The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 08-21-2007-4xORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 21, 2007 Action Agenda Item No. _ ~' r , SUBJECT: Approval of Orange County's School Construction Standards DEPARTMENT: Budget PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Attachment 1. April 30, 2007 School Construction Standards Attachment 2. Minutes April 30, 2007 Joint Meeting of County Commissioners, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Board of Education and Orange County Schools Board of Education INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Coffey, (919) 245-2151 PURPOSE: To approve Orange County's School Construction Standards. BACKGROUND: Orange County's current elementary and middle school construction standards have been in place since 1996, and its high school standards since 1999. While these standards have served as a model for many schools constructed in both the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City and the Orange County Schools, it has become increasingly difficult to adhere to the standards due to economic factors such as rising construction costs as well as educational reforms such as changes in state mandated class sizes for grades kindergarten through third. In addition, land use regulations and environmental considerations that incorporate sustainable building components and smart growth elements are becoming more prevalent in the construction industry. Two separate School Facilities Task Forces, convened in 2000 and 2002, identified a number of standards that required clarification and/or updating (e.g. baseline estimates for per square foot cost, an appropriate inflation factor, percentage of project budget that should be set aside for contingency, etc.). To that end, the Boards of County Commissioners and Education recognized the need to update and refine Orange County's current School Construction Standards, and last year requested that the School/County Collaboration Work Group review existing School Construction Standards with the intent of bringing them more in line with today's practices, regulations, and construction market. At the time that Orange Commissioners adopted the County's existing School Construction Standards, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) had Facilities Standards in place that established minimum construction criteria for individual school districts to adhere to when they constructed new facilities or renovated older ones. Since that time, the State has moved away from the "standards concept" and now has "Facilities Guidelines" in place. During the first half of 2006, the Collaboration Work Group met four times to focus on revisions that should be made to existing Orange County school construction standards. Those meetings involved primarily information gathering regarding school construction practices and guidelines, sustainability considerations, and opportunities for community use of school facilities, particularly with regard to County and municipal recreation programming. Since September 2006, the Work Group has met three additional times to review and refine successive drafts of updated School Construction Standards. All three governing boards received and reviewed an early draft of the revised standards at the September 2006 joint work session. Of particular note in the Work Group's proposal is the recognition of the need to consider "non-traditional schools" as well as more traditional models, in furtherance of evolving educational priorities and smart growth initiatives, and in light of the harsh realities of spiraling costs in the construction industry. At the April 30, 2007 joint work session between Commissioners and both Boards of Education there was consensus that the draft presented (Attachment 1 of this agenda abstract) reflected construction standards that were fair and reflected values that were important to all parties. While the intent of the Guidelines remains consistent with the previously enacted State Standards - to ensure that school systems provide adequate space for instructional classes and activities -the Guidelines now allow for flexibility and allow for more consideration of local situations such as availability of land or other limitations that school districts may face. Both Chapel Hill Carrboro City and Orange County Schools Boards of Education have adopted the Standards. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no immediate financial impacts associated with approval of this version of the Standards since, based on the November 15, 2006 certified student membership projections for both school districts, the need for new school construction falls beyond fiscal year 2007-08. In accordance with the draft Standards a School Capital Review Team consisting of County staff and representatives from each school district, would meet annually, in November, to review construction and land related costs for actual school projects that have occurred within the past year. Based on actual expenditures related to school construction, the Review Team would recommend updated school construction standard costs, which include all of the project components, for the respective School Boards to review and for the Board of County Commissioners to approve. In addition to school construction costs, the Review Team would also review the ten year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process and pay-as-you-go funding allocations for the upcoming long-range capital plan. The Review Team would take the Construction Price Index (CPI) and benchmarks set by national education facilities planners into consideration in recommending updated construction standards. RECOMMENDATION (S): The Manager recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached School Construction Standards. 3 School Construction Standards Apri 1200? Update As Proposed by the School/County Collaboration Work Group Table of Contents Introduction 3 School and County Collaboration Work Group Proposal Traditional and Non-Traditional Models 4 Class Size and School Capacity 5 Square Footage 6 School Site and Minimum Acreage 6 Interior Building Space Allocations Non-Specialized Classrooms 7 Specialized Classrooms 8 Site Considerations 11 Best Management Practices and. Development Standards 12 Cost Considerations 15 Other Considerations 17 Appendices Appendix 1. Elementary School Space Profile and Square Footage Standards Appendix 2. Middle School Space Profile and Square Footage Standards Appendix 3. High School Space Profile and Square Footage Standards (1,000 Student Capacity) Appendix 4. High School Space Profile and Square Footage Standards (1,500 Student Capacity) Appendix 5. School Project Cost Calculation Template 2 5 Appendix 6. School Construction Project Components School Construction Standards County/School Collaboration Work Group Apri12007 Update Orange County's current elementary and middle school construction standards have been in place since 1996, and its high school standards since 1999. While these standards have served as a model for many schools constructed in both the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City and the Orange County Schools, it has become increasingly difficult to adhere to the standards due to economic factors such as rising construction costs as well as educational reforms such as changes in state mandated class sizes for grades kindergarten through third. In addition, land use regulations and environmental considerations that incorporate sustainable building components and smart growth elements are becoming more prevalent in the construction industry. Two separate School Facilities Task Forces, convened in 2000 and 2002, identified a number of standards that required clarification and/or updating (e.g. baseline estimates for per square foot cost, an appropriate inflation factor, percentage of project budget that should be set aside for contingency, etc.). To that end, the Boards of County Commissioners and Education recognized the need to update and refine Orange County's current School Construction Standards, and last year requested that the School/County Collaboration Work Group review existing School Construction Standards with the intent of bringing them more in line with today's practices, regulations, and construction market. At the time that Orange Commissioners adopted the County's existing School Construction Standards, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) had Facilities Standards in place that established minimum construction criteria for individual school districts to adhere to when they constructed new facilities or renovated older ones. Since that time, the State has moved away from the "standards concept" and now has "Facilities Guidelines" in place. While the intent of the Guidelines remains consistent with the previously enacted State Standards - to ensure that school systems provide adequate space for instructional classes and activities -the Guidelines now allow for flexibility and allow for more consideration of local situations such as availability of land or other limitations that school districts may face. The report that follows offers the Work Group's proposal. 4 School/County Collaboration Work Group Proposal Traditional and Non-Traditional Models The Collaboration Work Group recommends that the Standards make a distinction at all levels -elementary, middle and high -between "traditional" school models and "non- traditional" ones. Traditional Model -The planning model for a traditional school is set out in these standards. Capacity of a traditional school would be 585 for elementary schools, 700 for middle schools and would range from 1,000 to 1,500 for high schools. For the most part, a traditional model would consist of a site that would have sufficient acreage to allow for future building expansion, outdoor play areas, full complement of athletic facilities and on-site parking for faculty, students and buses. Non-Traditional Model - Anon-traditional model would be one that deviates in some way from the traditional model and would be defined on a project-by-project basis. This model would offer flexibility and accommodate various local conditions, including the availability, or lack thereof, of land in addition to a school district's needs. This report, outlines the Traditional Model at all levels and provides examples of Non- Traditional Models. The Work Group foresees the need for Non-Traditional Models becoming more prevalent in the future. Furthermore, the Work Group encourages School Boards and County Commissioners to consider non-traditional models as they plan new schools. 