to working collaboratively with the Orange
County Schools as they work to finalize the needs of their older facilities. We also remain
committed to working with the County Commissioners and County staff to provide information
and support if and when a bond referendum is proposed.
Attached please find a copy of our summarized recommendations. We will be prepared to
present these needs and answer questions at our April 29 joint meeting. Thank you for your
continued support of public education.
cc: T. Forcella
M. Talbert
C. Grier
T. LoFrese
B. Mullin
BOCC members
CHCCS Board members
CHCCS Facilities Assessment Recommendations
CONSTRUCTION LIST
School Name
Scope of Work
Est. Cost
• Eliminates life safety issues in Building 100 by deconstruction
and building new academic wing
CARRBORO
• Provide a new administration suite & main entrance
$13.55M
ELEMENTARY
Moves queuing off of the road
• Increase capacity by 52 seats
• Deconstruct all of Building "A"
• Replaces oldest academic building with new
• Creates a new entry/ admin suite that is accessible and
CHAPEL HILL
secure
$52.41M
HIGH SCHOOL
• Addresses oldest building and major mechanical issues
• Connects more of the campus
• Increases capacity by 105 seats
• Renovate existing building
CULBRETH
• Construct small addition that provides new location for
$7.15M
MIDDLE
administration suite and provides secure main entrance
• Renovate & reorganize the layout of the main building
• Relocated the administration suite to the street front &
EPHESUS
provide a new main entry
$15.54M
ELEMENTARY
• Provide additional program space to eliminate mobiles &
bring school up to space standards
• Increase capacity by 137
• Provide an administration addition at front to provide
necessary staff space as well as a secure main entry
• Classroom wing deconstruction and addition at rear of the
ESTES HILLS
school
$16.73M
ELEMENTARY
• Enclose breezeways to connect all classrooms with interior
corridors
• Provide new queuing configuration
• Increase capacity by 58 seats
• Deconstruct existing admin bldg & construct addition of
FRANK
admin /kitchen space to meet space standards
PORTER
• Provide more prominent front door and secure main
$9.45M
GRAHAM
ELEMENTARY
entrance
• Renovate existing buildings
0000,, IRDU CENTER DRIVE, S!UOTE 217, MORRISVIILLE, NC 27560 91M40.10091 FAX 91984U045
M(-)Sll: :IC.EYARCIHIIITECTS.CO M
::
RE:
Page 2
Factors used to evaluate and formulate the scope of work:
■ Critical needs - code, life safety, etc.
■ Long range use of facility
■ Need for additional seats in geographic location and growth areas
■ History of past improvements at facilities
■ Safety and security concerns
PROS for Recommendations:
• Eliminates mobiles
• Increases student capacity
• Delays the need for the next new elementary school
• Extends the life of the older schools in the district
• Increase security
• Maintain existing buildings
GLENWOOD
• Provide small administrative addition
$1.70M
ELEMENTARY
• Provide secure main entrance & adequate administrative
space
• Deconstruct the existing Lincoln Center
LINCOLN
• Construct a building to house both Pre -K program & new
$15.99M
CENTER
central office
• Increase elementary capacity by 189
• Renovate existing building
PHILLIPS
• Provide additional program space to meet space standards
$9.61M
MIDDLE
including increasing the admin suite to provide a secure
main entry
• Deconstruct the five classroom pod
• Renovate the existing buildings
SEAWELL
' Provide additional program space to meet space standards
$15.74M
ELEMENTARY
&replace deconstructed classrooms
• Increase capacity by 119
Construction Phasing & Temp. Facilities Cost: $2.98M
Total Estimated Cost: $160.84M
Factors used to evaluate and formulate the scope of work:
■ Critical needs - code, life safety, etc.
