HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-26-2005-ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 26, 2005
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: County/OCS/CHCCS Discussion/Policy Issues
DEPARTMENT: Manager/Budget/CHCCS/OCS
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
f As listed in "Table of Appendices'
INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Link or Rod Visser, 245-2300;
Donna Dean, 245-2151
Neil Pedersen, 967-8211
Shirley Carraway, 732-8126
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To discuss various issues with policy and/or financial implications that are of
current interest to the Orange County Commissioners, Orange County Board of Education,
and/or Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education,
BACKGROUND:
a. Consideration of the 60/40 Capital Funding Policy
At the Board's March 31, 2005 work session, the Board received a presentation from staff
regarding options to "operationalize" the BOCC's November 2004 policy that earmarks 60
percent of capital funding for school projects and 40 percent of capital funding for County
projects for the next ten years. The Board noted that the options are quite complex, and that
additional time would be needed by the Board to fully understand the implications of the
various options, and to reflect, deliberate, and decide among them. County staff provided a
more detailed explanation of the funding options at the Board's April 20 work session,
including the revenue sources involved in the current and proposed policies, and review of
how the County and school capital funding allocations are calculated mathematically. Working
from the baseline funding option, staff pointed out haw assumptions change under Options 1-
5C (as presented at the March 31 and April 20 work sessions) and haw those changes lead to
differences in the way capital revenues would be allocated among Orange County, Orange
County Schools (OCS), and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS).
County staff plan to provide a similarly detailed review at this April 26 work session so that
school board members can likewise gain adequate understanding of the policy implications of
the various options presented to the Commissioners, The governing boards may also wish to
discuss perceived ramifications of various options. Such feedback may prove beneficial to
Commissioners as they prepare to make decisions about the 60-40 capital funding policy
implementation at their regular meeting on May 3, 2005,
Detailed tables and a question & answer sheet related to the various capital funding options
are provided as background information, to be reviewed during the work session,
b. School Funding Equity
During Fall 2003, the Board of Commissioners conducted a number of meetings, including
work sessions and public hearings, regarding school funding equity and the possible impacts
of a potential merger between the Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Schools. CHCCS receives approximately $13 million more per year in local funding than OCS
due to proceeds that CHCCS receives from its special district tax of 20 cents per $100
valuation,
The BOCC decided in early 2004 that it wanted to pursue several research initiatives before
making specific financial decisions about how to address school funding equity, These
included: 1) the Educational Excellence Work Group study, led by Dr. Madeleine Grumet and
her team from the UNC School of Education; 2) the Collaboration Work Group, involving
regular, facilitated meetings comprised of the governing board Chairs, Vice Chairs, County
Manager, and Superintendents; and 3) an efficiency study of County and School operations,
conducted by the firm of Robert Segal, CPA.
As those studies are wrapping up, the Board will face decisions about what steps to take in
light of the information gained as a result of the studies. For example, at the BOCC's April 14,
2005 work session, the Board discussed findings and recommendations from Dr. Grumet's
team related to enhancements to OCS staffing that might lead to improvements in student
support and overall performance, As the Board noted that evening, any efforts to narrow the
gap in local per pupil funding available between the two school systems will mean a higher tax
burden than at present for property owners in the OCS district. There will also need to be
future discussions about the definition of "equity", which can be viewed in terms of per pupil
funding equity, programmatic equity, some combination of both, and in other terms as well,
The County Manager and staff will provide a brief presentation regarding mechanisms that
could conceivably be pursued to begin to address the equity question, Fallowing that
presentation, Commissioners may wish to discuss with school board members how the boards
might go about making progress in 2005-06 towards funding equity between the Orange
County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro school systems in the context of a particularly challenging
budgetary environment.
c. Initial Reactions of School Boards to the Educational Excellence Report
In February 2004, the Board of Commissioners endorsed the creation of an Educational
Excellence Work Group to examine the resources made available to the Orange County
Schools and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. As originally proposed, the Task Force's
mission was to provide a review of both Orange County school systems, investigating the
educational resources available in both school systems and making recommendations for
improvement and how these resources could become equally accessible to all Orange County
students, In June 2004, the Board of Commissioners approved an agreement with UNC
incorporating the research proposal prepared by Dr, Madeline Grumet, Dean Emeritus of the
School of Education,.
3
Dr. Grumet led the research team from the beginning of the project in .July 2004 through its
completion in early March 2005, Dr. Grumet and her team reported on their findings and
responded to questions and comments from the BOCC at a March 15 work session. Dr.
Grumet also reported to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education at their April 7 meeting,
and is scheduled to report to the Orange County Board of Education at their April 25 meeting,
Both school systems have submitted brief written comments about their preliminary reactions
to the research team's findings and recommendations. Depending on time constraints, all
three governing boards may wish to discuss those in more detail at this work session,
d. New School Construction Updates - OCS Middle School #3 and CHCCS High
School #3
Each school system has prepared written updates regarding progress towards construction of
their respective projects: the new OGS middle school on West Ten Road, and the new
CHCCS high school on Rock Haven Road near Smith Level Road, In addition, materials
related to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education's April 21 discussion of High School #3
project budget overruns (based on construction bids recently received) are provided as
background.
e. Process for Developing Policy Recommendations on School Construction
Standards and Building Capacity
Based on discussions among the Collaboration Work Group and at the County
Commissioners' January 2005 annual planning retreat, the Work Group is poised to begin
work an developing recommendations regarding a number of key policy issues, These
include, but need not be limited to, updates and revisions to existing school constn~ction
standards and clarifying the process for making decisions about school building capacities
(recommendations on the latter will be due no later than November 2005 to meet the next
annual SAPFO planning cycle).
Staff suggest that the three boards confirm this direction and task the Collaboration Work
Group to proceed with developing key policy matter recommendations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the discussion at this
meeting, However, decisions that the school boards and BOCC will make at subsequent
meetings are likely to have significant implications for future capital and operating budgets.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards discuss the issues
noted and provide direction to staff, as appropriate,
UPDATED 04/22/05
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CAPITAL FUNDING/SCHOOL EQUITY FUNDING NOTEBOOKS
2004-05
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Reference Appendix Title
Descri tion
1 Fiscal Year 2005-06 Capital Funding 4 pages of tables
O tions
2 Summary of School and County 5 pages of tables
Fundin 0 tions
3 Capital Funding Options -Staff 5 page O&A paper
Considerations
4 School Funding Equity 6 PawerPoint slides on 3
a es
5 Orange County/Chapel Hill Carrboro 5 page Executive Summary of
City Schools Study: Description and Educational Excellence Work
Anal sis of Educational Resources Grou Re ort
6 4/13/05 CHCCS Memo -Fallow-up 1 page memo from CHCCS
to the Educational Excellence Re ort Chair
7 4/21/05 OCS Letter 2 page letter from OCS
Superintendent re: MS#3 and
Educational Excellence Report
8 Hi h School #3 - A Status Re ort 16 a e CHCCS color re ort
9 4/22/05 CHCCS Memo -Request for 3 page memo from CHCCS
Additional Funding for the Superintendent
Com letion of Hi h School #3
10 4/19/05 CHCCS Mema -High 5 page memo from CHCCS
School #3 Bids Assistant Su erintendent
~ Fiscal Year 2005-06 Capital Funding Options
2
Current Policy (including Recurring Capital)
Revenue:
Projected Sales Tax (March 23, 2005
projections)
9,586,210
Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt Service 13,119,933
Skills Dev Ctr Rental 85,000
Inmate Jail Fees 164,000
Total Revenue 22,955,143
Debt Service:
Existing and Projected 18,311,753
Less: Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt
Service
-
Less: Skills Development Center Rental -
Less; Inmate Jail Fees -
Less: Public School Building Funds -
Less: School Construction Impact Fees -
Total Debt Service 18,311,753
Revenue Less Debt 4,643,390
Net Amount Available for School and County
Capital Projects
4,643,390
Allocation of Net Amount Available
ForSchools 50%
2,321,695
For County 50% 2,321,695
Net Amount Available 4,643,390
Schools
From Above 2,321,695
Transfer from GF in lieu of PSBF 802,000
Property Tax Dedicated (3 cents) to School
Recurring capital (in accordance with BOCC
adopted policy)
3,487,950
Total Amount for Schools 6,611,645
Allocation -Schools
OCS Share of Net 38.50%
2,545,483
Impact Fees 970,000
Peak Debt Service 275,581
Less: OCS portion of new HS debt (1,711,369)
TotaIOCS 2,079,695
CHCCS Share of Net 61.50% 4,066,162
Impact Fees 1,600,000
Total CHCCS 5,666,162
Allocation -County
Sales Tax 2,321,695
Equivalent of One Cent on property tax 1,162,650
Restricted - Gounty
Transfer from General Fund Human Services 50,000
Transfer from General Fund Utilities Extension 50,000
Transfer from General Fund for Lands Legacy 100,000
Total County 3,684,345
1t
1',
1f
2:
2:
z~
2:
2E
2;
2E
zs
3t
3'
3:
3;
3'
4'
4:
4:
4~
4:
4E
4.
4£
a~
5t
5'
5:
5:
5<
5`,
5f
5.
5E
5S
6t
6'
6:
6:
6'
6?