5 S Space Considerations 1) Class Size and School Capacity The Collaboration Work Group recommends that traditional school capacity be in accordance with State class size/teaching station requirements as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 115C-301. Elementary School -For school year 2006-07, elementary class size/teaching station requirements are: • Average of 21 students per class in grades kindergarten through three • Average of 26 students per class in grades four and five • 10 students per class in special needs classrooms Based on the average class sizes outlined above the capacity of a traditional elementary school totals 585 students - a reduction of 15 students from the previous County standards of 600 students. Middle School -Middle school includes grades six through eight. For school year 2006-07, middle school State class size requirements are: • Average of 26 students per class in grades six through eight • 10 students per class in special needs classrooms Based on the average class sizes outlined above, for school year 2006-07, the capacity of a traditional middle school averages 700 students. High School -High school includes grades nine through twelve. For school year 2006-07, high school class sizes allow for: • Regular classrooms with a minimum, capacity 20 students per class/teaching station • Vocational Education class rooms with a capacity ranging from 15 to 20 students per class/teaching station • All other classrooms range from 15 to 25 students per class/teaching station o For example a theater arts class room may have upper range capacity while exceptional education class rooms would be on the lower end of the spectrum For school year 2006-07, the capacity of a traditional high school ranges between 1,000 and 1,500 students. The Work Group further recommends that should the General Assembly amend class sizes at any level, the County's School Construction Standards should be amended within some reasonable timeframe that would allow for consideration of 6 funding and adequate timing of new schools. While the Collaboration Group does not recommend going above the state mandated class size at any level, there might be examples in the future where total school capacity may vary from the Standards. For example, a smaller than traditional school site may create the need to construct a smaller school or a multi-story one. Other examples include a non-traditional school that may allow for smaller than mandated class sizes or may include additional classroom space for pre-kindergarten students. The chart below compares existing standards with those proposed by the Collaboration Work Group: Gapacity -Traditional Model School Level Existing Standards April 2007 Proposal from School Collaboration Work Group Elementa 600 585 Middle 700 700 Hi h School Ran e 1 000 1 500 1 000 1 500 2) Square Footage In calculating total square footage of new schools, the Collaboration Work Group concluded that the prior standards for square footage per student are sufficient. Given the Work Group's proposed change in elementary class size and total elementary capacity, as outlined earlier in this report, the proposed elementary square footage is reduced from the previous standards of 95,235 square feet to 92,840. Statutory class sizes for middle and high school levels remain unchanged from the previous Standards; therefore, the Work Group recommends no changes in existing standards for total square footage of middle and high schools. The chart below compares existing standards with those proposed by the Collaboration Work Group: Square Footage -Traditional Model School Level Existing Standards Apri12007 Proposal from School Collaboration Work Group Elementa 95,235 92,840 Middle 132,192 132,192 Hi h School Ran a 151,049 251,345 151,049 251,345 Square footage of anon-traditional school may be higher or lower than those outlined by the School Collaboration Work Group. Examples of factors 7 io considered as non-traditional include community recreational facilities such as a gymnasium or smaller schools constructed on smaller than traditional sites. 3) Interior Building Space Allocations a) Non-Specialized Capacity Generating Classrooms/Teaching Stations Elementary - A traditional elementary school contains 25 non-specialized classrooms. As stated earlier in this report, the Work Group recommends that non-specialized classroom sizes for a traditional elementary school be in accordance with State class size requirements as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 115C-301. The Statute currently states that kindergarten through third grade classrooms have capacity for 21 students per class with third through fifth grade teaching stations having capacity for 26 students per class. Appendix 1 of this report outlines, by grade level, the capacity and square footage guidelines for a traditional elementary school. Middle A traditional middle school contains 21 regular classrooms with an individual class size of 26 students plus 6 science classrooms. As outlined in Appendix 2 square footage for regular traditional middle school classrooms plus storage total 1,014 square feet and science classrooms including lab storage space, total 1,200 square feet. High A traditional 1,000-student high school contains 24 academic classrooms allowing for a minimum of 20 students per class in grades nine through twelve. A traditional 1,500-student high school contains 40 regular classrooms allowing for 26 students per class in grade nine and 29 students per class in grades ten through twelve. Square footage for traditional academic high school classrooms allows for in- room student use computers and ranges from 850 to 950 square feet per classroom and square footage for science classrooms, including lab storage space, range from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Appendix 3 of this report outlines capacity and square footage guidelines for a traditional 1,000 student high school and Appendix 4 provides similar information for a traditional 1,500 student high school. b) Specialized Classrooms Specific functions of each specialized classroom determine the total square footage needed for each. The narratives below provide overviews of the function of each specialized classroom while Appendices 1 through 4 provide detailed space profiles including square footage information for each specialized area. The Work Group recommends that the existing standards for specialized rooms remain unchanged for traditional model schools. 8 i) Pre-School Area (Elementary Level) NC Public Schools Facilities Guidelines recommend 1,200 to 1,400 square feet for pre-kindergarten classrooms. Orange County Standards allow for one classroom for pre-kindergarten children ages three and four at 1,700 square feet. ii) Special Needs Classrooms (All Levels) Programs for exceptional children vary greatly, depending on age of children and local factors. Additional support spaces may be necessary for exceptional education purposes depending on the program. Specialized spaces, such as cooking areas, toilets, bath/shower rooms, laundries, observation rooms, and special equipment to accommodate certain disabilities may be required. iii) Remediation and Resource Labs (All Levels) -School plans should include one or more small group classrooms for remediation, conferences, guidance and testing for groups. Smaller group activities may require additional smaller rooms. iv) Instrumental and Vocal Classrooms (High School Level) -Student participation for these programs is often high - it is not unusual for the number of students in these classrooms to range between 40 and 80. Orange County Standards provide for a range of 2,800 to 6,600 square feet for these two classrooms (not including storage). v) Dance Classroom (High School Level) -Dressing rooms and access to showers for dance students are desirable in high schools. If located adjacent to the gymnasium locker rooms, this space can be combined. Orange County Standards for this function range from 1,800 to 2,000 square feet. vi) Workforce Development (Middle and High School Levels) -Facilities for high school, workforce development programs are often large, extensively equipped and more expensive than regular classrooms because of their similarity to industry. Square footage included in Appendices 1 B and 1 C parallels the State Guidelines. In accordance with State statutes, a basic high school vocational education program must offer at least three of the workforce development programs. Many high schools offer all seven programs including agricultural, health occupations, business, family and consumer sciences, marketing, technology, and trade and industrial. The number and types of laboratories depend on local factors. More than one laboratory for a program such as family and consumer sciences education may be necessary in larger schools. Another factor to consider is the co-use of the darkroom of a school. Alarger-than-standard darkroom with additional storage could serve art and science programs as well as workforce development programs. Existing County high school standards allow for offering all seven programs 9 ~a with allocated space for each program ranging from 10,750 to 16,100 square feet. c) Media Center Standards (All Levels) -The capacity for the media center of the school should be ten percent of the average daily membership of the school. State guidelines recommend that the media center be located on the ground floor, be single story and convenient to all learning areas of the school. Minimum support areas include offices, work/production rooms, conference rooms, periodical storage, audiovisual equipment storage, and spaces for professional collections. State guidelines recommend