HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-01-2022; 12-6 - Information Item - Memorandum - Request for Qualifications-Consultant for School Facilities Assessment and Optimization 1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
FINANCE and ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Gary Donaldson,CTP,Chief Financial Officer I gdonaldson@orangecountync.gov I PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 919.245.2453
INFORMATION ITEM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 1, 2022
Re: Request for Qualifications-Consultant for School Facilities Assessment and Optimization
The School Capital Needs Work Group chaired by Commissioner Jean Hamilton met on October 19, 2022 to
finalize the Scope of Work for the procurement of a Consultant. The prospective Consultant will be tasked with
delivering 1) Comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) (2) Optimization Plan (Existing Space
Utilization) and (3) Examining Prioritization Models, Best Practices and Benchmarking for both school districts.
The work group included a School Optimization plan as a deliverable (Page 6). The Optimization Plan examines
strategies to maximize existing facilities' space use, and it is a recommended best practice for inclusion in a
scope of work of this nature.
The RFQ is scheduled to be issued November 2, 2022 and responses are due back to the County on December
7, 2023. The detailed timeline is on the last page of the attached RFQ.
Thank you.
cc: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager
Travis Myren, Deputy Manager
Attachments
1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT—
PURCHASING DIVISION
RFQ No 367-005375
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT,SCHOOLS
OPTIMIZATION AND BENCHMARKING BEST PRACTICES
I. Background, Purpose,and Outcomes
A. Background
This Request for Qualifications is the result of a recommendation from the Orange County's
School Capital Needs Work Group (work group) which was formed in September 2021 to
determine strategies to address additional capital funding for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County Schools (OCS). The work group was conceptualized and led
by Board of County Commissioner(BOCC)Jean Hamilton.The work group is comprised of elected
officials, administrators, managers and staff from the school districts and County government.
The group collaborated on a report (see Exhibit A), which has informed this Request for
Qualifications.
B. Purpose
As a strategy to improve the quality and efficiency of operational services, Orange County
Government, CHCCS and OCS are collaborating on the issuance of a Request for Qualifications
for:
• Comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA)
• Optimization Plan of Existing Space Utilization; and
• Examining Prioritization Models, Best Practices and Benchmarking and Scenarios for both
school districts that recognizes the distinct structure of the County having to allocate funds
between the two school districts.
The desired outcome will help county and school professionals and elected officials better plan,
manage and fund new construction and maintenance of the county's 31 school campuses and
administrative offices.
Local leaders are especially interested in assuring that scarce capital resources are used
effectively.That requires a better understanding of when to repair/maintain, renovate or replace
buildings, how and when to contract across campuses and school districts, and how to provide
reliable funding to assure that schools facilities are built and maintained in a timely and cost
effective manner. (See Exhibit B for additional guiding questions from the work group to inform
the RFQ.)
II. General information
The CHCCS and OCS (the Districts) are distinct in North Carolina for having two school districts
located in the same county.This means that the County has to allocate funds among both CHCCS
1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
and OCS in an equitable manner.There are only 11 other North Carolina counties out of the 100
counties in the State with more than one school system located in the same county. This creates
a unique challenge for planning school facilities and allocating county funds. Combined, CHCCS
and OCS have approximately 18,600 Pre-K through Grade 12 students. CHCCS has approximately
11,500 students in 19 schools, supported by approximately 1,500 school personnel and
approximately 400 non-school personnel working out of 3 administrative facilities. CHCCS
maintains and operates 22 buildings, totaling approximately 2 million square feet and
approximately 544 acres of property. The average age of the CHCCS buildings are more than 50
years old. OCS has approximately 7,100 students in 13 schools, supported by approximately 890
school personnel and approximately 170 non-school personnel working out of 6 administrative
facilities.OCS maintains and operates 18 buildings,totaling approximately 1.5 million square feet.
The average age of the OCS buildings are more than 41 years old. The County allocates capital
funding to CHCCS and OCS based on Annual Daily Membership (ADM). An important
benchmarking exercise will be to review how other 11 North Carolina counties with multiple
school districts prioritize and allocate funding, if different from ADM.The County,CHCCS and OCS
has a keen interest in reviewing how other entities address this challenge,and different scenarios
are encouraged by all respondents to this RFQ.
Exhibit C is a listing of the Districts owned facilities, including name, type, site acreage, building
square footage, year constructed and year(s) of renovation(s) and or addition(s).
The project objectives are as follows:
A. Complete a comprehensive assessment of educational and administrative facilities owned and
operated by both school districts.
B. Calculate Facility Condition Index(FCI)scores for buildings including FCI scores for individual
systems.
C. Prioritize building systems based on need, observed deficiencies, remaining useful life, and
classify each system based on a recommended timeframe for system replacements.
D. Estimate the Districts' overall outstanding capital need and a recommended annual
investment plan to address deferred maintenance.
E. Use existing County and Districts long-range plans and respective FCAs to revise the
short and long term capital improvement plans beginning in 2024.
F. Input data on critical building systems, life expectancy, and capital investments into the
Districts enterprise facilities management software
G. Recommend Prioritization Scenarios that considers the County funding allocation for both
Districts following Benchmarking other Counties and School Districts.