■ Long range use of facility
■ Need for additional seats in geographic location and growth areas
■ History of past improvements at facilities
■ Safety and security concerns
PROS for Recommendations:
• Eliminates mobiles
• Increases student capacity
• Delays the need for the next new elementary school
• Extends the life of the older schools in the district
• Increase security
:•
CHCCS Facilities Assessment
Construction Phasing/ Temporary Facilities Preliminary Analysis 1
PHASE I CONSTRUCTION LIST
School Name
Scope of Work
Est. Cost
• School would be partially occupied and functioning
during construction activities. Some student
relocations to offsite classrooms would be required.
• Relocate bus drop off and provide limited temporary
CARRBORO ELEMENTARY
parking areas.
$50,000
• Provide temporary measures to separate
construction areas from public access to building.
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
• School would be fully occupied and functional during
construction activities.
• Provide temporary parking adjacent to existing
CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL
transportation building.
$2.1M
• Provide temporary mobile classrooms to replace
spaces to be deconstructed.
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
• School would be occupied and functioning during
CULBRETH MIDDLE
construction activities.
$0
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
• School would be occupied and functioning during
construction activities.
• Some student relocations to offsite permanent
EPHESUS ELEMENTARY
classrooms would be required during major interior
$0
renovation phase.
• Phase work in existing classroom wing to unoccupied
times.
• School would be partially occupied by grades K -2 and
functioning during construction activities. Relocation
of grades 3 -5 during to offsite permanent classrooms
during construction would be required.
ESTES HILLS ELEMENTARY
• Provide temporary measures to separate
$0
construction areas from public access to building.
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
0000,, IRDU CENTER DRIVE, S!UOTE 217, MORRISVIILLE, NC 27560 91M40.10091 FAX 91984U045
M(-)Sll: :IC.EYARCIHIIITECTS.CO M
To
RE:
Page 2 January 31, 2014
Factors used in phasing and temporary facility consideration:
■ All projects are funded up to the recommended levels.
■ Attempt to control costs associated with temporary facilities to the greatest extent possible.
■ The Lincoln Center project would conclude early in the process and include a central Pre -K
facility for the CHCCS District. By centralizing Pre -K, nine existing classrooms spread
throughout the elementary schools would become available for use as traditional classrooms.
These classrooms would accept students from elementary schools during construction
activities.
■ Construction at Carrboro ES and Ephesus ES would conclude prior to Seawell ES or Estes
Hills ES project start dates.
■ Limited movement of elementary students will occur throughout the cycle of construction. As
new classrooms become available, the need to relocate students from campuses under
construction will shift from one school to another.
• School would be occupied and functioning during
construction activities.
• Provide temporary mobile trailers for administration
FRANK PORTER GRAHAM
to replace spaces to be deconstructed.
$750,000
ELEMENTARY
• Provide catered food service based out of Culbreth
MS to replace space to be deconstructed.
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
• School would be occupied and functioning during
GLENWOOD ELEMENTARY
construction activities.
$0
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
• Building would be occupied and functioning during
construction activities.
LINCOLN CENTER
$75,000
. Provide temporary parking at rear and West of
existing building.
• School would be occupied and functioning during
construction activities.
PHILLIPS MIDDLE
• Provide temporary measures to separate
$0
construction areas from public access to building.
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
• School would be partially occupied by grades 3 -5 and
functioning during construction activities. Relocation
SEAWELL ELEMENTARY
of grades K -2 to offsite permanent classrooms during
$0
construction would be required.
• Phase work in existing buildings to unoccupied times.
Total Estimated Cost: $2.975M
Factors used in phasing and temporary facility consideration:
■ All projects are funded up to the recommended levels.
■ Attempt to control costs associated with temporary facilities to the greatest extent possible.
■ The Lincoln Center project would conclude early in the process and include a central Pre -K
facility for the CHCCS District. By centralizing Pre -K, nine existing classrooms spread
throughout the elementary schools would become available for use as traditional classrooms.
These classrooms would accept students from elementary schools during construction
activities.
■ Construction at Carrboro ES and Ephesus ES would conclude prior to Seawell ES or Estes
Hills ES project start dates.
■ Limited movement of elementary students will occur throughout the cycle of construction. As
new classrooms become available, the need to relocate students from campuses under
construction will shift from one school to another.