that the media center's location should not preclude future expansion of the facility. When appropriate, school media centers allow for joint use and public access. Additional technology and security measures are required in order to allow for public access. During facility planning, the respective School Board, along with the Board of County Commissioners, would invite local municipalities to participate, financially and programmatically, in possible joint use opportunities. d) Physical Education and Gymnasium Standards (All Levels) -The State square footage guidelines for physical education facilities vary by school level. Gymnasiums for traditional middle and high school levels should include dressing and shower areas large enough to accommodate physical education and athletic programs, offices and storage. Orange County Standards for a traditional middle school includes locker rooms and weight rooms. Both elementary and middle school levels allow additional space that would allow after school use including a multipurpose room. In addition, Orange County Standards for a traditional high school provide for an auxiliary gym at the 1,000-student profile compared to the current standards of allowing for an auxiliary gym at the 1,500-student profile. During initial facility planning and programming states, the respective School Board, along with the Board of County Commissioners, would invite local municipalities to contribute to funding a community use gymnasium or other athletic facilities such as soccer fields. e) Administration Standards -The size of the Central Office will vary according to school level and staffing at each school. Partition construction should allow for flexibility of space. f) Student Support Area Standards -This general area includes counseling rooms, guidance rooms and health services, social workers, psychologists or other health professionals. g) Staff Support Areas Standards - In accordance with State Guidelines, Orange County Standards allow for shared office and workspace areas for teachers. In 10 13 addition, the existing standards provide work areas for instructional, lab and teacher assistants along with at least one centralized workroom for copy machines and other specialized equipment and supplies that are not typically located in teacher offices/workspaces. h) Child Nutrition (Cafeteria/Food Service) Standards -Existing Orange County Standards for all levels provides for a full service kitchen and seating to accommodate the entire student body in no fewer than three shifts. i) Dining areas allow for 12 to 14 square feet per pupil dining. The formula for calculating dining area size is capacity / number of seatings x square foot per pupil. ii) State Guidelines calculate kitchen area square footage based on the number of meals served per day. The chart below outlines the State's Guidelines for kitchen areas: Lunches Served Square Footage 100 -~~~~~ 856 250 1,261 500 1,518 750 1,938 1,000 2,208 1,250 2,566 1,500 2,880 A non-traditional model may provide a smaller dining area if the district allows for open lunch (i.e. traveling away from school for the lunch period). i) Commons/Circulation/Entries/Building Support Standards - This area includes miscellaneous space such as corridors, stairs, additional storage, book storage, entries, mechanical areas, and commons areas. In addition, this areas includes additional restroom facilities, academic house centrums and activities areas. 11 i~- Site Considerations 1) School Site and Minimum Acreage Traditionally, minimum acreage refers to usable, or developable, acreage. "Usable" or "developable" acreage refers to those portions of the site where a school district can construct something -examples include parking, playfields, buildings, retention ponds, and septic systems. Examples of areas that are not "usable" or "developable" might include mandated buffers, setbacks, slopes too steep to be effectively developed, rock outcroppings, wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. School site sizes for non-traditional schools may be higher or lower than those outlined in the State Guidelines -for example, acreage may deviate from State Guidelines in order to • Accommodate community use of the facility and multiuse recreational facilities such as soccer and softball fields. • Account for areas that cannot be built upon, such as steep slopes, wetlands, rights-of--way, easements, setbacks, buffers or poor soils • Meet requirement imposed by local ordinances - i.e. restrictions governing the ratio of land that can be disturbed within a development and the permitted amount of impervious service will affect the ultimate size of the site • Allow for on-site or off-site parking for staff, students, buses and visitors • Accommodate the expanding number of middle and high school athletic teams either on-site or off-site - i.e. an additional ten acres or more of land may be necessary to allow for an athletic stadium and associated spectator parking. However, other areas to consider in siting a new school include areas of population density, public transportation availability and walkability, natural geographic enhancements or barriers, road patterns, and existing or non-existing infrastructure such as water, sewer and roadways. School systems should actively pursue partnering agreements with the Towns and County Parks and Recreation Departments, private developers, and businesses in an effort to maximize joint use of facilities. Future projects should also include: ^ Xeriscaping and regulatory buffers Use of synthetic turf for athletic fields or installation of irrigation systems. 12 i5 The chart below compares existing standards with those proposed by the Collaboration Work Group: School Site Acreage -Existing Standards -Traditional Model September 2006 Proposal from School Level Existing Standards School Collaboration Work Group Elementary (10 developable acres plus one developable 16.0 16.0 acre for each 100 students Middle (15 developable acres plus 1 additional developable 22.0 22.0 acre for every 100 students) High School (Range) (30 40 to 50 fora 45 to 60 fora 40 to 50 fora 45 to 60 for a developable acres plus 1 1,000 student 1,500 student 1,000 student 1,500 student additional developable acre for high school high school high school high school ever 100 students The Work Group recommends that the acreage standard for a traditional school model remain unchanged. With all of the above-mentioned factors considered, the availability of suitable land and adequate infrastructure may create the need to construct a non- traditional school on a smaller site. As the availability of land becomes less and less due to development and land- use regulations, the Work Group also recommends that the County, both school districts, Towns, and possibly the University of North Carolina, partner to identify suitable, available future school sites throughout the County. The partners would meet periodically to update the database and report the findings to elected officials on an annual basis. Best Management Practices and Development Standards The Board of County Commissioners and both Boards of Education want to be good fiscal stewards of taxpayer monies. In order to meet this objective, the Work Group recommends utilizing tools and best management practices that allow for improved contract negotiations thereby resulting in the best pricing and outcomes possible. With this objective in mind, the Collaboration Work Group recommends that the following best management practices serve as guidelines during facility planning. a) Innovative Development Tools In North Carolina, school districts have a variety of options for constructing schools: 13 1(0 ^ General Statute 143-128 (a1) includes (1) Separate Prime Bidding, (2) Single Prime Bidding, and (3) Dual Bidding ^ General Statute 143-64.31 provides for Construction Management at Risk ^ General Statute 143-135.26(9) provides for alternative contracting methods ^ Senate Bill 2009 (Senate Law 2006-232) provides for capital leases of school buildings and school facilities Both the Construction Manager at Risk and the capital lease options allow school districts flexibility in setting actual project cost. Examples of potential benefits associated with these options include: Contract Negotiation -School Boards and staffs become integral partners within the design build teams that includes the architect and the contractor. This team develops a maximum project cost, in a transparent manner, throughout all areas of the design and development process thereby controlling these costs within the design phase. Flexibility -While school systems had the statutory authority to lease facilities in the past, with the ratification of Senate Bill 2009 in 2006, through public-private partnerships between Boards of Education and contractors, school districts now have opportunities for to enter into "build-to-suit" contracts. School districts have opportunities to identify where the district needs schools, and to provide design, programming and construction specifications to the developer. ^ Future Maintenance of Facility - In accordance with Senate Bill 2009, as part of contract negotiation, responsibility for future facility maintenance/repairs and energy usage guarantees can be assigned to the developer and not the school system. Ownership -Per Senate Bill 2009, transfer of ownership of the leased property may occur at the end of the lease term or ownership may stay with the developer. Time Savings -Contract negotiations offered through public-private partnerships can potentially be conducted more quickly than more traditional public methods. While entities may not realize major cost savings in building costs, there may be savings attributed to beating inflation. 