6E
4122!2005 12:17
200506 options to use for april 20 presentation0506 current
Page 1 of 1
Fiscal Year 21105-06 Capital Funding Options
Major Components
io of Policy Option 1 Option 2
Separated Between Schools and County and Reduced by Dedicated Revenues (including Property
Tax Dedicated to retire voter approved debt service, public school building f unds and school
~ ~ Debt Servic construction im act fees
Cedar Ridge Deb
and Peak Deb
12 Servic Remain with OCS Removes from OCS
Net Pay-As-You-G
~a Fund Slit 60!40 60%to Schools and 40% to Count
3 Cents Dedicated to School Recurring Capital Remains with Schools; One Cent Dedicated to
~a Recurring Capita County Capital Projects Remains with County
22
23 Debt Service:
2a Existing and Projected School Debt 13,213,672 14,925,041
25 Less: Public School Building Funds (802,000) (802,000}
26 Less: School Construction Impact Fees (2.570,000) (2,570.000}
27 Net School Debt 9,841,672 11,553,041
2a Existing and Projected County Debt 5,098,081 5,098,081
2s Less: Skills Development Center Rental j85,000) (65.000)
3o Less: Inmate Jail Fees 164,000 164,000
31 Net Coun Debt 4,849,081 4,849,081
32 Net Debt Service 14,690,753 16,402,122
ss Less: Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt
Service
14,322,698
14,322,698
Remaining Debt Service to Pay from Sales Tax
sa Revenues 368,055 2,079,424
Projected Sales Tax (March 23, 2005
35 projections) 9,586,210 9,58fi,210
Net Amount Available for School and County
Capital Projects (Projected Sales Tax less
36 Remainin Debt Service to Pa 9,218,155 7,506,786
a~ Allocation of Net Amount Available
a2 For Schools 60% 5,530,893 4,504,072
a3 For Count 40% 3,687,262 3,002,714
as Net Amount Available 9,218,155 7,50fi,78fi
as Schools
as From Above 5,530,893 4,504,072
a~
Property Tax Dedicated (3 cents) to School
Recurring capital (in accordance with BOCC
as ado ted olic) 3,487,950 3,487,950
as Total Amount for Schools 9,018,843 7,992,022
5o Allocation -Schools
si OCS Share of Net 38.50% 3,472,255 3,076,928
52 Impact Fees - -
53 Peak Debt Service 275,581 -
sa Less: OCS onion of new HS debt 1,711,369) -
ss TotaIOCS 2,036,467 3,076,928
56 Sales Tax 61.50% 5,546,588 4,915,093
57 Im act Fees - -
ss Total CHCCS 5,546,588 4,915,043
ss Allocation -County
6o Sales Tax 3,887.262 3,002,714
61 E uivalent of One Cent on ro ert tax 1,162,650 1,162,650
62 Restricted -County
6s Transfer from General Fund Human Sen+ices
6a Transfer from General Fund Utilities Extension
65 Transfer from General Fund for Lands Le ac
66 Total County 4,849,912 4,165,364
an2r2on5 1216
200506 options to use for april 20 presentation0506 options 1 & 2
Page 1 of 1
Fiscal Year 2005-06 Capital Funding Options
Major Components
10 of Policy Option 3 Option 4
11 Debt Servic Same as Option 1
12 and Peak Deb Remain with OCS Removes from OCS
Net Pay-As-You-G
13 Fund Same as Option 1
3 Cents Dedicated to School Recurring Capital Along With One Gent Dedicated to County Capital
14 Recurring Capita Projects Split 60140 Between School and County Capital
22
23 Debt Service: I
24 Existing and Projected School Debt 13,213,672 I 14,925,041
25 Less: Public School Building Funds (802,000) (802,000)
26 Less: School Construction Impact Fees {2,570,000) {2,57Q000)
27 Net School Debt 9,841,672 11,553,041
28 Existing and Projected County Debt 5,098,081 I 5,098,081
29 Less: Skills Development Center Rental (85,000) (85,000)
30 Less: Inmate Jail Fees (164,000) (164,000)
31 Net Caun Debt 4,849,081 4,849,081
32 Net Debt Service 14,690,753 16,4D2,122
Less: Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt ~
33 Service 14,322,698 ~ 14,322,698
Remaining Debt Service to Pay from Sales Tax ~
3q Revenues 368,055 i 2,079,424
Projected Sales Tax (March 23, 2005 i
35 projections) 9,586,210 ~ 9,586,21D
Net Amount Available far School and County ~
Capital Projects (Projected Sales Tax less 1
3s Remainin debt Service to Pa 9,218,155 , 7,5D6,786
37 Recurrin C ital for Schools and Count
Property Tax Dedicated (3 cents) to Schools i
Recurring Capital (in accordance with BOCC ~
38 ado ted olic 3,487,950 3,487,95D
Property Tax Dedicated to SehaollCounty i
Capital (1 cent) (in accordance with current ~
39 BOCC Ca ital Fundin alic 1,162,650 1,162,65D
Total Properly Tax Dedicated to Schaal and 1
4o Count Recurrin C ital er current oli 4,650,600 : 4,65D,600
Allocation of Net Amount Available (Including Total Property Tax
41 Dedicated to School and Gaunty Recurring Capital)
42 For Schools 60% 8,321,253 7,294,432
43 ForCoun 40% 5,547,502 4,862,954
Net Amount Available (including Recurring
qq Capital) 13,868,755 12,157,386
45 Schools
46 From Above 8,321,253 I 7,294,432
49 Total Amount for Schools 8,321,253 ~ 7,294,432
5o Allocation -Schools ,
51 OCS Share of Net 38.50% 3,2D3,682 2,8D8,356
52 Impact Fees - -
53 Peak Debt Service 275,581 -
54 Less: OCS onion of new HS debt 1,711,369 -
55 TataIOCS 1,767,894 2,808,356
56 Sales Tax 61.50% 5,117,571 4,486,075
57 Impact Fees - -
58 Total CHCCS 5,117,571 4,486,075
59 Allocation -County
60 Sales Tax 5,547,502 4,862,954
61
62 Restricted - Gounty
63 Transfer from General Fund Human Services
64 Transfer from General Fund Utilities Extension
65 Transfer from General Fund for Lands Le ac
66 Total County 5,547,502 4,862,954
4122'2005 12:18 200506 options to use for april 20 presentation0506 options 3 & 4
Page 1 of 1
Fiscal Year 2005-06 Capital Funding Options
Major Components
io of Policy O tion 5A O tion 5B O tion 5C
i ~ Debt Servic Same as O tion 1
Cedar Ridge Deb
and Peak Deb One-Half of Cedar Ridge High School Debt Remains with OCS while the other half is co-mingled in "countywide" debt service; all peak
iz Servic debt service remains with OCS
Cents Dedicated to School Recurring Capital Along With One Cent Dedicated to County Capital Projects Split 60140 Between School
Less: School Construction Impact Fees
Debt
Revenues 1,223,740 1,223,740 1,223,740
Projected Sales Tax (March 23, 2005
projections) 9,58fi,214 9,586,210 9,586,210
Net Amount Available for School and Coun
Capital Projects (Projected Sales Tax less
ax Dedicated (3 cents) to Schools
Capital (in accordance v~ith BOCC
~licvl
ax Dedicated to SchoollCounty
:entJ (in accordance v~ith current
1
Property Tax Dedicated to School and
of Net Amount Available
to School and County Re
Total Property Tax
76 options 5
Page 1 of 1
00
'nry
v v
~ h N
YY Y
O C
33¢°
U
UVo
Opa
mpa
rv $
N
m N
~`~ < o
~a~
°v u y
. C ~
~4[+
~. upi U
c 5
o~
q~
c a
^o°
oU
Om
°v
5
N
G
O
a
O
m ~
E N ~ ~
} ~
~ L O ~
U
LL ~ ~ N
:°, o} m
'n. _
m~oEE
~~~~
cU ~co
o mm~n
V C E °o
U N
~ °~ U
~ N
O ~ C }
m
fn ~ ~ U
y, U C N
O>> ~ C LL.
L' Q
m
E
E
'
~
~_ O O
O O
_
°
0
3"
'c
~ _
~`° m
o
O
= o
O o
L
U 3
O m m
>
O c
~
L
in U
~ =
in ~ O C
U-O O
'
UU O
U °
p ~ - ~
O ~ O ,p G~ G QCl C O
N O N~ m
~ N d N ~= N
OG
U U U p
' m V ~ .
C~ (
~ Ip
~ p (6
a
m N
E ~ /J
E
~ ~
. ~, ~
N N N~ C~ OU = V O ~ N
aci ~ m ~'
U N U v U :- m v- ul w ~ a
~ ~ U
N U
~ ~ O
U N C
N t0 N
~ N L O
~
O L
N L .O
N
'~
L
.~ ,. w O ~ O .
C
U N
L N
'C C O
3 N
N
.5
° O
°~ U
°
V O U
°~ N O
~ N 'O
w°~ N° U
wmD
0
l9
v E L .._
~ m o
cLi m
c
p
a~ m
~ ._
a~
m
a~
` m
(/J d ~ U N i
a
N L V ~
t C U .c
L Y O
~` y am` ,~' ~
N c ,~
N 3 a 3 v .~' 3
G V
O
0 O~
o U C
~ L O
O L N O <0
O 'O = N O C
O
p N O U
0
0 .
U p
U N
U d'
U 'cf
L +N' N ~
L L U ~~
L O C
ma °'a o~~ mo app
p O".° ~~m
m~ ~~ m 'c°~ ic
.~'a ~om ~,, o.~
O N O O O O O~ O O
X 0 0 S]
~ .
,c
v y
L
N y
Y U .. ~ L
U v
v U
, .,
`. ,~
, ~ J p a
c
~ v' m
o m co
m
a o
- c
° y
m
'
mV
o oU a
m o$ m~
°o
.c
O moa
i
OU
~u o
a
OL h
v d ° m
~ 'a m
~ 'a O
~ cp
r .
~ ~ ,o y V
~ m m~ u U m U .
~3 ~
c 3 m° °
'
~3 c
a
i `
-
N 'O N N N O N O O N N N=~ O U N
U U ~
b ~
y ~ Cl
N N
v p N G
'o m O
'08 N
'0$ p
UOp N
U c~ (0
U mV
m o U
m e
m~
~~
Z 8~
2 E~
Z O c
0.9 O. p 6 U O. U N ~} O. N~ O N
O
c c c C C
N . O
t9
m C
°
~ Ul
~O Q1
~° OJ ,
..
..
p
~O E N V~
~O
~ N 'O
~ >
ap
a
i o
U a
i u
i
U- m
U C m
U C a
i
O a
i m
O p
'
O O
N U . Z
U N U a
O L p
j U N
U U .O .Z' U~ U
t~ (~
_ N (~ N C N C wp
(7 '
' U 'O C
O U 'O
`.
~ . .~ L A O a O d
L~ .C Y .C U d
O'
O C
O
O
m~ C
m O'O N ti
m"'
~p
U E _
U O m
U m
U 'O Y O 'O w- N 'O ~ N
rnm <nE O
v~~ O
cn~ ~mU ~=~ ~vo
.c- s ~' L- .c- `m a
o `m 'o
d `m Y.c
m,..
m$
S 'a m-
2 ~° m8
S ~o m8
S ~a ~ ~ '0 ~ o ~O ~ a 3
0 m
mV ° n
m
f0 .
0 m
mV o m
mV U o
o u U ~
o u V m
o n o
°c' c
i
~ m ~ °c' ~ °c' r
~ Z ~ r
~ Z m ~ ~2 m
- C C ` 2 N' S N p S N
O ~
'O U 'O O 'O U 'O U N d C N~ .C N ,p d
N N N U N N N N C p 0 C p Y C p (0
U S U E V S U~ O '0 U O -p 3 U 'o U
N c+~ of Q ¢] U
C C C C ~ N N
O O O O G C C
a a a ~a o 0 0
O O O O
O O O
<"1 ~~. f
~ N
j o
T ~
d d
C m
m
~°,a
C
E
N
Z
N
a
N
t
O
L
m
N
c
N
c
m
d
N
00
u~{ N N
~ N N
O y
33¢°
UVo
°pv
mr~~
N ry
n~°.~=
c
Y c o
~ m 3
TyN ~ O
~v">_
@nE
~vUiU
C Q
oe
>a
U~
e~
-o
oU
U
OW
a
v
v
N
G
O
a
O
m ~
E W N
'O O ~,
~ c° o v
U
LL ~ ~ N
.+ O ~ O)
.a "' ~
U m o 0
~~~H
c U ~ co
c cmu>
U r-3o
C U j N
b~U~
m
°o ~' a i
N ~ m
`~- U C N
O C C IL
m
E
E
N
°
'0
O m
O
~
0 ~ _
O ° ~ ~
3 ~ ~
0 0 0
° o
v c c~ c
L
i ~
U .
c
~
U o c
U
O a s
U U a°
U m
p -
O ~ O ~ C~ G m G o
N O
N~ ~~ N Q N~ N~
m ~ m"a p a mm my mo
~ ~~ ~~ Eo, E~ 'Eo
N ~ N Lam' ~ .~' v
~ N D c N c U V O U N-
a°i ~ ~ 2' a°iv° °U'ci ~ ~ ern ~ ° a
U
~
L
L~
U
L
° U
N N O
U N
N f0 ~°
L l9 O
~ L ~~ ~
yT
N
L
r w
L r O ~ O L U L N N
L C O
h ~' N N L L O V7 O U O N O
~ ,G O N °O (!1 O (n Y O
' ~ N t0 y UI -O
f0
vE L .C
~°
~aci L
~aci O
°~~ "O =
mN~ `l
°~Lm
cAm E tgm m s° .ccU r"-
C ~ ~
c "'~
O N C N
O U O
O '° ° O
O '° N
O "O ~ N U C
N O N O L
U
O U N U
V
d
N ~O U V C'
N ", L^~ t 0
C L L U
"' L C
O'
m -
°' $
m c°°
°' °
~ p
U
U ~' p
O ~ U
N
U ° °
ma ~~ m. f0
` cow co~0 cc~
m O'd a
O p
o. ~ 00
~ ° L ~ LD ~~ U...U Ufn v U~v
?i .L ° 3 ° N C ~ (n
O Q'
~
m
N p ~ ~ N O ~~O O)O N !° ~ N
°
.oU
o oU 'm °" o°" mv°o
O
L ~p0
OU
~ on
1D
OL N
~a d° m
m•a m
m~a U
~t0
~ ,
~ma L(j~
~~ ~ m ~ U ~ U .
~3 ~~ .3 ~ 3 ~ a°i
Z a Z ~ 'Z ~ Z .D c ~j ~ 0
c O` o c
o a
N ' N .
O O N m L (D _
O U
O N N°
0 N~
o
Ema
E=-
' N
Eo»..
N N
' N ~
- OU NU ` N ~
d' N N
` ~ CAN
o v o m
U v$ v o ~ O i c y ~ m U
me i
ma m~ m~ 2Y`D ZE,~ 'Z O.~
a°
- ac
O am am m3-
6 a~Eo
N °E°
N
'O
C 'O 'O ~ .O 'O 'O O N N L a
U a O U
N O N N N N
~ ~ N .
QI C~
~ <6
N
~ d 'O O
~
°
mo dy m
O d~ E.m
° ~m
° >'o
-
o
Z ° ~ °o '~ d ~Z m o ~ ° o ~ U o E ~
~ L ~ ~ v° °' v~ .'~~ v~ v
w y
(n w
G y
G ~ V ~
' ~ ~ ~ ~ N 'O
.o~
O'3
~ aL
N,....
~ ,oo
dL
~ ,oo
NL
- L~
g
my N L,xo
mNU LOo
m~ a
° N ° 3 ° .. ° 2 ._. U S a p 2 o c
o c o y o 3 0 3 m ~,~ m,~" a~ ~+ °
U
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (0 ~ t0 ~ ~ U ~ t U ~ Y O
L-
Ol~ L
O)- L-
~~ L-
0)~ t0 6
O tp 'O
N ~p L
lD ....