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• One mobile unit on -site
• 100 classroom wing has dead -end corridors and does not meet
the current NC State Building Code
• Administration area, cafeteria, kitchen and staff` support spaces
are too small
• Program deficiencies - art room and 5 smaller classroom spaces
• Existing queueing for parent drop -off occurs on Shelton Street
• Stacking traffic onto the public rig_ ht of way is a safety concern
• Aging mechanical system
• Campus -style layout lacking connection from main building to
the multipurpose building
• Modular walls between classrooms causing noise transfer
between classrooms
g
• Eliminates life safety issues in Building 100 by deconstruction
and building new academic wing
• Provide a new administration suite main entrance
• Moves queuing off of the road
• Connects all existing building internally
• Renovate all existing buildings
• Increase capacity by 52 seats.
f�
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Deteriorated facility conditions
• Building "A" houses most of the classrooms and science rooms
that are smaller than the School Construction Standards
• Fourteen mobile units on -site housing 9 academic classrooms,
Ridge, 2 Blue Ribbon classrooms, & 2 health classrooms
• Drama, dance, wrestling, & weight rooms are significantly
undersized
• Staff support space is undersized and inefficiently configured
• Campus -style layout lacking connection between the four
buildings
• Major site drainage issues
• Main entrance is not ADA accessible
• Ramp between Main Building "A" and A2 does not meet Code
• Aging mechanical systems causing humidity issues
Year Built: 1965
Additions: 1969, 1973, 1975,1983, 1990, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003
Last Renovation: 2007
Area: 256,406 sf
Acres: 87.4
Student Capacity (Per SAPFO): 1520 Students
2013 ADM: 1,432 Students
6 I! - 69
• Deconstruct Building A and construct an addition to house
the current program spaces as well as the deficient program
spaces
• Create a new accessible and secure main entry for students,
staff and visitors.
• Address the oldest building on the high school campus and the
major mechanical issues.
• Connects more of the campus internally
• Renovate all existing buildings
• Eliminate mobiles on site
• Renovate existing building.
• Construct small addition that provides new location for
administration suite and provides secure main entrance
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Operating slightly over capacity
• No mobile units
• Six science classroom addition under construction
• Additional staff support space needed
• Location of administration suite presents security concerns
• Modular partition walls between classrooms allow sound
transfer between classes
• Water infiltration issues into the lower level Rand room
• Major damage to EIFS on exterior of building
i
• Renovate & reorganize the layout of the main building
• Relocate the administration suite to the street front & provide
a new secure, main entry
• Provide additional program space to eliminate mobiles & bring
school up the space standards
• Increase capacity by 137.
�i amli \ i
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Seven mobile units on -site housing Pre -K, music, ESL, &
administration /guidance offices
• Administration area & cafeteria /kitchen are too small
• Additional classrooms, science project room, music classroom,
& administration /staff support spaces are needed
• Main entrance through the atrium does not provide a secure
and easily monitored entry point
• Interior layout of existing building is inefficient, many
classrooms have no windows
• Aging mechanical system
Area: 66,952 sf
Acres: 13.4
Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 448 Students
► M: 441 Students
Construction: Load-bearing CMU wall construction
• Provide an administration addition at front to provide necessary
staff space as well as a secure main entry
• Classroom wing deconstruction and addition at rear of the
school including I re-K classroom
• Enclose breezeways to connect all classrooms with interior
corridors
• Realign the parent drop -off and combine the bus loop with
Phillips Middle School to eliminate stacking on Estes Drive
• Connect internally most of the campus
• Eliminate mobile classrooms
• increase capacity by 58 seats
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Two mobile units on -site housing Pre-K and a science room
• Most classrooms are 28 to 33% smaller than the current School
Construction Standards program
• Program deficiencies, including 4 smaller classroom spaces,
administration and staff support spaces
• Classrooms in the 1957 building exit to exterior breezeways and
are not secure
• Aging mechanical system
• Queuing forces stacking in the Public right of way
Year Built: 1957
Additions: 986 9
Student Last Renovation: 2011
Area: S8,442
Acres: 33.1
.. SAPFO): 527 Students
2013 ADM: Students
Construction- Loabrick
p roof over poured-gypsum
• Deconstruct existing administration building & construct
addition for new administration /dining /kitchen space to meet
space standards.