14 ~~ Based on County staff discussions with Local Government Commission (LGC) staff over the last few months, it is important to note, that the LGC considers capital leases as outstanding debt for County governments. b) "Large Developer" Status For the most part, local communities view school systems and governmental agencies as "large developers". While this situation offers purchasing advantages on some fronts, it is also a situation that staffs must manage effectively. Being viewed as a "large developer" often sets "higher than normal" pricing standards in the construction market. As an example, past practice has been that local governments and school districts make construction project budgets known before the bid process beginning. An unintended consequence of this practice has been that development and construction markets tend to "re-adjust" their standards upwardly, and bids more than likely come in at the "pre approved" level or higher rather than coming in at less than the "pre-approved" level. c) Value Transference to Stakeholders "Value Transference" is defined as the value that an external entity or stakeholder receives when schools and governmental entities such as counties or towns invest in particular communities. Individuals, businesses, and other public as well private entities benefit from school and other governmental capital investments into a community. The impact of such investments should be recognized in development practices and principles relative to the potential revenues from the private sector that this value transference creates. For example, schools and co-located recreational facilities inure to the retail value of residential building lots and existing homes. This value transference to the owner and/or developer of this real estate may be recouped in the form of impact fees, transfer taxes or other reasonable proffers. d) Financial Strength Strong financial conditions of Orange County and both the Chapel Hill Carrboro and Orange County school districts should allow for negotiating positions and purchasing power within land use design, development and operations. All of the practices outlined above offer guidelines to consider as each district proposes new school construction projects. 15 i~ Cost Considerations As a starting point for this update, in setting the budget for future school construction it is important that the building cost per square foot reflect historical costs of constructing new schools (both locally and statewide) as well as consider the current construction market. A School Capital Review Team consisting of County staff and representatives from each school district, would meet annually, in November, to review construction and land related costs for actual school projects that have occurred within the past year. Based on actual expenditures related to school construction, the Review Team would recommend updated school construction standard costs, which include all of the project components, for the respective School Boards to review and for the Board of County Commissioners to approve. In addition to school construction costs, the Review Team would also review the ten- year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process and pay-as-you-go funding allocations for the upcoming long-range capital plan. The Review Team would take the Construction Price Index (CPI) and benchmarks set by national education facilities planners into consideration in recommending updated construction standards. With historical practices, construction project budgets were established and broadcast at the onset of project planning thereby "pre-setting" the budget for the market to react to with the ultimate result of the construction community matching or exceeding the budget. However, with future projects, the approach would vary somewhat by not "pre-setting" the budget ahead of the bidding process. Amore conservative approach would be for the School Capital Review Team to create a tool that analyzes historical costs of like projects (elementary to elementary, middle to middle, etc.) across all project components. Appendix 5 offers an example of the template that would serve as an analytical tool for developing construction project __ budgets. Note to readers -Appendix 5 is pending finalization by County and. School __. staffs to include. most recent school construction costs related to Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Elementary_ #10 __as _approved_ by Board of County Commissioners on March, 13, 2007. This tool allows for a comparable cost analysis .. ~. without establishing any advantages or expectations to the marketplace. The following section defines individual construction project components, and Appendix 6 provides the information in a chart format. Staff plans to develop construction project budgets and track actual expenditures in accordance with the project components outlined in the chart. At the end of the project, staff will prepare a final reconciliation and budget variance analysis for Commissioners and School Boards to review. a) Site Acquisition Site acquisition costs include costs associated with acquiring a site. Examples of these costs include the actual purchase price of the properly along with costs of property survey, appraisals and deed recordings, testing to include soils, cultural, 16 ~~ archeological, environmental, suitability, and legal fees associated with purchase and recording the property. For purposes of this update, it is recommended that the per acre price be consistent with the fair market value of land at the time of purchase. The School Capital Review Team would review market value of land each year during the process outlined earlier in this report. b) Site Development Site development should be broken out into two sub-categories: i) Hard Construction - Site ~ Vertical Tasks Costs included in this category cover the "usual" costs of all construction activities associated with preparing a school site for construction (both "horizontal" [dirt] and "vertical" [building] construction). Examples of items to budget in this category include pre-grading and final grading of the site to include playing fields and playgrounds, installation of storm water run-off drainage, testing for soil suitability (rock), extension and/or installation of utilities, building structure and systems (includes General Contractor and all Sub-Contractors; satisfying municipal requirements such as storm water run- offdrainage; and landscaping to include, when feasible, xeriscaping. ii) Hard Construction -Off-Site This category includes construction activities for the surrounding area (costs of "horizontal" construction). It does not include hard construction costs associated directly with the building and direct site (see Section 2 a above). Historically, these costs have been high in cost and are unique to individual projects. Examples of off-site development costs include water and sewer installations/extensions to the site, off-site road intersection improvements including, roundabouts, turn lanes and traffic signals or other traffic control devices, sidewalks, off-site environmental mitigation, construction of trails and/or greenway systems and other municipal or state requirements. All design work associated with these costs outlined in this section would be considered "Hard Construction -Off-Site" costs. c) Moveable Equipment Examples of readily moveable equipment include office furniture (desks, chairs, files, bookcases), cafeteria equipment (tables, seating, ovens, stoves, dishwashers), conference room furniture, gymnasium bleachers and athletic field bleachers. d) One-Time Startup Costs Examples of one-time start up costs may include media center collections, classroom textbooks and & supplies, musical instruments, science lab materials, art materials, playground equipment, cafeteria utensils and trays, athletic 17 ~o supplies and equipment (wrestling mats, basketball goals, scoreboards), athletic and band uniforms, custodial cleaning equipment, lawn maintenance equipment, recycling and trash containers, postage machines, specialized equipment such as pianos, and signage. 2) Other Considerations a) High Performance Buildings During the planning process, school districts should give special attention to incorporating fiscally sound energy efficiencies and sustainable green building standards that use renewable/recyclable materials, improve the environment and air quality, and reduce energy usage. Ways to achieve this include: ^ Choosing efficient lighting systems and energy management controls ^ Incorporating solar orientation, earth integration, and xeriscaping (landscaping with slow-growing, drought tolerant plants to conserve water and reduce trimmings) ^ Selecting energy efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems ^ Adopting energy alternatives and other conservation measures such as day lighting, water reclamation and reuse systems, water free urinals, photovoltaics, and xeriscaping School systems should analyze life cycle costs of high performance systems to determine their efficiency and sustainability. b) Materials Construction contractors and School district staff should select construction materials based on low maintenance and high durability. The presumed life cycle of new schools is fifty or more years. c) Generator Ready Schools Construction plans for all future schools should include the facility being "generator ready" so that they can serve as emergency shelters as needed. d) Other Considerations Other site considerations might include: i) Types of landscaping and buffers at all school sites ii) Installing synthetic playing fields or equipping athletic fields with irrigation systems 18 ~~ iii) Installing covered walkways at student drop-off areas, main entrances and bus loading areas iv) Reducing student drop-off lanes It is also important to note that the cost of the regulatory process has historically been high and require from 12 to 24 months before the construction project can begin. 