_
= = = = UfO
~ U°D U°'m
m
mU a
m ~ m
mU m
mU i
a
v m v a n
~
or
~'
~' o
Z v o
Z o
o
~ Z m
K ~ ~ ~
O
' ~
m
N p N 0
t6 ~ (0 L N~ N j i
O
2 V = S
'
'O U ~~ -O U -O U N~ C N
p L N ,p
~.
an d m°
' ° m d m c° o ,
c° -- c° m
U~ U ~ UK UK O'o v O'o 3 O'oU
.- N <n a Q fd U
C c G G ~ N N
O O O O ^ G C
a a a o. ° 0 0
O O O O a a a
O O O
~ N
O
T N
d d
C m
m
~a
E
u
x
Z
N
°w
O
d
0
c
m
c
c
N
00
v~jN
m N
h N
33$
U
Opa
m~~
00
R$g
n ~°•~ '°
S
e ° o
N "
a
i N 2
~R~
~+ vUi U
C U
5
oe
t
<Q
O1~
ea
^o°
a U
Om
a'
a
P
e
¢"
N
C
O
.a
0
m ti
'O O~~
LL ~ 7 O N
:°. ami L
•aa> m
U ~ 0 0
~'m``~-
c U ~ ca
O C~ tD IL7
U 'E j o
C U j N
~ ~ U
m
°o ~'~}
N ~ ~ U
~„ U C N
O C C lL
Q
m
E
E
N
N
' rn
"
C
'
O O O
O O_
O
~
y' ~y
+~+ ~ SZ
,
'+-' ~
O
O °
C O
O O
L C>
] ~ C tp
~ C
~
L
i ,
p
O L
i U
U O C
U
O O O'
V 0 0
U o
n p - U
O ~ O D C~ C O=1 C Q
N N N N
u "' t9
(~ u N d ~ C
~ ~ O
l9 U N •O. U 'p, Ol N
U O1 U OI U
U
c m c_
m °' m° ~° E~' E~ EO
~
N N N j `~ ~ ~
O U O OU N.
aci~ ~+-'' mU vU w~ ~~ .N~a
U
-C
C
L
L~
U
L
° U
° O p
U N
mm d
Lm 0
O ~ ~
~.
'C
3 " L L.. O
O ~ O
O L U = (0 L C O
= N N'
~
N U N
U O U1 O U
' O N O
° U
O O N O O
O - N
~ L G L
°' 'O 'O •-
~ d
'Lm
°
<qm OE in a°i Ua
i :cam Ym
.G C U -
L .~ -
.'~' N c ~' .~' .emu c .~ 3~ 2'
3 co 3 E O
C V
~ N p N
O U C~
~ .O p~
O .q N~~
O~ _ i
N G
N~ N O L
U
U, O U ~ U V ~ '~,d' V C N U L U U Q~
m °'
m m$ m o
O) (p o,o
(O O m ~ v U m o
~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ _ ~ rA IO yT O
m~ O •a m a O a c E o c °o o c c o
'3 c 3 ~'' '3 a°i 3~ o in c o ~, tl7 m a p
O T C -O m 0 (0 O) C O) N ~O
U ~ X 0 0 0 0 p
W
° O U N a
m O a
m U O
O U L
O U~ ,
O L N
~~o ~° m•a d'o. ~~in ~ma Mau
U~ V~ UU UU ~'~d $~~ 'G'O
c
° c
o c
Z~ Z~ Z2' Z~' _~j _O _o$
N'O NN NO
0 NO
o ONN
f 01 L WL~
E== OUN
E o
U U ~
0 ~
N ~ G~
N N
~o U N C
~ d N
'° ° N
'° ~ 0
c°1i0o N
v°~ l9
v mU
me maoi m~ m~ ~w~° ZEa°i ZOc
v
° ao am am y 3~- °~ ~' ° °~ E o
.
'O U U N N O N O O
~C C~ 'O
~ 'C ~ O C .
d U d w- U
(0
°
m y C
N
o O
m ~° '
N
N
~O E ~ N
N .,.,
•° N 'O
~ >
a
i o
U
U- a
i ~
U C
U G
O d m m
O ~
0 0
N U O L N U N U ti N a U t] .~.' U~ U
d d ~ O d O L L L U N
~
m 3 L
m.J .
OL OL ~ 6
°'N m Y O
rnmU m~'O
U
E U N V U 'O Y O 'O ~ d ~~ O
U
U~ U~ O
~ N O
~ (0 ~~ U ~ L U ~ Y O
L- L ~ L-
OI ~ L-
Ol ~p O,
O ry 'O
. ~p L
.
O) ~ Ol . ~ ~ O C N O N
= = = = U°m U°~ UQO
m
or U a
°
m m
°' U m
°' U
o
~ o
`
coi ~ ~
o ~ o
c
i . o
C C C N' N N
0 =
O =
p 2
~
'
0 U ~~
U ~ U ~ U N ,p C N ,p L ~~ a
O N U1 O N N N C O O C O= C O t0
Ud: U ~ U~ UK O~o U O~o 3 O'oU
r N ~n of Q ttl U
C C G G ~ ~ ~
O O O O C C G
O O O
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0
~~
T ~
T M
a ~
c ~
~°,a
C
E
O
X
Z
N
a
E
O
N
t
N
0
°v
6
O
U
N
~ ~ N
0 s`o
'S3¢°
U
U(Ujo
Opa
mm~
V' o ~'
rv o $
N
m rv ~
{,
eQo
~¢-
N
a a_w y
Via=
a
v q
QU ~
~v~U
c m
oe
aN
a~
L n
Qo
00
a'
a
Q
N
G
O
a
O
m ~
C ~ N
a o }
~ oc o v
U
LL ~ ~ N
u ~ ~ L
•a ~ a m
U ~ 0 0
«~`~
c U ~ to
c cwu>
U'Ego
O
N
~ ~ U E
tD
O m C }
N O ~ U
~ U C N
O C C ll
m
E
E
O
0 D
~ '
0 _
_o O
o ° ~._
3 ~ m
m
0
O 0
L 0
O o
L c
O m c
~'- c
~
I to ~ ~ U
° U U °>
n - U
O ~ O ,O C~ C m
~ O
m °~ m ~ ~ ~ m 'a Oi E
a ~ o
U ~
U
U N l9
' ~
m U ~
C~ N
C~ (n
~ mp O W
'o
p "Em `~a' 'Eo
~ 'O o
y O
C U p
N C C U O U N ._
aci ~ °' ~' aci U v U ~~ w cq w ~ a
U
C
C
~
U
O U `I O
U O N
c` L O L L~
2'
`~ L '~ O ~ O L U s N 'C C O
'~+
N N=
3 O
N W O
U O U O U O N O
U
N
O C O u
O 0 N 0 N 'O U
N
O N
C (n O (n
L w
' ~ N ~0
' Y N
C
~ N
~d L
UE L C
n
°' j C
U O O '$ d
~
t
a
i d s~ rcv t
o
.~` m ~ ~' .~ .~ ~ .~ 3~ 3 ~ .~ 3 c o
C V
0 ~ N
o U C O
O
L p O
o 'O N pJ ~
o 'O N C
O N O U
O
0 .N
U o
0 o O
U °~
U~ =
L r (a ~ ~
L L U ~ U
G O C
o a
m m o. °~ °
o m °
m p
cn aci ° i~ ~. 'O .
<~ a m
~ m m ~ .D o c 2' = m .~` o .~
E~
O O .a ~ a
O p` o.
y c m o c o a c c d
O
U Z O N
N ~ p~ U O U L O
O
L„,~. U L.
. . Y U D U(n U U p V'
`
3 c 3 .Z` 3 api 3 m p) w e o ~, U d a
o
O -O C
~ -O m0 N m C mtgO
o
m U o U 'm
° o o. o
m
'c m o m
o m m c
i
UAL O U.~ U ~ rn
m'o m° m•Q m'a Y~iq wma LUu
~m ~~ o
U vU •3~
c '3 m° 3~.m
c
i i
a v
N' ~ O O 000 0L~ NU
O N N
0 N
o
E m~
E =' - N
E o
O N N~ NU NU ~ 00 ~ N N d CAN
'O U 'O ry 'O y0 'O ~ UOp U C"N" U ~U
m c m m m o m o ZL~ ~O
'- Z E .~? Z O c
mo
o me
a m
n
~ o
o
~ m
N 3 ~a mEo
m oEo
..o o . . a ~ 0 0
C
~
-C ~
C ~ N
~ G
'p U
~ w- U
f0
O C
N ry N ' N " _ N
'O ~~ U _ N
V
'a 'O N~
N
m p
U m N
U ~ O
m..
U C O
d...
U C E o
O ry ~ ~
o m
O N >'o
O O O
O
d~ m s m y ,~ v `a
L
o LO
a ~ LO
~ m
NU N~ NC NC i m
c
U~UO i
,
c
U'OO C c
i
~ V
a~ a
w a o a o L Z '¢
ory L Y o
m L v o
m
~
m 3
~N o
'03 mL
~.. mL
•o m
=..U _
m0
Sao Z
=mc
o c o N o 3 0 3 m ~,~ o,~ "'
~ m N ~
o~
L
E o E
v'~ o m
=
o om
o
L m~ c
o
O m o
:o_.~~ m
p_~a~
c
i
(n d U~ c
i
(~ N c
i
(~ N _Y
~~ U ~ L U ~~ O
L-
o L ~ L-
o L-
o
`t0
°'O
~ ~ d
.o mY
m
2 m-
2 m
2 m
2 •
o
U f0 m U o~ U °' m
~
mV a
m
o m
mU m
mU o ~ ~ o u r o v o
c
i
' ~~ ~ a _
m p ~O m Z o m Z m
~ E ~
' S N p 2 N
U C
U
'
ti S 1
/1
O ~
~ ~ O
U O V N ,~ C
C Uf .p L
C
^
' UI ~ a
C
N O N N N N N N O O .
_
~ O W
UK U ~ US US Oa o O
o 3 O~U
N M •f Q N U
C C C C ~ ~ ~
O O O O C C G
- - O O O
a a a v. - -
O O O O O O O
v"
T p
V
n y
~ rn
m
~°,a
c
E
0
x
U
N
a
u
O
L
c
0
m
a
d
n
0
c
N
c o u+
~ r
N(%1N
33°¢
U U o
Opa
ym~
~~
ry o
N
NN'~
5'[ €
" ~ O
a w ~
`c °i
4
~ q ~
~. vpi U
~}
oe
a~
5~
~ ,2
~Q
a U
Om
v
v
a
y
c
O
.a
m ~
C y ~
'v o ~.
~ L O ~
U
LL ~ ~ N
a°>m
m ~ E E
~, m o ~
c U ~ cD
U'~roo
~ o
O E N
m ~U tO
m
O ~ O }
(/) = m U
y_ U C l~
O C C IL
Q
m
E
E
N
O D
~ 'm
O _
_O 0
0 0 3
~` ~
3 3 m ~ o,
0 0 0 o c
~ c~ cc
L
~ U
to L
~ U
~ O C
U o O O'
U
j 0 0
U N
' ~
r0 'O ~O ~ G m m O
~ m ~ m ~ ~ m 'a ~ ~ m L
m ~ m'a ~a mm
U mU mm
tq
~ m~ .~
m~ 'E~' c m
~~ c
Eo
o O O
O U
N
.~ y
C N~
C p Y~
~ p ~
y U U
y U N_
N N~
C
m~ ~ ~ m U U U ~... m
~ ~.-. U w '3 'n
m y= C N C ~ U
L
m
m U ~ U m
m m ~ m L
°o L
'm ~
.Z'
.L..
3 ""' L .L.. O
O O
0 L U L ~
U L .y. C
y y y'
O 3
N ti y
0 U 0~
0 O
' O N O
p U
O G O y O~ O~ m
«
' m
O -
m A
L m
w m 'O
L m
U E L C
U~ L C
U L
U~ O
N d .
.
'O ._
N y O. d C
N
m
UJ d ~ E o
(n m U m L U L C U L
L `~ O
.~' y C E ~`.G 2
G L 3~ ~'
3 U 3 C O
C U
m O y
O U C m
L O m
O L y m~
O~ .
y m C
O fb O L
0
o
U O
U m O
U v
U 7 _
L Y N N p
L L U t6 (n
L ~ C
6
m
m m 0
m a
m `o
O~ tO m~
rno
O O C U
U m
U ~ U ""
U ~
C U Q m
U m o
~
m= C -
mm m ^
m= .~mc yj
y.am y.o,~
O`m O'n p`y 0y ~~'o ~
to Boa
.L. ~ ~ U _L~ .L.. ~ U..~ ,
U(n U U pd.