• Provide more prominent front door and secure main entrance
• Renovate existing buildings.
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Magnet Spanish dual - language school
• Two mobile units on -site
• Kitchen, dining, & staff support areas are too small
• Existing reception area is in a large open lobby that is not secure
• Water infilitration issues in Building 5
• Campus -style layout
• Aging mechanical system
Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 539 Students
2013 ADM: 491 Students
Construction: .d bearing CMU walls with brick veneer;
built-up roof over a poured-gypsum deck & pre-cast exterior wall
construction
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Operating over capacity
• Oldest school in the district
• l=ive mobile units on -site housing 1st & 2nd ,grade classes
• Basement level rooms are substandard and being used for
kindergarten, exceptional education & staff offices
• Administration area, cafeteria, physical education area, media
center, & staff support areas are too small
• Existing administration suite is undersized and spread out
• Lack of staff toilet rooms
• Aging mechanical system
• Maintain existing buildings
• Provide small administrative addition and necessary staff space
• Provide secure main entrance
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Inefficient layout for departments
• Lack of sufficient space for all central office personnel
• Lack of necessary parking
• Lack of Professional Development space
R-772--yff TWIT-SWO,
Additions: 1977 (Maintenance building)
Last Renovation: Phoenix Academy - 2
Area: Lincoln Center - 33,731 sf
Phoenix Academy - 5,622 sf
Maintenance Building - 22,388 sf
Acres: 12.8
Construction: Load-bearing CMU walls]
• Deconstruct the existing Lincoln Center building. Gymnasium,
Phoenix Academy, & maintenance building to remain
• Construct a building to house both Pre-K program & new central
office
• increase elementary capacity by 189
• Work with Community to preserve historic aspects of building
and site
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• No mobile units
• Art education & music spaces and a foreign language classroom
are deficient
• Existing main entrance is not secure
• Major water infiltration issues in the basement
• Aging mechanical system
• Renovate existing building
• Provide additional program space to meet space standards,
including increasing the administrative suite to provide a secure
main entry
• Provide new queuing configuration
i
• Deconstruct the five classroom pods.
• Renovate the existing administration /dining building & Lowler
Building.
• Eliminate use of mobiles as classrooms
• Provide additional program space to meet space standards &
replace deconstructed classroms (do not increase kitchen).
• Increase capacity by 119.
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Operating over capacity
• Six mobile units on -site housing classroom space
• Administration area, physical education area & staff support
areas are too small
• Media center support spaces are lacking
• Lack of storage rooms
• Aging mechanical system
• Campus -style layout with classrooms exiting to the exterior
• Aging kitchen equipment
• Exterior structural remediation needed at one of the classroom
pods
Year Built: 1969
Additions: 1975, 1989
Last Renovation:
Area: 58,629 sf
Acres:. 87.5
Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 466 Students
2013 ADM: 539 Students
Construction: Load bearing brick construction appears to be the
main structural system for the original building and load bearing
CMIU and steel frame construction for the 1989 addition
101
Facilities Assessment Recommendation
and Differed Cost of New Schools
Recommendations increase student capacity as follows:
• Carrboro Elementary
+52
• Ephesus
+137
• Estes Hills
+58
• Seawell
+119
• Lincoln Center Pre K
+189
• Total Elementary
+555
• CHHS
+105
• Tota 1 +660
102
Facilities Assessment Recommendation
and Differed Cost of New Schools
$160.8 mil Cost of Recommendation
($34.5) Budgeted Cost of New Elementary
School #12 (delayed beyond 10 years)
($23.1) Budgeted Cost of High School
Addition (delayed beyond 10 years)
$103.2 mil Net 10 -Year Cost of Recommendation