19 o~~ q Apri12007 Capacity Generating Spaces: Kindergarten classrooms Footage Per Number of Capacity per Classroom/T Classrooms/ Classroom/ eaching Teaching Teaching Total K-5 Station or Total Square Stations Station Capacity Function Footage 4 21 84 1.240 4,9E Third Grade Classrooms 4 21 84 1,240 4,960 Fourth Grade Classrooms 4 26 104 1,240 4,960 Fifth rade classrooms 4 26 104 1,240 4,960 Flex Class Room S ace 1 21 21 1,240 1,240 Special/Exceptional Rooms/Speech Language 7 varies 20 807 5.649 32 585 Square Footage Per Number of Capacity per Classroom/T Classrooms/ Classroom/ eaching Teaching Teaching Total K-5 Station or Total Square Stations Station Capacity Function Footage. Non-Capacity Spaces Pre-K classrooms 1 1,700 1,700 Administration 1 1,950 1,950 Art and Music 1 2,850 2,850 Book Stora e 1 800 800 Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 4,700 4,700 Custodial Stora e 1 500 500 Ph sical Education 1 5,250 5,250 Media Center 1 4,200 4 200 Science Pro ect Room 1 1,200 1,200 Small Grou Resource Rooms 3 450 1,350 Small Pro'ect Room 2 200 400 Staff Support Area -Teacher Offices & Work Rooms 1 4,600 4,600 Staff Su ort Area -Conference Rooms 2 250 500 Staff Su ort Area -General Conference Room 1 200 200 Staff Support Area -Speech/Language Conference Room 2 200 400 Staff Su ort -Teacher Loun e & Work Area 1 1,000 1,000 Staff Su ort -Itinerant Su ort 3 100 300 Student Commons 1 1,000 1,000 Student Su ort Area -Health 1 300 300 Student Su ort Area - Counselin 1 900 900 Circulation (Including Additional Toilets) 1 22,091 22,091 Total Elementary School Square Footage (Capacity Generatino and as April 2D07 Total Elementary Square Foot Per ~~ ~~i zoo7 Footage Per Number of Capacity per Classroom/T Classrooms/ Classroom/ eaching Total Teaching Teaching Total 6-8 Station or Square Stations Station Capacity Function FootagE Sixth -Eighth Grade Classrooms (Language Arts, Social Studies, Math) 21 26 546 1 014 21 294 Sixth - Ei hth Grade Science Classrooms 6 26 156 1,200 7 200 Total Caoacitv Generating Teaching Stations 27 702 28,494 Number of Classrooms/ Teaching Stations Capacity per Classroom/ Teaching Station ota16-8 Capacity Square Footage Per Classroom/T eaching Station or Function otal Square Footage Non-Ca aci S aces Academic House Centrums 3 1 000 3 000 Activities Lobb 1 500 500 Administration 1 1,850 1,850 Art Education and Music (Cultural Arts 1 10 730 10 730 Book Stora a/Central Su 1 Stora e 1 1 800 1 800 Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 5 240 5 240 Ex )oratories Forei n Language Classrooms 2 1,000 2,000 Career Ex )orations Lab & Resource Room 1 1 000 1000 lied Technolo Lab & Resource Room 1 3 500 3 500 Consumer Education Lab & Resource Room 1 1 500 1 500 Com uter Lab & Resource Room 1 1 000 1 000 Video Production Room 1 1 000 1 000 Ph sisal Education 1 13 700 13 700 Media Center 1 5,700 5,700 Parerrt/Communit Room 1 400 400 Receivin Area 1 200 200 SpeciaUExceptional Rooms/Speech Lan ua a/Resource Rooms 5 660 3 300 Staff Support Area -Conference Rooms (one per rade level 3 250 750 Staff Su ort -Teacher Lounge & Work Area 1 450 450 Staff Su ort -Teacher Offices & Workrooms 1 4 600 4 600 Student Commons 1 1 500 1 500 Student Pro'ect Room 3 750 2 250 Student Su ort Area -Health 1 700 700 Student Suooort Area -Counseling 1 1.750 1.750 I Total Middle Sauare Foot Per Student) 18s.s1 ~.' April 2007 Number of Capac'dy per Square Footage (Range) Per Teaching Station or Function Total S uare Foota e Capacity Generating Spaces Classrooms/ Teaching Stations Classroom/ Teaching station Total 9-12 Capacity From To From To Academic Classrooms (English, Foreign Language, Social Studies Math 25 20 500 850 950 21 250 23 750 Science Labs, Pre & Stora e Ph sicai Science 2 20 40 1 200 1 200 2 400 2 400 Biol 2 20 40 1 200 1 200 2 400 2 400 Ph sits 2 20 40 1 200 1 200 2 400 2 400 Earth Science 1 20 20 1 400 1 400 1 400 1 400 Chemist 1 20 20 1500 1500 1500 1500 S ecial/Exce tional Children Self-Contained 3 15 45 800 1 200 2 400 3 600 Instrumental Classroom with Lockers 1 20 20 1 800 2100 1 800 2100 Vocal Classroom 1 20 20 1 000 1 500 1 000 1 500 Visual Arts Classroom 1 20 20 1 200 1 500 1 200 1 500 Theater Arts Classroom 1 20 20 1 800 2 000 1 800 2 000 Dance Classroom inciudin Stora e 1 20 20 1 800 2 000 1 800 2 000 Workforce Development (includes Agricultural, Business, Family & Consumer Sciences, Health Occupations, Marketing including a store, Technoi Trade & Industrial ranges from 11 15 to 20 145 depending on type of classroom, ranges from 850 to 3000 0,750 6100 G nasium-IAuxilia i 25 0 fi 00 6200 G nasium -Main 1 50 50 6,200 6 200 6 200 6 200 Total Ca aci Generatin Teachin Stations 54 1,000 30,150 58,300 68,850 Square Footage (Range) Number of Capacity per Per Teaching Station or Classrooms/ Classroom/ Function Total S uare Foota e Teaching Teaching Total9-12 Non-Ca ac' S aces Stations Station Capacity From To From To Adminstration 1 1,900 1,9110 1,900 1 900 Arts Education Instrument Stora a Room 1 400 600 400 600 Music Libra 7 200 200 200 200 Instrument Re air 1 150 150 150 150 Office 1 150 150 150 150 Uniform Stora e 1 400 600 400 600 Practice Room 1 55 60 55 60 Ensemble Practice Room 1 150 200 150 200 KiINCIa Stora e 1 40 60 40 60 Art Material Stora e 1 80 150 80 150 Theater Arts Auditorium (8' per seat; capacity ran es from 1/3 to 1/2 of total school ca aci 1 2 667 4 000 2 667 4 ODO Sta a Stora e & Dressin Rooms 1 3 000 5 000 3 000 5 000 Li ht Lock Vestibui Lobb Consessions 1 800 2 OOD 800 2 000 Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 8 480 11 214 8480 11 214 Exce tional Education Resource Room 1 450 450 450 450 Media Center Main Room 5 s uare feet r total school ca ac' 1 5,000 5 000 5,000 5,000 5u rt Areas 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Video Studio 1 400 400 400 400 ControUEdftin 1 260 260 260 260 E ui ment Stora e 1 80 80 80 80 as Apri12007 Square Footage (Range) Number of Capacity per Per Teaching Station or Classrooms/ Classroom/ Function Total Teaching Teaching Tota19-12 Stations Station Capacity From To Fra Ph sicai Education Spectator Seating (ranges from 400' to 500' per 100 Special Assistant/Itinerant Teacher Office/Work Workroom Student Rooms 560 450 Total Hi h School S ware Foota a Ca acit Generatin and Non-Ca ac' 157,049 1a2,71o Total Hiah Sauare Foot Per Student 151.0 182.7 a6 Apri12007 Number of Capacity per Square Footage (Range) Per Teaching Station or Function Total S uare Foota e Capacity Generating Spaces Classrooms/ Teaching Stations Classroom/ Teaching Station Tota19.12 Capacity From To From To Academic Classrooms (English, Foreign Language, Social Studies Math 40 20 800 850 950 34 000 38 000 Science Labs, Pre & 5tora e Ph sisal Science 3 20 60 1 200 1 200 3 600 3 600 Biol 4 20 80 1 200 1 200 4 800 4 800 Ph sits 2 20 40 1 200 1 200 2 400 2 400 Earth Science 2 20 40 1 400 1 400 2 800 2 800 Chemist 3 20 60 1 500 1 500 4 500 4 500 S cial/Exce tional Children Self-Contained 3 15 45 800 1 200 2 400 3 600 Instrumental Classroom with Lockers 1 20 20 1 800 2100 1 800 2100 Vocal Classroom 1 20 20 1 000 1 500 1 000 1 500 Visual Arts Classroom 2 20 40 1 200 1 500 2 400 3 000 Theater Arts Classroom 1 20 20 1 800 2 ODO 1 800 2 000 Dance Classroom includin Stora e 2 20 40 1 800 2 000 3 600 4 000 Workforce Development (includes Agricultural, Business, Family & Consumer Sciences, Health Occupations, Marketing including a store, Technolo Trade & Industrial ranges from 13 15 to 20 160 depending on type of classroom, ranges from 850 to 3000 0 750 6100 G nasium - Auxilia 1 25 25 6 200 6 200 10 750 16100 G nasium -Main 1 50 50 6,200 6 200 6 200 6 200 Total Ca aci Generatin Teachin Stations 79 1,500 30,150 92,800 110,700 Square Footage (Range) Number of Capacity per Per Teaching Station or Classrooms/ Classroom/ Function Total S uare Foota e Teaching Teaching Total9-12 Non-Ca acit S aces Stations Station Capacity From To From To Adminstration 1 1,900 1,900 1,900 1 900 Arts Education Instrument Stora a Room 1 400 600 400 600 Music Libra 1 200 200 200 200 Instrument Re air 1 150 150 150 150 Office 1 150 150 150 150 Uniform Stora e 1 400 600 400 600 Practice Room 1 55 60 55 60 Ensemble Practice Room 1 150 200 150 200 Ki1NCla Stora e 1 40 60 40 60 Art Material Stora e 1 80 150 80 150 Theater Arts Auditorium (8' per seat; capacity ran es from 1/3 to 1/2 of total school ca ac' 1 4 ODD 6 000 4 000 6 ODO Sta a Stora e & Dressin Rooms 1 3 000 5 000 3 000 5 000 Li ht Lock Vestibul Lobb Consessions 1 800 2 000 800 2 ODO Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 8 480 11 214 8480 11 214 Exce tional Education Resource Room 1 450 450 450 450 Media Center Main Room 5 s uare feet r total school ca aci 1 7,500 7,500 7 500 7,500 Su rt Areas 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Video Studio 1 400 400 400 400 Control/Editin 1 260 260 260 260 E ui ment Stora e 1 80 80 80 80 a7 Apri12007 Number of Capacity per Classrooms/ Classroom/ Teaching Teaching Tota19-12 Stations Station Caaacity Square Footage (Range) Per Teaching Station or Function Total To ( From Ph sisal Education Spectator Seating (ranges from 400' to 500' per 100 1 45 Special Assistant/Itinerant Teacher Office/Work S ace 7 80 10D 560 700 Workroom 1 300 800 300 800 Loun e 1 300 1,333 300 1,333 Stora e/Pre Rooms Biolo Chemist Ph sics 2 500 500 1 000 1 000 Student Su ort Areas Guidance 1 300 300 300 300 Rece tioNCareer Center 1 400 400 400 400 Counselor Office 3 150 150 450 450 Other Student Services 1 200 200 200 200 Health Room 1 200 200 200 200 CirculatioNCommons/Entries/Building Su ort (45%) 1 46,877 56,703 65,634 77,788 Total Hi h School S uare Foota a Ca ac' Generatin and Non-Ca ac' 211,a87 251,345 Total Hiah Sauare Foot Per Student 141.D 167.s as Appendix 6. School Construction Project Components • Purchase and contracted pricing of property • Survey Site Acquisition -Tasks and . Deed recording costs associated with acquiring Appraisals a site • Soils, environmental, suitability testing • Le al fees associated with urchase and recordin • Pre-grading • Grading to include playing fields and playgrounds • Installation of storm water run-off drainage Hard Construction -Site & Soil suitability testing (rock) Vertical Tasks and costs of " " " " Utility extension/installation horizontal and vertical Sidewalks construction: all construction activities for the actual site • Turn lanes and building • Building Structure and Systems (includes General Contractor and all Sub-Contractors • Municipal Requirements • Landsca in Hard Construction - Off- Site Off-site Traffic Improvements Tasks and costs of Water and Sewer Service to the Site "horizontal" construction: all . Off-Site Environmental Mitigation construction activities for the . Trails and Greenway System surrounding area, not • Related Design including the building and direct