'3 c 3 .Z' 3 aoi 3 api m= c ~, tq
m o °. o
~ ,
.~U oU .~n a
o. mho moami ~poa
m m O O L O U .~ p L y
~~m ~° ~'a ~'a r
~~ ~m~ LU~
~~ ~ m mU uU .
3~~ 3 ~~ 3 c~
. ~ c c
Z~ Z ~ ~ ~ Z .~ c U
~ O o
, a a
N 'O N N N O
p y O
p .
m m m
E m.m m ,c 'o
E=_ m U t9
E m,.
'° U U I
o ~
y E C~
a
i m
'O U m C
"O m N
'O O m
-O O m
N V
U O y
m C y
U~ m
m c` U
U
Y m
m C Y
m m Y
m ry Y
N ry O
ZL.. O ~ U
~ E m _
~ O C
ao o
o a~ o
~ N~3= moo
y m E c
y
. . Q O.
'O C ~ ~ .O :D "O a a y y
C y ~
~ ~ ~ U
N m N N N m
~O N m
~O m
~O E d m -
~
~ ~ m 'O O
~ >
m o
" ray
p m
U m
u
o E o ~
-° ~
$
L O ~ ~
a o w U E~
ra
N~ N L N~ N~ U m
U U~ .~
m U~ (
j
D Y ~
~ C
~ O C
O ~
~
~ ' ~'
0 ~
L ~ m `p
L
m
~ 3 L
.o = .
.o~ d
~~ L
O_
°~y m Y O
°'~U O
mZa
y 3 2 .J U S Q O S o c
oc oy 'off 03 m~
~
' mom"' mym
v~E
v~'~
v o
v o .
.
~Om c
:° ~~' U
'o ~ m
U ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m ~ ~ U ~ L U ~ ~ O
m <0 Ol . m m O~ ~ .p O. O ~ C N 'm0 mL..
_
= = = = Um Up~ U ao
m
o~U a
m
m m
o'U m
o'U m
u ~
o ~ ~ i
o n o
c
i o
t ~ C ~ ~ C S N 'O S N p S N~
D U 'm0 O 'mO U 'm0 U N .p C N F L N~ 'O.
m m ra p m m m m C m m C m !-~ C ra m
U~ U E U~ U~ O a p O a 3 0~ U
.- N M v Q m U
c c c c ~ ~ ~+
0 0 0 o c c c
'a 'a 'a 'a o 0 0
O O O O o. a a
O O O
~~
j o
N
d N
c ~
~9a
c
E
U
N
a
U
O
c
m
m
O
N
6
O
c
H
Capital Funding Options -Staff Considerations
Prepared for the Apri120, 2005
Board of County Commissioners Work Session
Capital Funding Options ! ~
Staff Considerations
The March 31, 2005 agenda abstract, "Options for Implementing Capital Funding Policy Revisions
Including 60/40 School/County Funding Target", outlined a number of questions that staff
considered in developing the various capital funding options. Staff has developed the following
"Question and Answer" format to provide additional background information and further
explanations regarding staff considerations.
1. What funding sources are available for School and County capital funding?
The capital funding options presented to the Board to-date have included the following
funding sources to pay for School and County capital projects or debt service related to
school and county projerts,~
• Pay-As-You-Go Sources for Long Range Capital -Schools and County
• Articles 40 and 42 Sales Taxes
Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt Service on 1988, 1992, 1997 and
2001 Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds
Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt Service Related to the 2001 (and
subsequently amended) Alternative Financing Plan (most recently endorsed
by the Board on October 25, 2005
• Pay-As-You-Go Sources for Schools (Only) Long Range Capital and Debt Service
• Public School Building Funds
• School Construction Impact Fees
• Peak Debt Service (for Orange County Schools Only)
• Pay-As-You-Go Sources for County (Only) Long Range Capital and Debt Service
• Rental Income from Skills Development Center (to repay debt service on
Skills Development Center financing)
• Federal Inmate Fees (to repay debt service related to Jail and New
Courthouse Addition)
• Pay-As-You-Go Sources for School and County Recurring Capital
• Dedicated Property Tax for Schools Recurring Capital -equivalent of 3
rents on property tax rate
• Dedicated Property Tax for County Capital - equivalent of i cent on
property tax
• Debt Financing
• Current and Future Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds
Current and Future Third Party Financing Arrangements such as
Certificates of Participation (COPs), Bank Loans, Lease/Purchase, etc.
Capital Funding Options -Staff Considerations
Prepared /or the Apol 20, 2005
Board of County Commissioners Work Session
2. What is considered or referred to as "Baseline Capital Funding"?
The County's current capital funding policy (most recently updated in 1998) offers
the least amount of pa,y-as-you-go funding available for County capital projects;
therefore, staff considers "baseline funding" to be the County's current capital
funding policy. For fiscal.year 2005-06 that amount totals $3,684,345.
3. What funding sources should be included in the calculation of the 60/40 target (e.g.
dedicated sales tax, general obligation bonds, certificates of participation, private
placement, other alternative financing approaches)?
Funding sources proposed to be split 60/40 between Schools and County include:
• All proposed options (Options 1 through 5C) provide for the "Net Amount Available
for School and County Capital Projects" to be included in the proposed 60/40 split
between Schools and County. "Net Amount Available for School and County
Capital Projects" is calculated in the following manner:
i. Projected Proceeds from Articles 40 and 42 Sales Taxes
2. Plus; Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt Service on 1988, 1992,
1997 and 2001 Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds
3. Plus: Property Tax Dedicated to Retire Debt Service Related to the
2001 (and subsequently amended) Alternative Financing Plan (most
recently endorsed by the Board on October 25, 2005
4. Less: Net Debf Service
a. Net Debt Service is the sum of
i. Existing and Projected School Debt less Public School
Building Funds and School Construction Impact Fees
ii. Existing and Projected County Debt less Rental Income
from Skills Development Center (to repay debt service on
Skills Development Center financing) and Federal Inmate
Fees (to repay debt service related to Jail and New
Courthouse Addition)
• Options 3, 4, 5A, 58 and 5C allow for the amount of property tax dedicated to
Schools and County recurring capital to be added together and split 60/40 between
Schools and County. Options 1 and 2 propose that the amount of property tax
dedicated to Schools and County recurring capital to remain separate and
apart and not be split 60/40 between Schools and County.
4. What funding sources should not be included in the calculation of the 60/40 target
(e.g. school construction impact fees, Public School Building Funds)?
All of the options offered to the Board to date have allowed for projected proceeds
from School Construction Impact Fees and Public School Building Funds to offset
school related debt. Statutes and ordinances designate use of these revenues
solely for school capital projects or the repayment of school construction debt;
Capital Funding Options -Staff Considerations
Prepared for the Apri120, 2005
Board of County Commissioners Work Session
therefore, staff does not recommend splitting these revenues between School and
County capital projects.
• Likewise, on the County side of the equation, revenues from Skills Development rent
and Federal Inmate fees offset County related debt.
• With regard to recurring capital, Options 1 and 2 offer funding alternatives that
provide for the 3 cents of property tax dedicated to schools recurring capital to
remain with the schools (i.e, it is not split 60/40 between the schools and the
county). These two options also provide for the one-cent currently dedicated to
County capital to remain with County projects (namely recurring capital) and not be
included in the 60/40 split.
• On the other hand, Options 3 through 5C offer funding alternatives that provide for
the 3 cents dedicated for schools recurring capital to be added to the one cent
dedicated for County projects and the total of that funding to be allocated based on
the proposed 60/40 split.
5. Should the 60/40 target apply only on long-range capital funding or should it also
incorporate recurring capital funding (e.g. for capital projects of smaller scope or of
a routine maintenance nature)?
All of the capital funding options offered for Board consideration to date have included both
long-range capital funding as well as recurring capital funding, Should the Board wish, staff
could prepare options that include long-range capital funding only. As outlined in Item 3
above, the options presented to the Board to date have provided for two variations of
distributing recurring capital,
Options 1 and 2 offer funding alternatives that provide for the 3 cents of property tax
dedicated to schools recurring capital to remain with the schools (i.e. it is not split 60/40
between the schools and the county). These two options also provide for the one-cent
currently dedicated to County capital to remain with County projects (namely recurring
capital) and not be included in the 60/40 split.
On the other hand, Options 3 through 5C offer funding alternatives that provide for the 3
cents dedicated for schools recurring capital to be added to the one cent dedicated for
County projects and the total of that funding to be allocated based on the proposed 60/40
split.
6. Does the 60/40 target apply only to the period 2005-15, or should it be applied on a
rolling basis to each subsequent ten-year CIP period until the BOCC makes a formal
decision to change the policy?
Staff has not included a recommendation for this consideration,° that maybe an area that
the Board wishes to consider as it approves future Capital Investment Plans.
Capital Funding Options -Staff Considerations
Prepared /or the Apri120, 2005
Board of Counly Commissioners Wodc Session
7. If the Board of Commissioners makes decisions that increase or decrease the
amount of total capital funding expected to be available during the ten-year period
(e.g. future bond referenda), is the 60/40 target to be recalculated to reflect the new
total?
Staff has not included a recommendation for this consideration; that maybe an area that
the Board wishes to consider as it approves future Capital Investment Plans.
8. If such a recalculation is to be made, when should that take effect (e.g. with the
development of the next ten-year CIP update or immediately)?
Staff has not included a recommendation for this consideration; that maybe an area that
the Board wishes to consider as it approves future Capital Investment Plans.
9. Should the provision in the current capital funding policy, requiring the Orange
County Schools to fund from its pay-as-you-go capital funding allocation that portion
of debt service payments for Cedar Ridge High School that exceed the $12.5 million
in voter-approved bond funding for the project, be removed from a revised capital
funding policy?
Of the capital funding options presented to the Board to-date,
• Options 1 and 3 provide scenarios where Orange County Schools' portion of Cedar
Ridge High School debt service remains with the school district.
• Options 2 and 4 offer alternatives where Orange County Schools' portion of Cedar
Ridge High School debt service is removed from the school district and combined
with all of the County's school related debt service.
At the April 14, 2005 work session, Commissioner Jacobs requested staff to provide
additional options that provided for one-half of the Orange County Schools portion of Cedar
Ridge High School debt service to remain with the school district and combine the
remaining one-half with all of the County's school related debt service. As outlined below,
Options 5A throtfgh 5C offer three funding alternatives that allow for Commissioner Jacobs'
request.
• Option 5A -One-half of Cedar Ridge High School debt remains with Orange
County Schools while the other half is combined with all of the County's school
related debt service; all peak debt service remains with Orange County Schools.
• Option 58 -One half of Cedar Ridge High School debt remains with Orange
County Schools while the other half is combined with all of the County's school
related debt service; one-half of peak debt service remains with Orange Gounty
Schools.
Option 5C -One half of Cedar Ridge High School debt remains with Orange
County Schools while the other half is combined with all of the County's school
related debt service,° peak debt service is removed from Orange County Schools
portion of the funding equation.
Capital Funding Options - SfaN Considerations
Prepared for the April 20, 2005
Board of County Commissioners Work Session
10. Directions from Commissioners
• Simplify current capital funding poligy
• Provide additional resources for
• Repair, maintenance and upkeep of existing County facilities
^ Additional County space and facilities
• Funding target of 60 percent of rapital expenditures for school projects and 40
percent for county projects
11.Overlying Assumptions
• Conservative estimates for safes tax growth
^ No growth in the first year of the plan (2005-06)
^ 1 percent annual growth for fiscal.years 2006-07 through 2008-09
^ 2 percent annual growth for fiscal years 2009-10 through 2014-15
• Debt service projections include currently programmed debt only (based on
BOCC endorsed October 25, 2004 Debt Issuance Schedule)
• Allows for redistribution of $12,8 million from CHCCS Elementary #10 to other
school and county projects expected to need additional funding in the next one to
three ,years (presented at April 14, 2005 work session)
^ Examples include OCS Middle School #3, CHCCS High School #3, Senior
Centers
• Additional $12.8 million needed for CHCCS Elementary #10 (projected opening
fiscal year 2009-'10 per most recent SAPFO membership projections) not
included in debt service projections
^ To be factored into updated Debt Issuance Schedule to be presented
before .tune 30, 2005
• Timing of additional debt (for example items identified in the 2005 County Space
Needs Updafe) will also be considered in the updated Issuance Schedule
12. How were the construction cost estimates that were included in the 2005 Orange
County Space Needs Update (presented March 31, 2005) calculated?