Minority and Women Business Enterprise(MWBE) Participation: Orange County encourages all
businesses, including minority, and woman owned business enterprises to respond to all
Request for Qualifications, Invitation to Bid, and Request for Proposal.
III. Scope of Services
A. Comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment
This contract will require inspections of all facilities as specified herein by architectural and
engineering professionals licensed with a firm presence in the state of North Carolina. It will
2
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
produce an accurate analysis that identifies visible and discernable (through non-destructive
means)components and elements requiring maintenance or other planned action.The Facility
Condition Assessments are expected to serve as an important reference and decision-making
resource for current and future capital planning and funding decisions. To that extent any
recommended software to facilitate ongoing updates by both school districts is encouraged.
1) The facility conditions assessment will focus and consider the following property
elements:
a. Design
b. Exterior Systems- roofs, walls, window systems, doors
c. Emergency communications (telephones and intercom systems)
d. Interior Construction-walls,doors,flooring,visible structural
component
e. Interior Finishes: Flooring, ceiling,wall finishes
f. Health/Fire/Life Safety systems
g. Security and Facility Safety Considerations
h. Handicap Accessibility-ADA requirements
i. Heating,Ventilation and Air Conditioning
j. Plumbing
k. Electrical and Service Distribution
I. Fire Suppression
m. Special Electrical Systems, Emergency Power,Telecommunications
n. Technology Infrastructure
o. Special Construction
p. Vertical Transportation (Elevators, lifts, etc.)
Additional elements shall include site utilities, fencing, athletic fields, playground
equipment,vehicle circulation, parking, and other site surface structures.
2) Integration of the Districts Supplied Facility Condition Data
In addition to observed facilities deficiency conditions, existing Districts supplied
facility condition data shall be reviewed by the Consultant for incorporation into an
industry relevant platform. All Districts-supplied facility condition data shall be
identified as such.The Districts-supplied data may include any of the following: prior
engineering studies, hazardous materials audits, air or water quality studies, or
other related facility condition data. Inclusion of existing Districts supplied reports,
electronic databases or spreadsheets, and other data will be considered on a case-
by-case basis.
3) Corrections- Deficient Conditions
For every deficient condition identified in the audit,a means of correcting the condition
(a correction project) shall be developed by the Consultant. Each correction project
shall entail a detailed description of the methods and quantities of labor and materials
necessary to conduct the work. A detailed, multiple line item construction estimate
shall also be developed by the Consultant. The estimates shall be based upon R.S.
Means Construction and Facilities Maintenance and Repair Costs data and estimating
3
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
format.
Where appropriate, multiple correction methodologies should be developed indicating
the range of possible corrective measures and the associated costs.
Each correction project shall be assigned a unique identifier within the identified
software platform, and shall enable correction tracking by the Districts staff as
deficiencies are corrected as detailed in Section D.
a. Prioritization/Categorization/Classification of Audit Data
i. Deficiency Priorities
Each deficiency identified in the field audit should be
prioritized such as in the following manner:
Priority 1 Currently Critical
Conditions in this category require immediate
action to:
a. correct a cited safety hazard
b. stop accelerated deterioration
c. return a facility to operation
Priority 2 Potentially Critical
Conditions in this category, if not
corrected expeditiously, will become
critical within a year. Situations within
this category include:
a. intermittent operations
b. rapid deterioration
c. potential life safety hazards
Priority 3 Necessary- Not yet critical
Conditions in this category require
appropriate attention to preclude
predictable deterioration or potential
downtime and the associated damage or
higher costs if deferred further.
Priority 4 Recommended
Conditions in this category include items that
represent a sensible improvement to existing
conditions. These are not required for the
most basic function of the facility; however,
Priority 4 projects will improve overall
usability and/or reduce long-term
maintenance costs.
Priority 5 Does Not Meet Current Codes/Standards -
4
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
"Grandfathered" Conditions in this
category include items that do not conform
to existing codes, but are "grandfathered"
in their condition. No action is required at
this time, but should substantial work be
undertaken in contiguous areas, certain
existing conditions may require correction.
ii. Deficiency Categories
Each correction project identified shall be assigned one of the following
categories:
(1) Life-Safety Code Compliance (fire alarm, egress, etc)
(2) Building Code Compliance
(3) Accessibility Code Compliance (ADA & Local Accessibility
Standards)
(4) Building Integrity
(5) Design and Functionality
(6) Educational &Site Adequacy
(7) Appearance
(8) Natural Light
(9) Energy
(10) Environmental: (as provided in Districts-supplied facilities
condition data)
(a) ACBM (asbestos containing building materials)
(b) PCBs
(c) Lead-based paints
(d) CFCs
(e) IAQ(indoor air quality)
(f) Water Quality
The above categories represent sample definitions and may be
revised to meet requirements of the Districts through the initial
stages of the audit process.
iii. Deficiency Classification
Each deficiency shall be classified by the major property components
identified for survey in the field. For example, Design and
Functionality, Site, Exterior Systems, Interior Systems, Interior
Finishes, Health/ Fire/Life Safety Systems, Handicap Accessibility,
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning, Plumbing, Electrical and
Service Distribution, Special Electrical Systems, Fire Suppression,
Special Construction, or Vertical Transportation.
iv. User Specified Classifications
In addition to the standard categories and classifications available
within the identified software platform the Districts should have the
ability to edit support tables to add the Districts specified classifications
to the above lists.