site • Prime Construction Contracts (includes general Construction Costs - contractor, electrical contractor, HVAC contractor, Costs of constructing a new plumbing contractor) facility or renovating an Other construction related work existing one Sprinkler • Ex anded Water Flows a~ Appendix 6. School Construction Project Components • Architectural/Engineering/CM services (examples: educational specifications and programming, schematics and design development, bidding, construction documents, construction administration, reimbursables, furniture selection) for Site and Building • On-site engineering control inspections Fees -All non-construction Materials testing costs ("soft costs") related to Survey, Topographic and boundary studies the direct site and building • Local government applications and permit fees (examples: special use permits, conditional use permits, zoning permits, building permits, NCDENR, NCDOT fees) • Specialized consultants (examples: traffic engineer, environmental specialist, project scheduler/expeditor) • Connect fees to utilities • Technology infrastructure (examples: wiring or fiber optics) Computer equipment (examples: computers, printers, Technology scanners, servers routers, switchers, CD-ROM drives, laser disc players) • Fire/Security alarm systems • Televisions, video recorders & cameras, satellite dishes • Telephone system • Technolo consultin services • Office furniture (examples: desks, chairs, files, bookcases) Moveable Equipment - Cafeteria equipment (examples: tables, seating, ovens, Readily moveable equipment stoves, dishwashers) • 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) One-Time Start up Athletic supplies and equipment (examples: wrestling Costs 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 30 APPROVED 6/26/2007 MINUTES WORK SESSION Orange County Commissioners Orange County Board Of Education Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education April 30, 2007 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint session with the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Board of Education and the Orange County Board of Education on Monday, April 30, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, and Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Dennis Whitling, Vice-Chair Ted Triebel, and Board Members Elizabeth Brown, Debbie Piscitelli, Anne Medenbleck, AI Hartkopf, and Susan Hallman. Superintendent Shirley Carraway was also present. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT: CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice Chair Pam Hemminger, and Board Members Jean Hamilton, Lisa Stuckey, Annetta Streater, and Mike Kelley. Superintendent Neil Pedersen was also present. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Carter Chair Carey made reference to the handout on school collaboration efforts. CHCCS Board Chair Jamezetta Bedford said that this is a very lengthy agenda, and she hopes that each item will be given a time limit so that everything can be done. Dennis Whitling said that they have some full and frank discussions at the school collaboration meetings and he appreciated the Board of County Commissioners listening to them. Chair Carey said that this meeting is generally not designed for decision-making, except for talking about the next steps on a particular item. Chair Carey said that Commissioner Gordon may be here later and Jamezetta Bedford said that Liz Carter might be here later also. 1. County/OCS/CHCCS Matters a. School Construction Standards Policy Laura Blackmon said that the collaboration group is working to update these standards. All three boards have seen an early draft in September 2006. The current draft is the 4th one, and there have not been any changes from the initial one. She said that there are three things that are relatively new that have to do with non-traditional schools, Smart Growth initiatives, and trying to deal with the increasing costs of school construction. Also, there are some issues ~i about capital funding, and the standards will play an important part on how to develop the capital investment plan for the next ten years. There will also be an update on the impact fee, and there is a contract in the works with a consultant. Commissioner Gordon arrived at 7:44 PM. Debbie Piscitelli asked about start up costs and if a school is expanding or adding on, would the start up costs be incorporated. Budget Director Donna Coffey said that they did not discuss expansion of facilities, but more construction of new schools. She said that the collaboration group could discuss this at a future meeting. Debbie Piscitelli said that from the OCS standpoint, they are looking at building new schools versus expansion and she would like to know where the start up costs come in. Donna Coffey said that non-personnel start up costs have always been a part of construction standards. Dennis Whitling said that it looks like the numbers have changed. Donna Coffey said that appendices 1-4 are the numbers from the State DPI model. Jameszetta Bedford made reference to page 17 and said that the language has changed about the generators. It used to say "might include," and now it says, "all will include." She was not at the last collaboration meeting, and she does not know if this was a deliberate decision. Donna Coffey said that this was a topic of discussion at the last meeting, and that is the wording that the group decided on. She said that though they may make new schools generator-ready, it would depend on the Red Cross as to which schools would be shelters. Commissioner Gordon said that she appreciated the staff getting her a draft of the information. She made reference to the traditional versus non-traditional and said that the traditional has not changed much. She asked about the definition of anon-traditional school. She asked if it was acase-by-case basis and all agreed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 13 and the last bulletin the middle of the page, "Accommodate the expanding number of middle and high school athletic teams either on- site oroff-site." She said that with Cedar Ridge and Carrboro High Schools, they were started with core facilities and a core amount of students and then expanded to build the bigger facility. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 15 and "Future Maintenance of Facility.responsibility for future facility maintenance/repairs and energy usage guarantees can be assigned to the developer and not the school system." She asked if this was completely in the bill and Donna Coffey said that it was. Commissioner Gordon asked about page 17 and the possibility of a School Capital Review Team consisting of County staff and representatives from each school district. She asked about the County staff. Laura Blackmon said that this is what was talked about with Jeff Thompson. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a definite improvement and the non-traditional is on a case by case basis. He made one edit on page 12. Instead of "As the availability of land becomes less and less," he suggested "decreases." Regarding possibilities, he would like to include co-location of a library every time a school is built. Commissioner Gordon said that there is a memorandum of understanding about co- locating facilities, and this mechanism is already in place. Chair Carey said that the next step is for all is to take this document back to the boards to adopt as presented. b. Landbanking History and Goals Laura Blackmon said that this is an outgrowth of school construction standards and siting schools in the future. Chair Carey said that the intent was to step up the engagement of the towns and the County in working with the staff and the two school systems to make sure that school sites are 3~ identified and preserved. The collaboration work group asked that a letter be sent to the towns to this effect. There has been a response from Carrboro only. Dennis Whitling said that the OCS Board met with the Town of Hillsborough and discussed this topic, and the two boards were on the same page. He said that OCS is moving forward with the Town of Hillsborough on some ideas. Chair Carey asked about a proposed meeting with the Town of Mebane and Dennis Whitling said that there are plans to do this. Superintendent Pedersen asked about next steps after they get responses and contacts and who would take the lead in this process. Chair Carey said that the Board has not discussed this yet. He said that once contacts have been identified then Orange County staff could facilitate the first meeting with all the entities. Commissioner Gordon made reference to a handout she distributed at the County Commissioners' meeting on March 27~'. She said that the general idea of these groups getting together was implemented by the Schools and Land Use Council years ago. The SLUC initiated the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. She said that she supports this general idea of land banking. She said that there was aschool/parks reserve fund at one time, where the County Commissioners had set aside one cent on the property tax for land-banking, but the Commissioners eventually stopped allocating money to it. She said that if this group meets, there should be discussion about how the sites will be purchased. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that OCS get with the Planning Department, who did a fiscal analysis of the Collins property. The developer has not committed to any commercial density, which may convert to more residential density and would have more of an adverse impact on the school system. Chair Carey asked the Manager and Planning Director to share this document with the school boards. c. Capital Funding Policy, Including Lottery Proceeds Laura Blackmon said that on April 24th the Board of County Commissioners approved the capital funding policy, which included the updated position on the lottery proceeds. The Board decided to come back in the fall and do the ten-year capital improvement plan. The Board approved budgeting the lottery proceeds in arrears for renovation projects or debt service. Chair Carey said that this policy, as it relates to the lottery proceeds, has been discussed in the school collaboration work group at least twice. Ted Triebel said that he did not see before now that the N.C. Department of Public Instruction (page two) has said that the County could request lottery funds before actually spending them as long as the County anticipates making the expenditure within the fiscal year. He said that he understands this to say that they are going to get funds and bank them for a year, and then expend them. He asked for clarification on this. Donna Coffey said that by statute the lottery commission is to make four deposits into the account in any format that they want -not necessarily every quarter. She said that the County can request as much money as it wants, but it will not get it until the money is in the account. The funds need to be expended within the year. She clarified that the funds do draw interest at the state level. Several school board members asked clarifying questions, which were answered by Donna Coffey and Laura Blackmon. Jamezetta Bedford thanked the Board of County Commissioners for giving the school boards the flexibility on how to use the funds. She made reference to page seven and the construction management function. She asked if there was a fairer way to allocate funds rather than the number of students. Dennis Whitling agreed. 33 Chair Carey said that this document has already been adopted, but the Board can amend it later. d. Fund Balance Policy Laura Blackmon said that since 1986 the school systems have maintained a fund balance. The CHCCS has maintained 5.5% and OCS has maintained 2.7%. She said that there have been no changes implemented in the policy since 1986. This is on the agenda for discussion to see if changes need to be made to this. Dennis Whitling said that this may be something the school collaboration group can look at for review and/or updating. Superintendent Pedersen said that CHCCS is using $500,000 from fund balance for Elementary School #10 and $500,000 for startup costs for Carrboro High School. He said that there has been a struggle with the budget for Carrboro High School, and they have identified $500,000 for one-time purchases for startup programs for the new school. Chair Carey thanked Superintendent Pedersen for making the Board aware of this for the first time. He thinks that the County Commissioners would like to think this over. Superintendent Pedersen said that there is a need for cash reserves to cover payroll when the school system is not collecting any district taxes. He said that CHCCS has looked to the Board of County Commissioners for assistance in the past when this has happened. He said that he is comfortable with the 5.5% fund balance. Commissioner Gordan said that if either school board has anything to mention about their fund balances, then please let the County Commissioners know, such as if the targets are not right, what to use it for, etc. She said that there has been a lot of misunderstanding about this issue. Dennis Whitling said that in OCS, the creation of a fund balance is a savings from year to year that accumulates. He said that he understands the concept of using fund balance for non- recurring items. He said that when their operation budget is not fully funded, then money must be taken from the fund balance. It is also a judgment that the school board has to make about funding programs or waiting. Debbie Piscitelli said that when spending occurs between now and the end of the fiscal year, this can make people upset, and this should be addressed. Commissioner Jacobs said that the larger the County's fund balance, the better the bond rating, and they want to build back their fund balance to increase the bond rating. He said that when schools need money, the County takes it out of its own fund balance. He said that as long as the County has a good fund balance, everyone has a good fund balance. Ted Triebel asked about a target goal for the County and Donna Coffey said that the Local Government Commission recommends 8%. The County's internal target is 15%, but it has not been this large in a long time. Jean Hamilton asked about the County's bond rating and it was answered Triple A. Chair Carey said that the bond rating agencies do not tell entities what they need to boost or lower the bond rating. Laura Blackmon said that bond raters are looking for consistency. Chair Carey said that the school collaboration work group will discuss this topic. e. Fair Funding/Equity Laura Blackmon said that the joint boards had looked at this topic last year. Attachments E-1, E-2, and E-3 were the minutes from the Fair Funding Work Group meeting in May 2006, the recommendations, and the goal statement with regards to the recommendation of the Fair Funding Work Group. Commissioner Gordon said that the school collaboration work group should take this topic up. 3~ Dennis Whitling said that, on the capital side, OCS has done what is listed, such as the lottery proceeds. He said that the operating side is stickier. He said that he thought he saw a memo about the 48.1 % target, and this is integral to the recommendation. Chair Carey said that it is important to keep the issue of fair funding on the agenda. He suggested having the school collaboration work group discuss it again. Liz Brown said that the OCS Board has talked about this, and she thinks That with the talk of no tax increase, that the work on the fair funding was pointless. She said that getting more equity is different from getting more funding for the schools. She said that it seems that this year is a year that the County Commissioners should look at giving more money to the OCS children. Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners have said that they want to target the tax increase at the level required to cover the debt service from all of the capital projects that the schools and the County have. He said that the Board will go through the process of adopting the budget as always, and will do the best it can for both school systems. Liz Brown said that she differs with the subjects that are discussed in the school collaboration work group because it seems that they have spent a lot of time discussing buildings and tax increases for buildings, which will not be for OCS. She said that OCS needs more money for programs. She would like to see the whole County work together at discussing that issue. She said that they have spent four years dancing around this issue of fair funding. Chair Carey said that the recommendation from the work group came forth in May and the Board of County Commissioners raised the tax rate six cents to try and accommodate the needs. He does not think that the Board can raise the tax rate another six cents this year. Jamezetta Bedford said that the CHCCS is presenting a budget to the Board of County Commissioners that meets their schools' needs. This budget has been cut from the budget that was presented to the school board at their February Board retreat. She said that it is millions more than the Board of County Commissioners is planning to cover. She asked about the realities here. Chair Carey said that the budget drivers included the $800,000 and that would not be at risk. Dennis Whitling said that what is driving OCS next year is the construction costs and debt service. He made reference to the budget public hearing on May 31St and said that OCS has offered the use of one of the school auditoriums. Ted Triebel said that there are serious concerns about the OCS operating budget and CIP. He said that they are trying to look after their youth in the long range. Mike Kelly asked for an explanation about the payment of debt service and said that he would like to look to avoid this in the future. He said that he would like to understand how they came to this point - to not increase taxes past paying for debt service. He said that this is a transient problem and debt service is supposedly going to go down. Commissioner Jacobs said that the cost increase between Gravelly Hill, Carrboro High, and Elementary School #10 caused a bump of $10 million beyond what was anticipated. Also, the Governor raised State teachers' salaries. He said that the County gets indirectly penalized for this and they still raised taxes 12 '/2 cents over the last two years. He said that the County Commissioners are trying to address County needs. He said that this was a confluence of circumstances that were not within the County Commissioners' control. Liz Brown said that she does not think the fair funding discussion should be in the school collaboration group because it is a waste of CHCCS's time. She would like to see a separate meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the OCS, without the CHCCS. Chair Carey said that anytime you talk about funding, decisions affect all of the groups, and he does not see a conflict with the school collaboration group discussing it. Ted Triebel said that they would be discussing this in a partial vacuum if they did it between the County and OCS only. 35 Dennis Whitling agreed with Ted Triebel that this is a global issue and all boards should discuss this. Chair Carey said that with these discussions, transparency is important. Superintendent Pedersen said that this is going to be an unusual year budget wise, and he wants the Board of County Commissioners to understand the CHCCS's concerns. He said that the total request is $7 million, and $5 million is for salary increases, opening Carrboro High School, and utilities. He said that he is not sure how not to do these things. He said that they are having some serious meetings about how to reduce the budget, but they are looking at cuts in the millions, if they take what the County Commissioners say seriously. Superintendent Carraway said that OCS's situation is similar and half of their requests are mandates. She said that they would be listing things that they will have to cut, and the majority of that will be people. She said that this is the first time since she has been here that there has not been increases in the per pupil. Jamezetta Bedford said that CHCCS did not offer contracts to their employees as of yet, and they are taking this very seriously. Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners understand this and the school systems are wise to have discussions about the various scenarios. He said that the County Commissioners will always do the best they can for the schools. He said that he hopes that the schools are asking their legislative liaisons to work with the legislature to pass the Medicaid relief and Real Estate Transfer Tax for counties. This would relieve a lot of pressure. f. School Health/Day Clinics Proposals Chair Carey said that this is informational. Superintendent Carraway gave some highlights of this PowerPoint presentation. Working Together to Improve the Health ~ Academic Success of Orange County School District Students Shirley Carraway, EdD Superintendent, Orange County School District Rosemary L. Summers, MPH, DrPH Director, Orange County Health Department Why? ® There is a direct link between students' - physical health - mental health - academic success • Compared to students experiencing physical or psychological health problems, healthy students - have better school attendance - are better learners - are more academically successful - Have a better chance of graduating - have a better chance of making a smooth transition to a healthy, happy, and productive young adulthood What are we currently doing? School Health Advisory Council • School Board Representative • School Staff and Administrators ~~ • Health Dept. Staff and Administrators • Local Physician • County Agencies • Community Members • Parents CDC Coordinated School Health Program For example, we now have.... • Nurses in every school • Social Workers in every school • PE teachers in every school • School Improvement Plans for every school • Healthy Active Children Policy for every school • District school nutritionist • District safety coordinator • Health education programs • Staff health promotion ® Family-focused after-school programs What do we want to consider next? What about health services? We know our students have unmet health needs..... From Orange County Schools' 2005-2006 School Nurses End of Year Report Kindergarten through High School Screenings ® Dental - 1826 students screened (Of the 191 students referred for outside care only 36% followed through.) ® Hearing - 860 students reached (Of the 24 students referred for follow up care only 38% of them completed the referral process.) We know our students have unmet health needs..... The Healthy Carolinians and Advocates far Adolescents Committee Assessment on Mental Health Needs of Adolescents in Orange County, October 2006 ^ Children and adolescents need more education about mental illness and mental health. ^ Children and adolescents need more knowledge of when and how to seek mental health services. 3~ We know our students have unmet health needs..... From OCS Spring 2006 Communities That Care Survey • 17.78% of 6"' graders (450 students surveyed), 18.63 % of 8~' graders (408 students surveyed), and 19.47% of 10~' graders (457 students surveyed) reported having their first beer before the age of 11. • 2.44% of 6th graders, 5.39% of 8~' graders, and 5.69% of 10~' graders always threaten to hurt people. From Spring 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey • 27% of OCS 8"' graders seriously considered suicide in the previous year. • 35% of OCS 8~' graders reported that they had felt so sad or hopeless for 2+ weeks in a row that they stopped doing their usual activities in the last 12 months. School-Based Health Centers? (SBHC) We propose aone-year exploratory process to determine whether it is desirable and feasible to develop aSchool-Based Health Center (SBHC) at CW Stanford Middle School ... as a first step in a system-wide strategy to address unmet health needs of students in the OCSD. Propose a Steering Committee Leader: OCSD Superintendent Co-Leader: OCSD Health Dept. Director Members: Director, OCSD Student Services Director, OCSD Healthful Living Director, OCSD Adolescents in Need Director, School Exceptional Children Program Leader, OCSD School Health Advisory Council Steering Committee Members (Continued) County Commissioner Chair, or designee Health Dept Board Member OCSD Board Member DSS Board Member Local Physician Director, Piedmont Health Services UNC Adolescent Medicine Physician OCSD Nursing Supervisor OPC Mental Health Consultant Juvenile Justice representation CW Stanford Middle School Principal Many Questions for Steering Committee to Address... • Is SBHC desirable? • Is SBHC feasible? • Which students and which services? 3~ - Students without medical homes? - Urgent care so kids can stay in school? - Helping medical home serve students with chronic care needs? - Synergist coordinated services around high-need students? - Convenient, centralized, coordinated, comprehensive services? - Safety-net services? - Mental health/substance use services? How to Best Use SBHC to Improve Important Outcomes..... • Better school attendance • Better academic achievement • Lower drop out rates • Better access to high quality health care • Better health We are enthusiastic about moving forward! • ASCD Health Schools Community Grant awarded! • Would like to convene Steering Committee summer of 2007! She said that the next step is to convene a steering committee (including a County Commissioner representative) to begin to discuss and evaluate the potential for such a center at C. W. Stanford Middle School. They would like the support of the Board of County Commissioners before moving forward. Commissioner Gordon asked how this fits in the grim budget situation. Shirley Carraway said that this steering committee will look at funding and the possible sources. She said that they visited one in Wayne County, and some of it is funded through reimbursable dollars and private insurance dollars. Lisa Stuckey said that she attended a conference and the speaker from South Carolina spoke about how this could be self-funding. Commissioner Foushee said that she heard this presentation and she would like to refer this to staff to bring back a formal proposal in concept for Board approval. Chair Carey said that he is familiar with school based health centers throughout the state and they serve a great need. He said that it is naive to think that we can depend on reimbursements to cover the costs. He said that OCS is not asking the Board to commit to funding, but to a concept. He asked how this relates to what is being done now. Betty Compton said that this is the next natural step in services for children. She said that she has worked in the OCS for a long time. She said that they have not finished the job, which is getting these children the help they need when they need it. Anne Medenbleck suggested that the steering committee tap Duke or UNC for grants. ,g: Middle College High School Update Superintendent Neil Pedersen said that this is an update and is a collaborative effort between the two school systems and the Durham Public Schools also. This is the second year and there are 14 students from OCS and 10 students from CHCCS. He said that the program could have as many as 50 students each, so they are under enrolled. He made reference to the overview in the packet. The program is for juniors and seniors. The Durham Tech courses are offered free of charge to the students and the credits are transferable. He said that this is not for students who are involved in athletics or for students who are reluctant to leave their social groups. ~~ Superintendent Carraway said that as students continue to participate, they are going to be the best advertisement for this program. There will be three students graduating from this program in May. Commissioner Nelson asked the OCS about the proposed merger of Hillsborough Elementary and Central Elementary. He has been getting emails from citizens who are concerned about this. Dennis Whitling said that there was amini-session in February and then it was discussed later at another meeting, and he appointed athree-person committee of the board to come up with a process of exploring this issue. This process was discussed at the last OCS Board meeting about a week ago. He said that they are in the process of scheduling a meeting (four-hour retreat) to be facilitated by Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center to discuss this process. The timeline has been discussed, but there have been no decisions. He said that all meetings would be open to the public. There will be a public hearing down the line and possibly a panel discussion with some experts to talk about the socioeconomic issue. He said that the issue is that there is a year-round school of choice with 14% having free and reduced lunches versus another districted school a block away with 70% having free or reduced lunches. He said that the proposal is to have 100 students to move from Central to Hillsborough Elementary. He said that the school board is committed to exploring this. Commissioner Nelson said that this process sounds fair and open. He said that there was a group of people that came to the Human Relations Commission meeting about this. There were some issues raised about race and class. Chair Carey said that AI Hartkopf left a message that he had other commitments tonight. Chair Carey made reference to the list of bills that the school boards are asking the legislative member to support. He asked both school boards to write the legislative delegation supporting Medicaid relief and the Real Estate Transfer Tax. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Real Estate Transfer Tax can generate $10 million for Orange County if approved. He said that, having been through a merger discussion, he would like to commend the OCS for taking on this issue of merging two schools and for the process. Ted Triebel made reference to the letter about the bills and said that it was also sent to three or four other legislative representatives. He suggested that joint letters to the legislative representatives (two school boards and the BOCC) would have much more "throw" weight. The boards agreed to do a joint letter. With no further issues to address, the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 PM. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board