Future construction cost estimates for the facilities outlined in fhe County Space Needs
Update presented to the Board on March 31, were based on $200 per square foot.
1~ ,_ I }r~ I_~
i "i b
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
RESEARCH & ANALYSIS
• Fall 2003 presentations, work sessions, public hearings on
potential school merger impacts and funding equity
• September 15, 2003 staff report -appendices reflect
hypothetical financial and taxation impacts under various
funding equity scenarios
• Equity/merger actions reserved pending results of three
education initiatives
• Educational Excellence Work Group - UNC School of
Education study of resources
• School Collaboration Work Group -regular facilitated
meetings of Chairs, Vice Chairs, Superintendents,
Manager
• County/School Efficiency Study -Robert Segal, CPA
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
CONSIDERATIONS.
Main factor affecting funding equity is approximate
annual proceeds of $13 million from CHCCS special
district tax
At some point in the future, BOCC must define
"equity" so that ultimate target will be clear
. Absolute funding equity (e g local or total annual per pupil
funding identical between school systems)?
Programmatic equity (e g. all OCS &CHCCS students with
access to all of each systems programs)?
. Or -somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum,
and/or some combination of funding and programmatic
equity?
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
'' SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
If effort is to be made to narrow the local per pupil
funding gap, there are three main approaches
prescribed in NC statutes available to BQCC:
1. Levy countywide supplemental tax
2. Levy Orange Oounty Schools supplemental district tax
3. Increase countywide property tax rate
First two approaches require majority approval in
referendum of voters to establish authority to levy
tax; due to time constraints, cannot be
implemented before 2006-07
Third approach could be used for 2005-06
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
2005-06 CURRENT EXPENSE CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
^ FY2004-05 per pupil appropriation of $2,623 as
foundation
^ Potential increases in Countywide property tax
rate for:
Tier I -funding to address mandates/obligations (e.g. local
match for State teacher pay & benefit increases)
Tier II -funding (if any) to restore certain State education
budget cuts
Tier III -funding to address some portion of OCS staffing and
programming constraints identified in Educational Excellence
report (all or some of resulting per pupil increase for CHCCS
could be offset by reductions to CHCCS district tax)
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
2005-06 CURRENT EXPENSE CONCEPTUAL
''' FRAMEWORK
^ Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to establish mutual
expectations of how Tier III funds would be used
^ If major needs might go unfunded, consider mechanisms
outside of current expense appropriation, such as:
• Contracts for nursing and social worker support
• Contract with Durham Tech & schools far middle
ccllege program
. As an alternative, NG statutes permit school appropriations
"by purpose, function, or project"
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE REPORT
Recommendations for Increasing OCS Resources
Pre Kindergarten -12'h Grade
1 Increased Provision of Social Workers
2. Increased Resources for Exceptional Children (EC)
Specialists in OCS
3 Improved Transportation for After-School Programs for
OCS
4 District Resources for Grants and Data
5 Subject Area Specialists (Curriculum Alignment,
Development, Implementation)
6 Increased Resources for Pre-School Services
3
~ P'°:.
.6- t ~~_a,_n~(i ~~' ~
Orange County/Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Study,
Descripfiion and Analysis of Educational Resources
Executive Summary
In response to a request from the Orange County Commissioners, a research team
from the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conducted a
study to assess the educational resources available to students in the Orange County
Schools (OCS) and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). We reviewed North
Carolina Report Card Qata and data provided on request from the school districts. We also
visited and interviewed every school principal in both districts, We met with the
Educational Excellence Work Group, comprised of the two school superintendents, County
Commissioners, County Manager and Assistant Manager, and a representative from the
Public School Forum for guidance and direction and to check the accuracy of our findings.
Resources
These are two excellent school districts, working with energy, dedication, and
careful judgment to educate diverse student bodies. The local school tax in Chapel HiII and
Carrboro generates over 12 million dollars a year for CHCCS schools that is not available to
OCS schools. Although the salary supplement for the most experienced teachers in CHCCS
is higher thnn in OCS, salaries below that stage are genernlly commensurate, and each
district is staffed with accomplished and well-credentialed teachers, The local funds
available to CHCCS support, however, a number of specialists to provide instruction and
support to students. Their presence permits greater attention to individual students as
well ns nlleviating some of the strain made by multiple demands on the time and attention of
the general classroom teachers and school administrators,.
Both districts mirror the national emphasis on early education and elementary school
literacy, investing extensive district resources in reading specialists in the elementary
schools. At the elementary level CHCCS have more assistants in classrooms and literacy
specialists available to work with students. OCS have hired three extra teachers for
grades 3-5 and hnve been able to keep class size smaller on average by three students than
3-5 classes in CHCCS. Given the larger proportion of economically disadvantaged children in
OCS, it is significant that the literacy achievement, as measured by End of Grade (EOG)
proficiency test performance among the elementary school children of both districts, is
almost comparable. This parity in achievement at the elementary school level raises the
question of what further resources are necessary to support the learning of OCS students
as they make the transitions from elementary school to middle school and high school,.
Despite the fact that the two OCS middle schools have larger student populations
than the four CHCCS middle schools, there are fewer specialists available to work with OCS
students, and class size is Inrger, These distinctions have some import, because it is also at
this juncture that the achievement scores of OCS students begin to dip below those of
CHCCS students. Whereas reading achievement was somewhat even between the two
districts at the elementary level, in middle schools the district scores diverge.
Achievement
Although reading and mathematics scores for 6th graders dip, they rebound in
literacy, though less in OCS than CHCCS. In mathematics where CHCCS stays constant,
OCS scores continue to decline in middle school. Both districts register 95% of their grade
5 students at or above grade level on mathematics EO6 tests. CHCCS students Ieve) off in
the sixth grade at about 93%, a Ieve) sustained through middle school, while OCS students
decline steadily in middle school, meeting the statewide level of 85% at the end of eighth
grade. These differences are extended into high school with CHCCS getting higher scores
on End of Course (EOC) tests in Geometry, Chemistry, Biology, ELPS, History and English.
SAT scores for high school students in CHCCS are markedly higher than for OCS;
participation rates are substantially higher for CHCCS as well
Even though high schools in CHCf,S have larger populations than in OCS (1740 and
1546 to OCS populations of 899 and 948), the ratios of counselors to students in CHCCS,
1:250 and 1:258 are lower than they are in OCS, where they are 1:300 and 1:316. CHCCS
report 35 counselors in total, and OCS report 17. It is important to note that in many
schools counselors assume the responsibility for the scheduling, oversight, and
implementntion of testing, administrative tasks that take up time that they might be
spending with students. This might partially explain why dropout figures reported in 2002-
2003 for 9ih-12th graders show 5.81% for OCS and .99 for CHCCS.. Across the state the
percentage is 4,78. NC and CHCCS dropout percentages hove been diminishing for the past
few years; whereas the OCS rate fluctuates: 5.2% in 2001-02, 4,.22% in 2002-03, and
5.81% in 2003-04.
Both CHCCS and OCS usually out perform the state on EOG achievement test scores
across important educations) sub-groups (i e., Male, Female, White, Black, Hispanic,
American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Multi-racial, Economically Disadvantaged, Not
Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities),
Both districts have exhibited marked improvement in the EOG scores of their Black and
Economically Disadvantaged students at rates greater than the NC rate from 2002-0303 to
2003-2004.
One of the greatest differences between the school districts is the percentage of
their students who are categorized as exceptional because of a learning disability, or an
emotional or behavioral problem. Although the total student population of OCS is 40%
fewer than CHCCS, its population of students with disabilities is 12% larger: 1,138 (or 17.6%
of the total student population) in OCS, and 1333 (or 11,7% of the total student population)
in CHCCS. It is interesting to note that the OC.S Exceptional Children (EC) numbers of
17.6% are well above the national average which usually runs about 12% of the school
population. This finding invites further scrutiny in order to determine whether this larger
proportion of children identified as having special needs reflects over-classifying or under-
serving these students.
The most striking achievement disparity that we have observed is the significantly
lower achievement of OCS students with disabilities compared to the achievement of
CHCCS students with disabilities, The percent of middle school special needs students at
or above grade level on EOG achievement tests in CHCCS is 63.1%; in OCS it is 49.4% We
may assume that the number of exceptional children's teachers and assistants in CHCCS
working with these students as well as the personnel available to coordinate this work in the
schools and central office may ploy a factor in the achievement of these children.
Curriculum leadership is important for the continued development of instruction in
these districts. OCS schools have significantly fewer central office staff to guide text
book adoption, development of instruction, analysis of district data, and professional
development than CHCCS, This distinction in curriculum leadership is critical because of
the challenges facing these districts: the need to align curriculum across the district, and
to assure that it prepares students for proficiency examinations; the need to balance
instruction focused on proficiency with instruction for deep understanding and cognitive
fluency; the support of all students in heterogeneous and inclusive classes through
differentiated curricula; and access to and utilization of research that provides analysis of
extant materials and methods and proposes improved methods of instruction.
Recommendations
Increasing OCS Resources Pre K-12
L Increased Provision of Social Workers
Given the individualized instruction and support that children with special needs
require, OCS needs more specialists to work with students at every level of the system.
Acknowledging the difficulty of finding resources to increase the number of certified EC
teachers to work with students, we recommend that the county explore how to increase the
number of social workers for every Orange County school. Perhaps the County can use same
portion of social service funding to provide this support for students.
Z. Increased Resources for Exceptional Children (EC) Specialists in OCS
Social workers will alleviate some of the strain that OCS schools deal with as they
work to support students in crisis, But at every level of OCS this system needs to be
buttressed. Student Assistance Teams need training, crisis intervention counselors need to
be present.. Analysis of the referral system is needed to ensure that there is not a process
of over-identification. Support for students still struggling with literacy needs to be
extended into middle schools and high schools.
3. Improved Transportation for After-Schao/Programs for OG'S
Tn families where both parents are working it is often difficult to provide the
private transportation needed for attendance at after school programs. Often the children
who need the extra support and enrichment of the after school programs are those least
able to get access to it. Whereas CHCCS use their busses to provide transportation to
after-school programs nt all their middle schools and hnve access to free public
transportation, OCS lacks similarly reliable resources.
4. District Resources for Grants and Data
An investment in an OCS central office staff research position for someone who will
provide and analyze data will also make it possible for district leadership to better assess
resources and needs,
5. Subject Area Specialists
Although schools in both districts experience drops in achievement scores as
students move from 5'h to 6'h grades, there is insufficient staff at the OCS central office
to facilitate curriculum alignment, a process that could diminish the inconsistencies in
preparation that undermine students' success as they make that transition. Furthermore,
OGS district lendership needs to be available to share the exemplary work at Stanford
Middle School with its feeder schools and with other schools in the area of reading.. Tt also
needs to provide additional support to elementary and middle school teachers in the
development and implementation of mathematics curriculum to improve the achievement of
OCS students. Curriculum development and leadership is also on area where asking CHCCS
specialists to work with OCS schools, sharing professional development resources, and best
practices among schools in both districts could be mutually beneficial.
6. Increased Resources for Pre-Schoo/Services
By blending federally supported preschool programs with a tuition based program,
CHCCS not only makes its programs available to more families it also provides a cohort
experience for all children that is culturally diverse, We encourage OCS to increase its
programs with this option.
Communication and Collaboration Between Districts
7 Increased Access to High School Courses Across Districts
OCS students should have access to CHCCS Advanced Placement (AP) courses that
may be different from OCS offerings, or that may be available when OCS courses are not
offered, Reciprocally, CHCCS students interested in OCS courses that are not offered in
CHCCS should have access to them, notably AP and Honors courses as well as courses in the
Career Tech Program area of the OCS curriculum. In addition, CHCCS should have access
to OCS programs that offer certificates that qualify students for employment directly
after graduation.
8. Development of Shared Nomenclature
Collaboration between the two school districts to arrive at a similar nomenclature
for personnel positions would greatly clarify efforts to study and compare resources,
9 increased Collaborative Professions/ Deve%pment Across Districts
The UNC-Chapel Hill School of Education's Center far Educational Excellence may
provide a place as well as facilitation for collaborative professional development ventures
between the districts, extending some of the collaboration that already takes place under
the auspices of the Research Triangle Schools Partnership,. We recommend that this
proposal be explored by the CHCCS, OCS, the UNC-Chnpel Hill School of Education, and the
Center.
r
1 ~ ~~:t~: ;...:1~ i };r
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27510
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
for Instructional Services
Raymond J. Reitz
Chief Technology Officer
Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Services
TO: Moses Carey, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Jolul Link
Orange County Manager
FROM: Lisa Stuckey, Chair
Board of Education
Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
RE: Follow-up to the Educational Excellence Report
DATE: April 13, 2005
Madeleine Grumet presented the Educational Excellence report to the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools Board of Education at its meeting on Apri17, 2005. Board members
appreciated that the information had been compiled into one document and allowed for
comparisons between the two school dish~icts. The Board did not take a formal position on the
report or its findings.