5
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
B. School Optimization Plan
The completed Plan will provide guidance for potential CHCCS and OCS factors influencing
efficient capacity utilization of facilities. The development of the Optimization Plan should be
comprehensive and address the most important utilization issues currently facing CHCCS and OCS
in a fiscally responsible and efficient manner. CHCCS and OCS expects the Consultant's
optimization plan(s)to integrate facility capital improvements, in a manner that improves existing
utilization, while at the same time optimizes capital improvement funding required to address
future needs and space capacity.
When synthesizing utilization optimization with facility condition assessments, the Consultant
may consider:
1) Current and projected enrollment versus school capacities
a. Over utilization of temporary capacity(mobile units)
b. Over or under utilization of built capacity (brick and mortar buildings)
c. Is the core space (kitchen, dining, food service lines) sufficient to support
enrollment
2) Alternative uses for the building
3) Repurpose schools as administrative facilities, or specialty schools
4) Educational Adequacy
a. Consolidation and or reorganization to support new instructional programs and
or class sizes
S) Spaces that are inadequate, or non-conforming to CHCCS, OCS, Orange County, and
NCDPI baseline standards for the intended instructional program,and or other guidelines,
standards and statutes (including Title IX deficiencies)
6) Current facility condition
7) Operation of facility as currently utilized is cost prohibitive
8) Physical constraints of the site renders potential growth impractical
9) Capital improvement costs can be offset or mitigated by instructional and or operational
program changes
10) CHCCS and OCS will assist the Consultant in obtaining the following to the greatest extent
feasible:
a. School capacity, use, and utilization data
Identifying the rate of reinvestment required to maintain components of facilities as they
degrade and become unusable is critical to the long-range planning and funding.The Consultant
shall analyze and model the rates of degradation of each facility, and report on the required
reinvestment rate on an annual basis to replace components as such components become
inoperable. Elements of the analysis will include:
1) Identification of the approximate replacement cost of each building and
building component.
2) Rates of standard degradation of each component and the cost to
replace/refurbish that component.
3) Current condition of each building component.
4) The ability to analyze multi-year outlooks and various combinations of
building type reinvestment rates and multi-phasing of large-scale capital
projects.
6
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Using industry relevant platform or other software approved by the Districts Facility Managers,
the Consultant shall generate multi-year capital and financial planning based on the Districts
deferred maintenance backlog, capital replacement, and selected timeframe. The Consultant
shall use industry relevant platform to provide analyses, and project funding, for a period not
less than 25 years.
C. Benchmarking and Best Practices
Using an industry relevant platform or other software approved by the Districts,the Consultant
shall provide benchmarking of facilities and building condition, site condition, suitability for
education programs and technology. Benchmarking of the facilities condition index should
follow standard industry practices. The consultant should also provide management best
practices in contracting, project/program management, and maintenance as well as financing
alternatives and capital projects planning and prioritization. It would be particularly helpful to
see practices for multiple school districts located and funded by one governing authority. The
County and Districts understands that any financing alternatives practiced in other U.S. States
and recommended by the selected Consultant would be subject to the North Carolina Local
Government Commission requirements and be legally permissible within the North Carolina
General Statutes.
D. Project Planning
The Districts intends to use an industry relevant platform to create, track, and execute scoped
projects.As deemed beneficial to CHCCS and OCS,the Consultant may use an industry relevant
platform to aggregate projects into contract packages or bundles of projects for more cost-
effective contracting/purchasing/correction i.e. joint district purchases and cooperative
purchasing to achieve economies of scale. The Districts should have the ability to perform
iterative analysis of various correction projects to analyze the most cost-effective approach for
the work, giving the Districts' Facility Departments the ability to develop logical and strategic
deferred maintenance reduction plans, and capital expenditure plans most appropriate to
budget allocations.
The awarded Consultant shall provide the following deliverables:
1) Copies of Draft Report (for review/comment by the County and Districts)to include:
a. Executive Summary
b. Methodology Description
c. Assessment of School Facilities and Management Processes
• Evaluation and FCI for every school and administrative campus
• Assessment of Capital, Program, and Project Management Practices
• Assessment of Facilities Maintenance Processes
• Assessment on use of staffing, contractors, and program managers
• Assessment of Planning and funding approaches
d. Conclusions and recommendations
e. Summary Reports, with different sorts and queries on data
f. Detailed Building and FCA Score for all Facilities and Deficiency Data
g. Appendices of the Districts data used
2) Copies of Final Report (contents similar to Draft Report)
3) Software Media (secure drive) with installation/setup instructions
4) User Manuals or Help Documentation
7
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
5) Project Schedule
6) Detailed Tabular Listing of Costs for Partial Progress Billings and Payments
7) Meeting Minutes
IV. Format of Qualifications Submission
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is mandatory. Consultants shall bear the risk for late submission due to
unintended or unanticipated delay. Any proposal submitted after the RFQ deadline will be
rejected. Only Electronic Responses will be accepted for this RFQ solicitation.