During the discussion of the report, Board members indicated that it confirmed
perceptions they held. Due to the 20-cent district tax levied on the citizens living in the Chapel
Hill-Carrboro City Schools' district, the district has more resources than the Orange County
Schools in many areas.. This is particularly true in the area of instructional specialists. On the
other hand, the Orange County Schools have used some of their resources differently to create
smaller class sizes in the elementary grades. Board members further acknowledged the apparent
relationship between sufficient educational resources and high academic achievement.
Board Member°s did not see any major implications for our school district. Dr. Grumet
indicated that the study did not allow for the dt°awing of causal relationships or for conclusions
about what should he done differently in the Chapel Hill-Can-boro City Schools.
The Board looks forward to the Board of County Commissioners' response to Dr.
Grumet's report.
~~'"°~- ®r~nge ~Courrtp ~c~jool~
~~ ~~ o+ 200 ~a~t ding street
_~ ~i[l~~or0ug~j, ~~C 27278
~?4
w~/
-~ i~r!
.;
Dr. Shirley Carraway
Superintendent
April 21, 2005
Mr. John Link, County Manager
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Link and County Commissioner Members:
(919) 732-8126 Telephone
(919) 732-8120 Fax
www.orange.lcl2.nc.us
lrr preparation for the joint mee$ing of the Board of County Commissioners, the Orange County Schools'
Board of Education and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools' Board of Education, I submit the
following update on the two items scheduled on the agenda.
Update on Orange County Schools' Middle School #3
The groundbreaking occurred on November 30, 2004. The project was bid in two parts: (1) Early Site-
worlc Package, with bids opened October 12, 2004; and (2) Building Construction Package, with bids
opened December 7, 2004. The Pre-Construction Conference was conducted on February 14, 2005,
which was attended by all project managers and field superintendents for each contractor on the project.
All contractor bonds have been received.
The Eazly Site-work phase of the project was completed on March 24, 2005, one week ahead of the
originally scheduled completion date.. The general contractor for the Building Construction Phase of the
project, J.H. Allen, began work on March 28, 2005. The building pad and panting lots have been staked-
out, and foundation rebaz has been set and concrete poured.
Additionally, the entire project is balanced between the school site and the soccer complex, which means
that no additional fill material was required. Weekly coordination meetings (with school district and
county representation present) have been held on-site since the start of the Early Site-work phase and will
continue until the project is completed.
Currently, there are three pending issues in various states of resolution: 1) the driveway locations for the
school and soccer complex require NCDOT approval in order to meet sight-distance requirements; 2) the
projected completion date for the sewer/water project is August 2006; and 3) the path for the Duke Pawer
transmission lines into the site requires an adjustment, which the school district nor the county is
responsible for financing.
Link John & Orange Counter oard of County Commissioners Paee 2 April 21.2005
Update on Educational Excellence Workerouo Report
The Orange County Boazd of Education has scheduled L)r. Madeleine Grumet to present a summary of
the Educational Excellence Report to the Boazd and the community at 6:00 p.m, on April 25. Board
members and the community will then engage in substantive conversation regarding the report.
Preliminary Boazd review finds the report affirming needs previously identified in Orange County
schools. The report validates many of the issues and concerns addressed in the district's Five Yeaz
Strategic Plan, the Middle School Task Fome Report Recommendations and information evidenced from
the ongoing study of our high schools. Following her presentation the Boud will conduct a public
hearing on the 2005-06 proposed budget.
Our district's goal is to insure that all students in Orange County Schools have the resources needed to
enable them to acquire the kind of quality education required to compete in an extremely competitive
society.
Sincerely, n
~~ \~~~~~
Shirley Carraway, Ed,D.
Superintendent
/pmc
cc: Orange County Boazd of Education
^ S !'^
")
/ f ` ~'.~_._ i ~ 1. ,'
t
i c ®®1 ®m
~ ~tat~~ ~~~®r~
~1lapel I-fill®~~rr~b®rc~ City ~chc~®1.s
Jc~irt~ eetirt~
April 26, 2005
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the status of high school
no. 3 and the efforts the Board has undertaken to make it one of the top high
schools in the country, both academically, physically and environmentally, This
will be the first high school built under the Board's rigorous environmental
policy for high performance schools, Policy 9040. We would encourage the
reader to visit www.chccs.lQ2.nc.us to explore one of the nation s most
progressive building policies,
A Brief History
High school no. 3 has been in the development stage since 2001 and is projected
to open in August 2007. This new high school will relieve the overcrowding
currently experienced at Chapel Hill High School and East Chapel Hill High
School. Presently both high schools are 385 students over capacity and 22 mobile
units are provided for the additional student membership.
After a lengthy site selection process, the site on Rock Haven Road was
designated for the new high schooh The Board was adamant that the school be
built near where the students live, and with two high schools in the north, a
southern location was preferred, The Board selected this site, in part, to reduce
travel time for cars and buses, and to encourage wall<ers and bike riders. While
the initial cost of the site was substantially greater than the Twin Creeks site to
the North, the advantages over time clearly outweighed the first time cost factor,
A community committee was selected and convened in September 2003 to guide
the design process, The committee included parents, students, teachers,
principals, neighborhood representatives, elected officials and staff members
from Orange County and the Town of Carrboro, The Town of Carrboro was ably
represented by Patricia McGuire and Diana McDuffie. The committee worked
throughout the year examining the program, the amenities and the "feel" of the
new high school, They approved the concept plan in May of 2004 and that plan
was presented to the Board of Education for approval in September 2004, The
architects then undertook the task of preparing the plans for final submission to
the Town of Carrboro, An earlier presentation to the Board of Aldermen was
made on June 8, 2004 to keep the Aldermen informed of the design process,
Initial conversations concerning a conditional use permit were held with
Carrboro in 2003 before the formal submission was made in January 2004,
Size
The design of the building had several critical parameters that were reviewed
during the design process; those are listed below for your review.
• Initial Student Capacity 800
• Expanded Student Capacity 1,200
• Initial Staffing 100
• Expanded Staffing 128
• Initial Square Footage 162,185
• Additional Squaze Footage 45,000
• Total Sq. Ft. at Build Out 207,185
Floor Plans
The basic plan calls for a two story, compressed and compact design that will
lower the impact of the building on the site. Smart Growth principles calling for
a reduction of sprawl and lengthy corridors were incorporated by using a spoke
design with wings coming off a commons area, with every area being anchored
by the commons and the media center.
~;
w;
~.
_:
Ue
Y. ~4
r Q ~ / _
., .... ... . ~-. .: , ... ~ M
o
~~// _~~
J ~- M --~ ~
~,
+'~ ~ ~VEPALL BP4 «...«
rwowrurv pPTION 1 ~~" I°~
Flm none s.r. suepes
^ mmiawwno s.r. emx.ies
az.y
The second floor of the design includes classroom space as well as a guidance
and student support area. The elevated walkway will provide connections
between the two wings and will facilitate the addition of the third academic wing
sometime in the future.
1° 1;~1
~~~=
, .~ \-~~
~~\ ~ ~` `~
\ .
`
~~
_i..
OVEPALL SECONO
aooevwN .__.
soc_aEioor s.F_=u,vaq, __ ,_ _
°~ OPTIONS 1, 2, 3 & 4
The Feel
One of the major tasks that the design committee faced was designing a school
that fit into and blended with the other large structures in the Town of Carrboro.
Pictures of Carr Mill Mall and Main Street were taken and incorporated into the
planning process. The pich>res below show some of the relationships developed
during that process. The committee also felt strongly about making the school a
centerpiece for the Town, The entrance to the school will not only highlight the
architectural feahtres familiar to those in Carrboro but also place the areas used
by the community, the gym, auditorium and media center, in the front of the
building with easy access to them.
_ _ _ _ ~~-'
~ ,
~':
U:
wo
~~
_~
c= !
Q= II
J• IIc
~.~°"
e
0
z ~
O ~~
~ 33
= so
~ is
S ~~
A2.2
The tall windows of Carr Mill Mall aze
redesigned into the front and back of the
new high school featuring the curved taps
and multi. pane glass, The day lighting
windows also resemble the second floor
windows at Carr Mill. Panzenella
Restaurant served as a model for the dining
hall at the new high schooh
ti~/1 ~ r
The architectural overhang of Carr Mill is
also preserved in the high school. The brick
ribbon architectural feature of the mall is
preserved in the use of overhangs for entry
ways and walkways at the schooh The
upper level day lighting windows also
resemble the second floor of the mall.
.ti
Policy 9040 and compliance
The following section will highlight those areas that have been designed into the
new high school that comply with the Boazd's policy for high performance
schools, Each is simply meant to be an overview and more detail is available
upon request. It should be noted that these features have already been designed
iztto the building and are not add ons to the program.
Alternative Transportation
® Provides bicycle racks and shower facilities for use by 10% of
occupants
Storm water Management - Peal< Discharge Rate and Voltune
o Provides storm water detention via temporary storage inbio-retention
areas and constructed wetlands to ensure the post-development peak
runoff rate does not exceed the pre-development rate
® Provides storm water retention and re-use via temporary storage in
constructed wetlands and re-use as irrigation water on athletic fields to
ensure the post-development peak runoff volume does not exceed the
pre-development volturze
Storm water Management -Water Quality
® Provides storm water management system to remove total suspended
solids (TSS) and total nitrogen (TN) from storm water rtmoft generated
by the first inch of rainfall through utilization of constructed wetlands,
bio-retention areas, open channel practices, re-use and other methods
Special Rain Collection System
® A rainwater collection system is being used to capture rainwater from
the roof to reduce the amount of potable water needed for water closet
and urinal flushing, make-up water for the cooling towers and athletic
field irrigation, A 100,000 gallon cistern will collect filtered rainwater
from the 120,000 square feet of roof. The water will then be pumped
back into the building for reuse, The cistern is being sized larger than
needed to allow for periods of drought. Over 1,200,000 gallons of
rainwater will be reused each year, This is 1,200,000 gallons less of
potable water use. This also reduces the impervious area of the site by
approximately 15% although the reduction is not allowed in the
approval process. For comparison purposes, this reduction in
impervious surface is equal to 450 parking spaces, A further
comparison shows that providing compact parking spaces for 40% of
the parking areas would only reduce impervious area by less than 1%,
Site Disturbance and Use
® The development footprint has been reduced to preserve a minimum
of 30% of the site in undeveloped space and maintain natural buffers
along streams, floodplains and wetlands
• The plan provides shade on at least 30% of non-roof impervious
surfaces to reduce heat islands
Architectural and Mechanical Systems
• Reflective roof surfaces will be used to reduce heat islands' impact on
microclimate and to reduce solar heat gain
• Low E glass will be used in windows to promote day lighting while
minimizing heat loss and gain
• Water closets, urinals and lavatories will have sensors for flush valve
and water flow control.
• Chilled water systems provide very low kilowatt/ton of cooling,
relative to other air cooling systems
• The proposed central heating equipment will use two gas fired
condensing boilers. These units are highly efficient, particularly at
partial loading,
• A minimal number of large, modular, double wall, variable air volume
air handling units will be installed. The units will be configured for air
economizer operation to reduce energy consumption during mild
weather. Variable air volume systems consistently provide the lowest
life cycle cost,
• Most motors will be provided with variable frequency drives that will
reduce energy consumption for motors operating at part load
• Two solar hot water collectors will be used to reduce nahxral gas use
and to reduce heater installation costs.
Electrical Systems
• Occupancy sensing switches will be installed in the classrooms to turn
off lights in empty rooms,
• Light level sensors will be installed to reduce artificial light levels
when sufficient daylight is available
• T8 lamps and electronic ballasts, compact fluorescent, some HID
sources will be used to provide high efficiency lighting systems.
Day lighting
• The entire second floor and parts of the first floor will feature day
lighting, the use of natural light for lighting classrooms,
• This feature, coupled with the use of low kilowatt chilling systems, T-8
lighting and sensors will reduce kilowatt use dramatically. In
comparison to other schools in the district, this would egxxal a 30%
kilowatt savings.
Using district kilowatt data, this would equate to a savings of 800,000
kilowatts per year, According to the EPA, this electrical avoidance
would provide the following emissions reductions.