Consultants should enter "RFQ#. 367-005375: Firm's name, Facilities Condition Assessment,
Schools Optimization and Benchmarking Best Practices":as the subject for the email. Electronic
(PDF Format) submittals should be less than 15MB in size and submitted by 3:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on December 7, 2022. PDF files should include bookmarks that link to sections to
allow easy document navigation. Electronic submittals shall be emailed to Jovana Amaro,
Purchasing Agent, iamaro@orangecountync.gov by the date specified above.
Critical updates may be included in Addenda to this RFQ. It is important that all firms proposing
on this RFQ regularly check Orange County's website for any Addenda that may be issued prior to
the RFQ deadline. All firms should carefully read the information contained in this RFQ and any
subsequent Addenda.
RFQ Submittals must include the following information with each section placed in the
order as detailed below:
Tab 1—Letter of Interest
Submit a letter of interest, including a brief description of the firm's overall qualifications
to perform the work successfully. This letter should introduce the firm (team), or
individual, and be signed by a representative of the firm with authorization to sign
contracts.
a. If submitting as a team, notate which team member(firm) is the prime Consultant
or lead joint venture partner, or if it will be a prime-sub Consultant(s) contractual
relationship.
b. Identify primary contact person for your team.
Tab 2 — Consultant Organization, Personnel Experience and Qualifications Description of
the Consultant must have a principal architect or engineer providing services in response to
this solicitation with a firm residence and licensed in the State of North Carolina.All proposed
sub-Consultants' major services and activities must be conducted under the Consultant
and/or licensed architect and engineer for the project. Include information on the number
of years in business, the type (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship) number and
location of offices.
a. Provide a project organizational chart and detail the experience of senior
management and the support staff that will be used in this project, including:
i. A narrative of how the staff will function during each phase or stage of
the project
8
10
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
ii. Each position within the Project Organization and the role and
responsibilities of the individual(s) in that position
iii. Number of teams and number of personnel to serve on each team (if
more than one team is required to meet the project schedule)
iv. Composition of each typical team;typical teams are expected to include
an architect, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer at a
minimum. Additionally, there should be at least one individual
experienced in demographics, Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
and or with school assignment boundary creation and or revision.
V. Composition of special teams or positions, which may be used on an as
needed basis.
Vi. The role of the Consultant's sub-Consultant(s)
b. Resumes of the team members that will be assigned to the project. Resumes
should demonstrate their education and recent experience performing similar
services and if these individuals are part of the Consultant's firm or sub-
Consultants.
i. Experience on public PreK-12 projects of similar size, scope, complexity and
budget
ii. Professional certifications and technical expertise
iii. Indicate whether the key personnel have worked together on previous
projects and list that project information, including owner contact
information
iv. Minimum of one (1), but no more than three (3), references for all key
personnel, including current telephone numbers and emails for persons with
whom they have had prior business relationships and/or contracts within the
last three years
V. Identify whether person is an employee of the firm and length of
employment, or an outside employee and the name of the employer
Tab 3—Project Methodology
Detailed descriptions of the management plan to be used to accomplish the work. Include the
proposed methodology, the schedule, and the process to be used for this RFQ. Please list,
categorize and submit samples of all deliverables.
Tab 4—Previous Projects and References
Short description of recent projects that demonstrate successful performance conducting
PreK-12 public school assignment optimization and facilities condition assessments of equal
complexity. Include three (3) references, with a contact name, email and phone number that
the Districts may contact. It is preferred that references include those clients for whom the
respondent has provided services similar in nature, quantity and quality to those requested in
this RFQ.
Tab 5—Financial Statements
Provide financial statements for the last three years. Include a statement of the firm's
insurance coverage, including general liability, professional liability errors and omissions,
automobile, and workers' compensation carried by the firm.
9
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Tab 6—Legal Actions
Describe any legal action taken against the firm in the past five years and the final
determination.
Tab 7—Consultant Declaration
Submit a declaration under penalty of perjury by an authorized corporate officer or principal,
stating that reasonable diligence has been used in preparation of the proposal submitted in
response to the RFQ and that all information provided is true, correct and complete.
Tab 8—Required forms
• Acknowledgment of receipt of any addendum
• Living Wage: Orange County is committed to providing its employees with a living wage
and encourages agencies it funds to pursue the same goal. Acknowledgement of receipt
of Orange County's Living Wage Contractor Policy.
• E-Verify: HB789 imposes E-Verify requirements on contractors who enter into certain
contracts with state agencies and local governments.The legislation specifically prohibits
governmental units from entering into certain contracts "unless the contractor and the
contractor's subcontractors comply with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 65 of
the General Statues." (Article 2 of Chapter 65 establishes North Carolina's E-Verify
requirements for private employers.) It is important to note that the verification
requirement applies to subcontractors as well as contractors.
• Orange County Non-discrimination Certification Form
• Supplemental Vendor Information: HUB form
V. Selection Process
The evaluation team may include administrators, managers and school staff.
The recommendation of the evaluation team will be subject to a successful contract negotiation (see
Exhibit D for a template services contract for Orange County. If an agreement cannot be finalized,then
the evaluation team reserves the right to negotiate with other qualified firms. The selected firm will
not have the opportunity to be a part of any subsequent construction or bond project management
resulting from this RFQ.
Evaluation of qualifications may include, but is not limited to the following:
a. Proposed methodology to assess and produce optimization plans and facility condition
assessments
b. Past performance on similar projects as indicated by written references from owners
c. Experience and qualifications of personnel assigned to the project(s)
10
12
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
VI. Proposed Project Schedule
The table below shows the intended schedule for the RFQ. Orange County will make every
effort to adhere to this schedule.
Event Responsibility Date and Time
Issue RFQ Orange County November 2, 2022
Submit Written Questions Consultant November 16, 2022
Provide Response to Questions Orange County November 30, 2022
Submit Qualifications Consultant December 7, 2022, 3pm Eastern Standard Time
Board of County
Board Approval of Contract Commissioners January 17, 2023
Project Award Orange County January 20, 2022
Consultant Notice to Proceed Orange County January 31, 2023
Project Completion Consultant May 15-July 31, 2023
Proposal Questions:
Upon review of the RFQ documents, firms may have questions to clarify or interpret the RFQ in
order to submit the best proposal possible. To accommodate the Proposal Questions process,
firms shall submit any such questions by the above deadline date.
Written questions shall be emailed to Camaro@orangecountync.goy by the date specified
above. Firms should enter "RFQ No 367-005359: Questions" as the subject for the email.
Questions submittals should include a reference to the applicable RFQ section. Answers to these
questions and any additional terms deemed necessary by Orange County will be posted in the
form of an addendum to the Orange County Website
http://www.orangecountync.gov/Bids.aspx and shall become an addendum to this RFQ. No
information, instruction or advice provided orally or informally by any Orange County personnel,
whether made in response to a question or otherwise in connection with this RFQ shall be
considered authoritative or binding. Firms shall rely only on written material contained in an
Addendum to this RFQ.
11
Exhibit A School Capital Needs Work Group Report 13
Executive Summary
In the fall of 2021, in response to a petition from Commissioner jean Hamilton, the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) created the Capital Needs
Work Group (the workgroup). The workgroup included elected officials and staff
from the county and both school districts(Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel
Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and was charged with focusing on school facilities.
Orange County operates 32 school campuses and seven school administrative offices.
Over half of the school buildings in both districts are over 50 years old and all are in
need of updating and repair. Many of the newer schools are more than 20years old
and need maintenance and repair. Today more than 2,500 teachers and staff, and
nearly 20,000 students work and learn in these school buildings every day.
Orange County funds both school districts. The county's local contribution to per pupil
funding ranks Orange County's schools first(CHCCS) and third(OCS) in the state for
operating funding. On the other hand,school facilities, like in so many other districts,
are chronically underfunded. By state law, Orange County is solely responsible for
funding school capital(construction, repair and maintenance). The county's two
school districts are responsible for developing facilities plans that are submitted to the
county for funding. School capital is included in the county's 10 year capital planning
process, where schools compete with county projects for scarce capital funds and
access to debt financing.
The workgroup reviewed current Orange County capital financing policies,planning
and design practices and identified issues and obstacles to building and maintaining
high quality schools. Current and projected funding sources are not adequate to
address the backlog of unfunded school capital needs that are estimated at over$500
million.
A significant issue is funding availability. The workgroup is aware that the current
county funding model funds based on available funds and debt capacity rather than
actual school needs. This restricts the county's ability to adequately fund school
construction.Additionally, Orange County often does not qualify for state funded
capital and grants that are available to other districts across the state. This is because
Orange County is considered a high wealth county based on the formula that includes
the median household income of its residents. Given the scale of school facility needs,
we recommend that BOCC and county staff immediately begin to explore alternative
funding sources to generate additional resources to support this work.
The workgroup main recommendation is to engage an independent outside
consultant that specializes in school facilities issues to assess the current situation and
provide recommendations that will help Orange County and both school districts
improve their approach to planning, priority management, design and construction
and funding of school facilities. These improvements would be integrated into a 10-
year plan to address school facility needs that both school districts have begun. In
addition, the workgroup recommends that Orange County update SAPFO to more
accurately reflect how school buildings are used.
1
14
Report and Recommendations
BACKGROUND
The Capital Needs Work Group (the work group) was established in Fall 2021 as a
result of a petition by Commissioner Jean Hamilton of the Orange County Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC). The petition requested that the work group address
the capital needs of the two public school systems in Orange County: Orange County
Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), especially the older
schools, such that an actionable plan (over 10 years) would be developed that would
dedicate funds and a process to address the needs.
The work group was designed to include representatives from the elected boards
and staff of Orange County, Orange County Schools, and Chapel Hill Carrboro City
Schools. Commissioner Jean Hamilton was designated as the chair and Orange
County School Board member Bonnie Hauser was designated as vice-chair. (See
table A for the list of participants and their titles.)