0 1,200,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year
0 4,640,000 grams of sulfur dioxide per year
0 2,000,00 grams of nitrogen oxide per year
• The emissions saved by this reduction is the equilvent of eliminating
888,000 vehicle miles driven per year.
Parking
The original design had 420 spaces paved during the initial construction phase.
That was changed for the initial CUP submittal to 328 paved in phase one and 92
additional spaces in phase two, reducing areas of impervious surface in phase 1.
The 328 number is significantly less than the Orange County Construction
Standards. As the chart below indicates student parking has been reduced
significantly by 83 spaces, a 31 percent reduction.
Parking Analysis Phase I
Planned Student Capacity 800
Orange County Standard 267
Initial CHCCS Smart Grawth Reduction 200
Additional CHCCS Amendment B Reduction 184
Proposed Student Parking 184
Proposed Staff Parking '100
Proposed Visitor Parking 44
Total Proposed Parking 328
Upon further review, we have eliminated the request for the additional student
parking in Phase lh That would result in only 328 total parking spaces, While
there is no further reduction in Phase 1, efforts to find other ways to get students
to school will have a chance to work. before simply adding more parking, When
the addition is constructed, the shzdent enrollment will grow to 1,200 and the
staff will grow to 128, Without additional staff parking some downward
adjustment to shzdent parking will be required, The Board would reserve the
right to request a modification to the CUP in the future if growth or other
meastues warrant an increase.
The Board is sensitive to the neighborhood concerns about spill over parking on
Ray Road and the apartment complexes on Rock Haven Road. We feel that the
328 spaces requested will provide an opportunity to determine the sufficiency of
this capacity before considering additional parking,
Event parking is another consideration for the site, For Open Houses, rivalry
games, large concerts and commtmity events, adequate parking is required, The
pictures below show the overflow parking at an Open House at CHHS, We
believe that the 328 spaces may accommodate event parking, if overflow parking
can take place in the bus loop and the stack space of the Kiss and Go lane, To
lower the spaces any more would jeopardize community and school events as
well as the security of surrounding neighborhoods.
The Board of Education, through Policy 9040, also wanted to focus on reducing
vehicle miles traveled or (VMT). A major purpose in locating the school in the
south of the district was to reduce driving time and distance, Based on current
ridership data at the high schools, the mere location of the building off Rocl<
Haven will save in excess of 750,000 vehicle miles traveled annually. Another
concern was to get students to school and to keep them there. Starting in 2005-
2006, off campus privileges for 1Lmch will be restricted to seniors. That will
significantly reduce traffic during lunch tune,
An analysis of ridership at our present high schools indicates that 33% of the
students ride a bus, 32% drive themselves and 35% are brought by their parents,
To reduce Vlvf'Ts even further at the new high school, several efforts need to be
made.
1, Encourage students to ride the school bus, There is no more efficient or
safer way for students to get to and from school. The average bus trip in
the district is less than 25 minutes, substantially less than that of public
transportation.
~2, Provide adequate parking for students in order to reduce round trips by
parents. One parking space reduces VMTs by 50 % if the parent otherwise
would bring the student to school in the morning and pick him up in the
afternoon,
3. Encourage the use of public transportation to and from school. While
public transportation does not serve several areas that the school will
draw shrdents from, any use of public transportation reduces VMTs,
Emergency Shelter
The building has also been designed as an emergency shelter for use during
natural disasters. The gym, including shower rooms, the kitchen and commons
area will have power provided by a built in generator so that hot meals can be
served and heat provided during the winter, This design is modeled after Smith
Middle School which was used as a shelter during the last ice storm. The Red
Cross and the community had high praise for the facility and the comfort level it
provided,
Community ZJse
The new high school is being designed with community use in mind, While the
use of athletic facilities is usually hampered by the large number of teams at a
school, the commons area, media center and auditorium are used constantly, The
building has been designed to allow community use of the building while
securing classroom and other areas, A group could use the auditorium without
concern for the classroom wings and people wandering where they shouldn't be.
Last year over 100,000 people used the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City School
facilities, logging over 12,000 hours of community use, These large levels
demonstrate the District's commitment to providing the community with a full
service facility.
Construction Schedule
The schedule continues to tighten but has not reached the critical stage at this
point. It is hoped that CUP approval and a building permit can be obtained by
June 2005. After a meeting with the Board of Alderman, The Board of Education
put the building out for bid in March 2005. The pre-bid meeting was held on
March 29, 2005 and bids were opened on April 18, 2005. Construction would
begin in July 2005. This would allow a 20 month construction period, a 3 month
punch list completion time frame and a 2 month beneficial occupancy and move
in period, In other projects the move in time has been extended by moving into
areas that have completed the punch list thus creating a rolling occupancy
schedule, This schedule would allow the high school to open in August 2007, The
Board of Education agenda item is included in its entirety at the end of this status
report,
The presentation of bids and a request to ask the County Commissioners for
additional funds will be made on Apri121, 2005. The public hearing on high
school # 3 by the Board of Aldermen has been scheduled for April 26, 2005, The
request for additional funding for high school #3 from the BOCC is tentatively
scheduled for May 3, 2005.
Prereq r Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Credit r Site Selection
Creditz Development Density
credit3 Brownfield Redevelopment
Required
t
1
LEED Certification
The Board of Education will apply for LEED certification for HS #3.
A level of silver will be targeted and will validate the Board of Educations
efforts to build sustainable, environmentally responsive schools in
Orange County.
credit s.l Stormwater Management, Rate and Quantity t
credits2 Stormwater Management, Treatment ~
Why LEED?
®Validates 9040 as one of the most progressive policies in the nation. His
is the standard, not a one time project.
® Demonstrates the commitment to a positive learning environment for
students, parents and teachers.
® High School No. 3 is already a high performance school, the hard work
is already done.
®Provides third party validation for claims
®Provides a definite trail of documentation.
Yes 7 No
4 3 ~
Rereq r Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning Required
Currently:
® Only (1) LEED certified school in NC (Third Creek Elementary)
® No LEED certified High Schools in Southeast (FL, GA, NC, SC, TN)
^ ('i) Registered High School in NC (Guilford County)-Not certified
credita Ozone Depletion t
credit 5 Measurement & Verification ~
credits Green Power ~
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Telephone: (919)967-8211
Fax: (919)933-4560
Neii Pedersen, Superintendent
Ray Reitz, Chief Technology Officer
Nettie Coilins•Hart, Assistant
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Services
To: Neil Pedersen
Superintendent
From: Steve Scroggs
Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: HS #3 Construction Bids
Date: April 19, 2005
Included are the results of the bidding for the construction contract for High School #3
located at Rock Haven Road in Cazrboro, NC, The funding for this project will be
reviewed in more detail below. The information package includes a review of the low
bids and a comparison to the present funding situation, Funding agreements, the
Interlocal Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners and Addendum "B",
"smart growth principles," also are included for your review.
The purpose of this item is to request from the Boaz'd of Education direction in the
amount of additional funding to request from the County Commissioners for the
completion of high school #3, A contract can not be awarded until a capital funding
ordinance is passed by the BOCC. Once the ordinance is in place, the final contract will
be returned to the Boazd for approval.
Bidding
Participation in the bidding was low with only two general contractors, Barnhill
Construction and J,M,T. Canstrvction submitting bids, The bids were close but Bamhil]
Construction was the low bidder. Sub-contractor participation was also minimal with
only one plumbing, three electrical, and three HVAC sub-contractors taking part. The
complete bid tabtrlation will be presented to the Board when contracts for construction
are awarded in June, 2Q05, Work is scheduled to begin in July, 2005 and should be
complete to open the school in August 2007.
While State law now allows acceptance of a single prime contractor bid over amulti-
prime bid of lesser cost, the cost differential in this project is too high to merit a single
prime selection. Most of the buildings in the District have been built using amulti-prime
contract, The experience of the Disttict in the construction of Rashkis Elementary with a
single prime contractor was quite positive, but financial constraints do not allow for
single prime contract an this project, Other multi-prime contracts have been successful in
the District, most notably Scroggs Elementary, The multi-prime contracts for the
construction of high school #3 are provided below with a comparison to the single prime
bid from the same contractor,
Multi-Prime Contract
General Contractor $23,650,000
HVAC _
$2,872,352
Plumbing $1,719,410
Electrical $1,840,241
Sub Total $30,082,003
Single Prime Contract
General Contract $31,005,000
Difference _T $922,997
The difference between the multi-prime and the single prime contract totals $922,997.
The cost differential is too large to warrant acceptance of the single contract bid,
Funding
The funding for HS #:3 is described in detail in the Interlocal Agreement between the
Orange County Commissioners and the Board of Education for the Chapel Hill -
Cazrboro City School Boazd of Education, That agreement is provided in its entirety in
this package. The agreement was approved in June of 200.3.
The Interlocal Agreement provides funding for HS #3 in a base amount of $27,800,000
and additional funding of $2,200,000 if the Board of Education satisfies the "smart
growth principles" as defined in Addendum "B". The agreement was approved in June of
2004. Each is explained sepazately below..
Base
According to the Interlocal Agreement, a base funding amount of $27,800,000 was
agreed upon. A Capital Ordinance for the base amount has been approved by the County
Commissioners for that amount. The exact language of the ordinance is provided below..
3. The BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS agrees to appropriate a total of $27,800,000
for the total of all of the elements contained in the Standards for CHCCS high school #3
with funding from bonds (approved for CHCCS elementary school #10), impact fees and
alren:ative financing,
In that agreement, if'the amount needed for the high school exceeds the base amount, the
Board of Education would have to pay the overage from C1P pay-as-you-go funds that
would not require the BOCC to incur any additional debt. The exact language of that
article follows,
4. Any amount by which t{:e total cost of CHCCS high school #.3 exceeds
$27,800,000 will be paid for by BDARD OF EDUCATION pay-as-you-go CIP revenue
not requiring the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS to incur debt.
As the funds required to meet the overage described earlier are designated in the BOCC
alternatively financed elementary #10 project, no additional debt will be incurred by
funding the overages. Elementary #IQ designated for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City
Schools, was delayed by the Commissioners from August 2007 trnttl August 2009 to
insure that the debt capacity of the County drd not increase. An amount of $3,500,000 of
that delayed project has already been allocated by capital ordinance to the Orange County
Schools for overages experienced during the bidding and construction of their middle
school #3, Other potential uses of the delayed project funding include the senior centers
and the animal shelter.
Additional Funding
An additional funding amount of $2,200,000 was designated to HS #3 if the Board of
Education met the "smart growth principles" as defined by the Board of County
Commissioners.. Addendum "B" is included in its entirety for your review.
Addendum "B" set forth a list of smart growth principles that would provide for a
sustainable, compact building that would reduce the school's impact on the environment
through efficient design, reduced site impact, improved walk ability, and alternative
transportation considerations. In June of 2004, the Commissioners agreed that the Board
of Education had met the majority of the "smart growth principles" and by resolution
approved an additional $1,900,000 to the high school budget, The exact language of that
resolution follows,
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §§ 160A-461 and
I1.SC-4.31, the BOARD OF EDUCATION and the BDARD OF COMMISSIONERS agree:
A. that the following smart growth promoting standards, if met in the design
and plans for Phase 1 of CHCCS high school #.3, will satisfy $1,900,000 of the smart
growth requirements of paragraph 8 of the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT and $1,900,000
of the smart growth requirements of the INTERLOCAL, AGREEMENT ADDENDUM "A"
(or CHCCS high school #.3r
The remaining $300,000 of the original $2,200,000 has been reserved for transportation
enhancements including improved sidewalks, bikeways, joint transportation analysis and
exploration of potential shuttle buses, Those funds have not been applied for as the CUP
process in Cazrboro is underway and alignment with the Town's plans and DOT plans for
the improvement of Smith Leve] Road will be critical in providing a unified plan for
walking, bikes and reduced vehicle traffic, This will include sidewalks along Rock Haven
Road, Smith Level Road and Taz Heel Drive .
An additional $1,142,000 was provided for the project from future impact fees to
complete the acquisition of the Glover property and that figure has been included in the
summazy provided below,
An additional $500,000 dollazs has been allocated to the project by (1) the dedication of
the state sales tax refund for the project, $450,000, and (2) the dedication of the $50,000
from the Department of Transportation back into the building fund, This additional
revenue will reduce the amount of funding required from the County Commissioners.