Table A: Work Group Participants
Entity Name Participant Name Participant Title
Orange County Renee Price Board Chair
Jean Hamilton Board Member,Work Group Chair
Gary Donaldson Chief Financial Officer
Steven Arndt Asset Management Director
Greg Wilder Assistant to County Manager,
Le islative Affairs
Rebecca Crawford Deputy Director of Financial Services
Kirk Vaughn Budget Analyst II
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Deon Temne Board Chair
Schools
Dr. Jillian La Serna Board Member
Rani Dasi Board Vice Chair
Dr. N ah Hamlett Superintendent
Andre' Stewart Chief Operations Officer
Jonathan Scott Chief Financial Officer
Eric Allen Former Director of Capital and
School Facilities
Al Ciarochi Deputy Superintendent of
Operations
Orange County Schools Carrie Doyle Board Member
Bonnie Hauser Board Member,Work Group Vice
Chair
Brenda Stephens Former Board Member- served
through June 30, 2022
Dr. Monique Felder Superintendent
Patrick Abele Deputy Superintendent of
Operations
Rhonda Rath Chief Finance Officer
2
15
The work group had its first meeting on November 29, 2021. It generally meets on
the third Wednesday of the month and is open to the public to attend remotely. It
has met virtually seven times. (Meeting notes can be found in Appendix 1.)
There are 32 K-12 school campuses in Orange County operated by two school
districts. These campuses serve nearly 20,000 students and 2,500 employees every
day. Over half of the campuses are over 50 years old. Some date back to the 1950s.
(See Appendix 2 with lists of all school buildings and their age.)
Funding for school capital needs is included in the Orange County Capital
Investment Plan (CIP). Starting in fiscal year 2022, the CIP projects capital projects
for 10 years (an increase from the 5 years in prior years). Each year the BOCC
approves the capital funding for the current fiscal year providing flexibility for re-
prioritization as necessary.
School capital funding sources include the following:
• General obligations bonds that require voter approval
• Limited obligation bonds that are secured with assets
• Lottery funds
• Pay as you go funding (PAYGO). PAYGO funding is funding that comes from
general fund revenues.
• 50% of Article 46 quarter-cent sales tax revenue for capital/technology
needs.
Funding is allocated to the two school systems based on average daily membership
(ADM) that is set by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. While
state law requires school operating funds to be allocated by ADM, state law does not
require capital expenditures to be allocated the same way.
Over the past 5 years $154.6 million has been spent on school capital needs. (See
table C for a breakdown by category). The last general obligation bond was in 2016
for$125 million while the school district capital needs were $232 million. The
amount of unfunded school capital needs is estimated at over $500 million. Both
school districts are currently developing updated 10-year plans. The CIP has $307.3
million planned for schools for the next ten years. The county's current capital plan
and financing does not anticipate funding major improvements to schools through
new bond funding before 2027.
Table B: 5 Year Historical Capital Expenditures by Category
Category Total
Deferred Maintenance $3,122,950
Supplemental Deferred $1,808,999
Maintenance
Vehicles $167,971
Rental S ace $663,705
Safety/Security Improvements $2,537,832
Construction $91,663,739
Chapel Hill HVAC $791
Athletic Facilities $713,786
3
Roofing $5,065,404 16
Equipment $15,621,950
General Renovations $1,473,743
Emergency/Security System $989,370
Door&Window Replacement $245,201
Energy Management $474,347
Technology $13,564,939
Abatement $688,333
Other (Recurring Capital) $15,832,253
Total $154,635,310
Orange County is not alone in dealing with aging school facilities. Wake, Guilford,
and Durham Counties have undertaken substantial initiatives to comprehensively
address the capital needs of schools.
The work group sees value in collaboration and coordinating capital efforts across
the BOCC, county staff and two school districts. The county is responsible for
allocating capital funds amongst the schools and county capital needs. The school
districts are responsible for managing their individual facilities to best meet local
needs. In that context,the workgroup is interested in continuing to explore ways to
improve efficiencies and transparency, and to better inform decision-making around
the capital needs for all its schools.
FINDINGS
• Facility Planning/Standards
o Updated facilities studies are needed for our public schools. OCS is
planning to start a new study in the coming school year. CHCCS is
currently undertaking an updated facility study to be completed in
Spring 2023.
o There are no county standards/guidelines for renovating or replacing
aging school buildings. The work group discussed concerns about
over-investing in buildings that should be replaced. The work group
discussed how a facility condition index (FCI), which is a ratio of
deferred maintenance to replacement cost, is one way to determine
when a school needs to be replaced.
o Orange County's School Construction Standards were last updated in
2007. These standards focus on new school construction and include
traditional and non-traditional models.
o School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) was adopted in
2003 between BOCC, school boards, and towns (except Mebane) as an
attempt to ensure school capacity can meet the population growth.
SAPFO has not been updated to meet the current conditions including
taking into account Pre-K classrooms, space for special needs
students, non-standard room sizes, model capacity assumptions, and
growth in the western part of county.
o Our aging school buildings do not reflect modern building standards
and therefore provide sub-optimal learning environments for children
with many of them
4
■ lacking natural light, 7
■ having air quality challenges, including mold
■ not having flexible spaces, e.g. for break-out rooms
■ having small classrooms
■ not meeting modern safety standards including having
modular classrooms and open classrooms
■ having heating and cooling system failures,
o Our aging school buildings are energy inefficient and expensive to
maintain.
• Facility Maintenance
o OCS and CHCCS are challenged to recruit and retain facilities staff due
to the high demand for those occupations and the relatively low
salaries that are offered by the school systems. The pandemic has
made these challenges worse.
o Material costs and delays have increased due to the pandemic.
o Cost and timing efficiencies may be possible by coordinating the
capital and maintenance expenditures of OCS and CHCCS.
o Major capital projects like new construction and major renovations
require time commitments that school facility staff may not have and
so these projects may benefit from contracted construction
professionals that can be part of the capital budget.
o There are no standards or funding for ongoing school maintenance.
Policy/Funding
o Capital school funding is impacted by BOCC guidelines that limit total
(county and schools) debt capacity to about 15 percent of general
revenues
o The target to maintain total school funding (capital debt service,
PAYGO, and operations) at 48.1% of the county's general revenue
constrains school capital spending given other school needs.
o Policies have not been developed for how much money needs to be
allocated for on-going maintenance needs. Looking at other industries
would be helpful to inform policy for school facilities.
o There is no county-wide plan to land bank for future school needs.
o State funding sources have not kept up with the school capital needs.
Historically, from the late 1940s, North Carolina voters approved state
obligation bonds on average every 10 years to help counties with
school construction projects. They have not done so since 1996.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Hire a consultant to evaluate the county's approach to school capital
planning, design, contracting, and financing including:
o Examine the planning, design/build, and maintenance process for
both school districts and identify areas for improvement.
o Work with school districts to evaluate every school campus and
administrative building and highlight those that should be urgently
replaced or renovated
o Evaluate the county's school capital funding approach
o Identify ways to plan and fund ongoing school maintenance.
5
o Provide insight about approaches, opportunities, and risks around 18
emerging practices for contracting and program management,
including projects that could cross campuses and districts.
o Recommend how the county and two school districts can prioritize
projects within a 10 year plan to address school facility needs in a
transparent way.
• Research alternative funding sources for school capital improvements:
o Revisit county capital plans and financing to identify potential funding
sources for school capital
o Work with state and federal legislators and the public to advocate for
funds for school capital.
• County and both school districts commit to continue working together on
school capital planning through the existing work group:
o Review and update the county's policies governing school facilities
planning and financing
o Work with both school districts to develop a 10 year plan for school
facilities -building upon the work that's already been done by both
school districts.
o In parallel, the county should work with the two school districts to
update SAPFO to better reflect school capacity characteristics.
NEXT STEPS
If both school boards and the county agree, and the county moves forward with the
consulting assessment,the work group should shift to an advisory role working
with the consultant. School districts and the county should appoint board and staff
leaders to continue.
The work group should also work with the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) to review changes to SAPFO or other capacity planning standards.
6
19
Appendix 1: Work Group Meeting Notes
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
November 29, 2021
Meeting—8:00am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on November 29, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting
remotely.
1. Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose
2. Designate Officers
3. FY 2022-32 Capital Budget Kickoff
4. Deferred Maintenance Planning
5. Schedule Next Meeting
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
https://orangecountyne.zoom.us/webinar/register/" 7QDnY E4RK-zV3vuAQxtPQ
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting,please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford(koran e�ync.gov before 3:00 pm on November 26,
2021.
20
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
November 29, 2021
Meeting—8:00am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on November 29, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting
remotely.
1. Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose
2. Designate Officers
a. Commissioner Jean Hamilton—Chair
b. OCS Board of Education member Bonnie Hauser—Vice Chair
3. FY 2022-32 Capital Budget Kickoff
a. Gary Donaldson, Orange County Chief Financial Officer and
Rebecca Crawford, Orange County Deputy Financial Services
Director shared a powerpoint presentation for the FY 2022-32
Capital Budget process kick-off(attached to these notes).
4. Deferred Maintenance Planning
a. Work Group members had the following comments:
i. Bonnie Hauser — 30 aging buildings in system —
missing from the conversation
1. Is there a way to move some of the costs to
PAYGO? Debt is alarming.
ii. Patrick Abele — would like to look at feasibility of
funding going into old buildings vs building new
schools and replacing old ones
1. Concerned with forecasting 6-10 years based on
short time frame and existing facility study is
older from 2012 — will need an updated facility
study in order to ensure information is accurate
—proposed a Phase I for 1-5 years of needs and
Phase II 6-10 years of needs, which would be
presented after the initial budget period.
2. Asked the status of land banking for new
schools — inventory of sites is low and predicts
tremendous growth is coming
21
a. SAPFO results will share timeline of
when to build new schools
b. Will have a need but no land — need to
plan 20-30 years from now
3. Is there an opportunity for county CIP support
to include planning for capital project staff and
construction staff to move the projects forward?