Summary
The following spreadsheet highlights the additional funding required to complete the high
schooh
Total Bullding
Multi-Prime Contract
General Contractor $23,650,000
_
HVAC ~ $2,872,352
Plumbing _ $1,719,410
Electrical $1,840,241
Sub Total $30,082,003
Fees $2,162,500
Non•Personnel Start Up $500,000
Technology $1,000,000
Movable Furniture ~ $800,000
Contingency $750,000
Land $3,531,697
Total Contract $38,626,200
Funding
Interiocal Agreement $27,600,000
Addendum "B" $1,900,000
Addendum "B° Transportation ~ $300,000
Additional Funding for Land ~ $1,142,000
Sales Tax/Bus Refund $500,000
Total $37,642,000
Contract ~ $36,626,200
Additional Funding Required $71a4200
Percent Overage from 31,642k 23%
Percent Overagefrom 30,000k 24%
The additional funding required to complete high school #3 above and beyond the
existing available furiding is $7,184,200, This represents a 23% overage from available
funding and a 24% overage from the original $30,000,000 amount. This compares to the
19% overage Orange County Schools experienced with their middle school. This funding
level would provide a complete school with an auditorium, full fields and tennis courts.
Reduction Efforts
The District has already taken major steps at reducing the projects cost and the overage
that must be requested. Those reductions include:
• Use of future CIP funds to pay for the site $1,142,000
• Use of State of NC sales tax refund $ 450,000
• Use of DOT bus loop funds $ 50,000
• Reduction in technology costs $ .333,563
• Reduction in non-personnel startup costs $ 246,395
• Reduction in furniture and equipment $ 52,500
• Reduction in contingency funds 6 476
Total $2,280,925
This represents a 6% reduction in total project costs. The proposed contingency funds
represents 2.5% of the project, less than the 3.5% standazd adopted several years ago. The
District takes its role as fiscal steward seriously and the reductions in project costs
already made validates that effort.
Support Services recommends that Board of Education requests the additional funding to
complete high school #.3 from the County Commissioners using funding from the delayed
elementary #10 budget.
Mr. Scroggs and Mr'. Mullin will be present to answer any questions you may have.
Resolution: Be it, therefore, resolved that the Board of Education directs the school
administration to prepaze and deliver a request to the Orange County
Board of County Commissioners for a Capital Project Ordinance to
increase the funding for High School #3 by an amount of $ 7,184,200 for a
total of $38,826,200.
4-22-05; 5:55FM:Ct1. HIII / Carrbbrb 3t3 359 249: # 2/ 9
f (,
y~ 4~. ('~iY t, C ,,.
1'
Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Fax: (919) 933-4560
Nell Pedersen, Superintendent Nettle Colllns•Hart, Assisfan(
Supetintentlent for Instructional Services
Ray Reitz, Chief Technology Officer Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Servlces
To: Iohn Link,
Orange County Manager
From: Neil Pedersen,
Superintendent
Re: Request for Additional Funding for the Completion of High School #3
Date: April 22, 2005
During the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Education on Apri121, 2005,
the Board unanimously passed a resolution requesting that the Board of Corurry
Commissioners provide additional funding for the completion of high school #3. The
Board agenda item is included for your review, A summary, of that agenda item is
provided.
Biddine
Participation in the bidding was low with only two general contractors, Barnhill
Construction and .J.M:T. Construction, submitting bids. Baznhill Construction was the
low bidder. Sub-contractor participation was also rnitrirnal with only one plumbing,
three electrical, and three HVAC sub-contractors taking part. Due to the general
contractors also submitting single prime bids, participation requirements were met. This
low level of participation probably contributed to the project overages as did price
increases in steel, gasoline, and other building supplies, Everyone acknowledges that
this is a very difficult time to be bidding due to a high volume of projects and
inflationary pressures.
Fundint=
The funding provisions for HS #.3 are described in detail in the lnterlocal Agreement
between the Orange County Commissioners and the Board of Education for the Chapel
Hill -Carrboro City Schools. The Interlocal Agreement provides funding for HS #3 in
abase atnount of $27,800,000 and additional funding of $2,200,000 if the Board of
Education satisfies the "smart growth principles" as defined in Addendum "B". An
additional $1,142,000 was provided for the project from future CHCCS impact fees,
which were scheduled for future CIP projects, to complete the acquisition of the Glover
property. In the recommendation to the Board, we go into further detail to explain why
we believe that appropriating additional dollars for this project is not inconsistent with
the Interlocal Agreement because no additional debt will be incurred, Funds previously
a-22-O5: a: 55PM: Cn. M~I~ / CErr bbro
:313 359 ~a]a ~ i/ 3
2
earmarked for Elementary No. ] 0 and programmed into the County's debt schedule can
be used to cover the overage.
Reduction Efforts
The District has already taken major steps at reducing the project's cost and the overage
that must be requested. Those reductions include:
• Use of future GIP funds to pay for the site $1,142,000
• Use of State of NC sales tax refund $ 450,000
• Reduction in technology budget $ .333,563
• Reduction in non-personnel startup budget $ 246,395
• Reduction in furniture and equipment budget $ 52,500
• Reduction in contingency fund budget 6 476
Total $2,280,925
The District takes its role as fiscal steward seriously. This reduction represents a 6%
reduction in total project costs.
Summary
A summary of the bid costs and additional casts are provided below. We are requesting
an additional $7,534,200 to complete this project.
Total Building
Multi•Prime Contract
General Contractor $23,650,000
HVAC $2,872,352
Plumbing $1,719,470
Electrical 51,640,241
Sub Total $30,082,003
Fees $2,162,500
Nan-Personnel Start Up $500,000
Technology $1,000,000
Movable Furniture $600,000
Contingency $750,000
Land $3,531,697
Total Contract 538,826,200
IniedocalAgreement $
27,800,000
Addendum "B" _
$1,900,000
Addendum "B" Transportation $300,000
Additional FUnding
for La
n
d $1,142,000
_
_
_
Sales Tax/BUS Re
fund __
$500,000
Total $31,642,000
Fundino
Contract 538,826,200
_ _
Off Slte Improvements 5350,000
Sub Total 539,176,200
Atldltlonal Funding Required $7,534,200
Percent Overage from 31,642k 24%
Percent Overage from 30,OOOk 25°/
a-22-D5; 4: SSFM: Ch Hill Carr bbro
:9t9 959 z4~a ~ ai 9
An amount of $350,000 for off-site improvements is included in the table above
because we expect to be required to make improvements to Smith Level Road, The
Town of Cazrboro and the Department of Transportation have not agreed on the
configuration of Smith Level Road, thus improvements to the intersection could not be
designed, Additional funding is requested but, if the two governmental bodies reach
agreement, the funding could be returned if unneeded
Based on the summaries provided, The Board of Education adopted the following
resolution on Apri121, 2005.
Resolution: Be it, therefore, resolved that the Board ofEducatien directs the school
administration to prepare and deliver a request to the Orange County
Board of County Commissioners for a Capital Project Ordinance to
increase the funding for High School #.3 by an amount of $ $7,534,200
for a total of $39,176,200.
Please accept this correspondence as a formal request for additional funding in the
amount indicated from the County Commissioners.
Thank you for your continued support of the Chapel Hill-Cazrboro City Schools and we
look forward to working with your office and the County Commissioners on making
this a successful project.
a-22-O5; 4: SSFM:Ch. H111 i Carrboro
:3~3 359 2474 ,,. 5/ 3
Chapel Hil) -Carrboro City Schools
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Fax: (919) 933-456Q
Neil Pedersen, Superintendent Nettle Collins-Hart, Assistant
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Ray Reitr, Chief Technology Officer Steve Sctoggs, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Services
To: Neil Pedersen
Superintendent
From: Steve Scroggs
Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: HS #3 Construction Bids
Date: April 19, 2005
Included aze the results of the bidding for the construction contract for High School #3
located at Rock Haven Road in Carrboro, NC, The funding for this project will be
reviewed in more detail below. The information package includes a review of the low
bids and a comparison to the present funding situation. Funding agreements, the
Interlocal Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners and Addendum "B",
"smart growth principles," also aze included for your review.
The purpose of this item is to request from the Boazd of Education direction in the
amount of additional funding to request from the County Commissioners for the
completion of high school #3. A contract can not be awarded until a capital funding
ordinance is passed by the BOCC. Once the ordinance is in place, the final contract will
be returned to the Board for approval.
Biddi°a
Participation in the bidding was low with only two general contractors, Barnhill
Construction and J,M.T. Construction submitting bids. The bids were close but Barnhill
Construction was the low bidder. Sub-contractor participation was also minimal with
only one plumbing, three electrical, and three HVAC sub-contractors tatting part. The
complete bid tabulation will be presented to the Board when contracts for construction
are awazded in.Iune, 2005. Work is scheduled to begin in July, 2005 and should be
complete to open the school in August 2007.
While State law now allows acceptance of a single prime contractor bid over amulti-
prime bid of lesser cost, the cost differential in this project is too high to merit a single
prime selection. Most of the buildings in the District have been built using amulti-prime
contract. The experience of the District in the construction of Rashkis Elementary with a
single prime contractor was quite positive, but financial constraints do not allow for
4-22-05; 4:55PM: Cb. HIII / C3~1'bblb
:313 359 2474 .. ~/ 3
i
would not require the BOCC to incur any additional debt. The exact language of that
article follows.
4. Any amount by which the total cost of CHCCS high school #3 exceeds
$27, 800, ODO will be paid for by BOARD OF EDUCATION pay-as you-go CIP revenue
not requiring the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS to incur debt.
As the funds required to meet the overage described earlier are designated in the BOCC
alternatively fmanced elementary #] 0 project, no additional debt will be incurred by
funding the overages, Elementary #] 0, designated for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City
Schools, was delayed by the Commissioners from August 2007 until Augrist 2009 to
insure that the debt capacity of the County did not increase. An amount of $3,500,000 of
that delayed project has already been allocated by capital ordinance to the Orange County
Schools for overages experienced during the bidding and construction of their middle
school #3, Other potential uses of the delayed project funding include the senior centers
and the animal shelter.
Additional Fundine
An additional funding amount of $2,200,000 was designated to HS #3 if the Boazd of
Education met the "smart growth principles" as defined by the Board of County
Commissioners. Addendum "B" is included in its entirety for your review.
Addendum "B" set forth a list of smart growth principles that would provide for a
sustainable, compact buildang that would reduce the school's impact on the environment
through efficient design, reduced site impact, improved walk ability, and alternative
transportation considerations, In June of 2004, the Commissioners agreed that the Board
of Education had met the majority of the "smart growth principles" and by resolution
approved an additional $1,900,000 to the high school budget, The exact language of That
resolution follows,
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute ,¢,¢ 160A-461 and
I15C-431, the BOARD OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS agree:
A. that the following smart growth promoting standards, if met in the design
and plans fot° Phase I of CHCCS high school #3, will satisfy $1,900, 000 of the smart
growth requirernetrts ojparagraph 8 of the WTERLOCAL AGREEMENT and $1, 900, 000
of the smart growth requirements of the WTERLOCAL AGREEMENTADDENDUM "A "
for CHCCS high school #3~
The remaining $300,000 of the original $2,200,000 has been reserved for transportation
enhancements including improved sidewalks, bikeways, joint transportation analysis and
exploration of potential shuttle buses. Those funds have not been applied for as the CUP
process in Carrboro is underway and alignment with the Town's plans and DOT plans for
the improvement of Smith Level Road will be critical in providing a unified plan for
walking, bikes and reduced vehicle traffic. This will include sidewalks along Rock Haven
Road, Smith Level Road and Taz Heel Drive .
c-22-O5; 4: SSPM; Cn Hill / cart born
:9t3 359 2474 .. 3/ 3
Reduction Efforts
The District has akeady taken major steps at reducing the projects cost and the overage
that must be requested. Those reductions include:
• Use of fuiwe CIP funds to pay for the site $1,142,000
• Use of State of NC sales tax refund $ 450,000
• Use of DOT bus loop funds $ 50,000
• Reduction in technology costs $ 333,563
• Reduction innon-personnel startup costs $ 246,395
• Reduction in furniture and equipment $ 52,500
• Reduction in contingency funds 6 476
• Total $2,280,925
This represents a 6% reduction in total project costs. The proposed contingency funds
represents 2.5% of the project, less than the 3.5% standard adopted several years ago.. The
District takes its role as fiscal steward seriously and the reductions in project costs
already made validates that effort.
Support Services recommends that Boazd of Education requests the additional funding to
complete high school #.3 from the County Commissioners using funding from the delayed
elementary #] 0 budget.
Mr. Scroggs and Mr Mullin will be present to answer any questions you may have.
Resolution: Be it, therefore, resolved that the Boazd of Education directs the school
administration to prepare and deliver a request to the Orange County
Boazd of County Commissioners for a Capital Project Ordinance to
increase the funding for High School #3 by an amount of $ $7,5.34,200 for
a total of $39,176,200.