(now can only move projects ahead when have
capacity)
iii. Renee Price —how definitive is planning for 6-10 years
actually?
1. Likes the idea of a plan
2. A lot of maintenance and repair issues,
especially in OCS —can't put a bandaid on all of
the issues — when do we construct something
new?
a. Maintenance costs on Chapel Hill High
School will be huge — did we plan for
those?
i. Gary shared we do plan for that
iv. Jean Hamilton — goal for this group is to look at long
term without putting extra work on staff(20 years out)
1. Need to update facility studies — but cost
effectively
a. can schools piggy-back on county
facility study?
v. Rani Dasi - maintenance needs fresh eyes —what is the
right level of maintenance to avoid between 3-6% of
asset value
1. CHCCS=less than 1%, which causes big
problems
vi. Bonnie Hauser — how do other counties fund ongoing
school maintenance?
1. In-house vs outsource?
2. Can we check with other jurisdictions such as
Alamance, Durham, Chatham, Guilford, and
Wake?
3. Find new ways to do it in OC
4. All campuses should be on regular, funded
schedule
vii. Renee Price — seeing increased costs for projects and
supplies — could the purchases be done across both
systems to find savings?
1. Patrick said this is possible
2. Align projects like roofs — did this during
COVID on pre-bids and found great results
22
3. Can do the same with county projects such as
tennis courts
viii. Bonnie Hauser—debt service is in operation budget and
rolled into 48% for school funding
1. Can we uncouple debt service from operating
budget%
2. Wake Co. keeps it separate
3. Operating is distributed per pupil — capital
doesn't have to be since some schools are in
worse shape than others
a. Can we revisit these policies?
b. SAPFO was focused on rapid growth,
which we don't have any more — should
we focus more on maintenance now?
ix. Renee Price — no stuck on 48%, just a guideline/target
and can be adjusted
1. Gary Donaldson shared we have been above this
in some years
x. Eric Allen — meeting with architect about CHCCS
facility study today and should have an estimated
timeline
1. At a point where need to replace major systems,
which will be a bandaid, when go in should
replace full systems to make best investment
xi. Patrick Abele — OCS would need to put out an RFP for
facility study—will take 6-8 months
1. Can easily do years 1-5 now and 3rd week of
January is ok for CIP submissions
2. Echoed Eric's comments — we need to do a
better job communicating all of that to public
and officials
xii. Bonnie Hauser — Guilford's CIP increased in cost
because focused on school modernization
1. Can we contract out maintenance so it's off of
our financial books?
xiii. Renee Price — have some unsafe campuses — especially
elementary schools
1. "open" and need to be more safe
2. Keep seeing school shootings and need to
secure our campuses
3. Would like to see maintenance need list even if
don't know when or how much can plan better
a. Eric Allen mentioned a roof
management plan would help with that—
are doing that now with consultants on
facility maintenance plan
23
b. Rani Dasi mentioned it's reasonable to
do with windows, HVAC, etc.
4. Can we share these slides with the BOCC?
Would be really helpful
xiv. Jean Hamilton—Recap of To Do List:
1. Need for updated facility study
2. Need for updated facility maintenance plan
3. Coordinated capital projects
4. Benchmark how other districts handle ongoing
maintenance (share at next meeting)
a. When fix vs when replace (County and
districts will work on)
5. Long range capital plan
6. Complete normal budget cycle
7. Review state of individual schools and needs
(use same format)
a. % spent on maintenance right now
(Finance can say impact on models —
2019 template?)
5. Schedule Next Meeting
a. Renee Price and Rani Dasi — would like to see all projects and
needs—schools bring requests for next 10 years
b. Meet Monday mornings
i. January 10th from 8am-9:30am
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
https://oran eg countync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN 7QDnY E4RK-zV3vuAQxtPQ
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawfordgoran ecountync.gov before 3:00 pm on November 26,
2021.
24
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
January 27, 2022
Meeting—8:30am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on January 27, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting
remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. Review School Maintenance Needs Reports
3. Peer Jurisdiction School Maintenance Report Outs
4. Discussion and Next Steps
5. Schedule Next Meeting
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Work _group Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford@orangecountync.gov before 3:00 pm on January 25,
2022.
25
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
January 27, 2022
Meeting—8:30am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on January 27, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting
remotely.
Joining are: Jean Hamilton, Bonnie Hauser, Andre Stewart, Brenda Stephens, Monique Felder,
Nyah Hamlett, Eric Allen, Gary Donaldson, Rebecca Crawford, Kirk Vaughn, Greg Wilder,
Jonathan Scott, Patrick Abele, Rani Dasi, Renee Price, Rhonda Rath, Steve Arndt, and resident
Kari Hamel
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
• Jean to provide opening remarks, introduce the panelists and topics
■ Group settles on first names for discussion
■ Staff will rotate note taking
■ Use GARE framework
■ Wants action items and final product to come from this group
■ Jean, Rani, Brenda, Renee, Monique, Gary, Patrick discuss
frequency of meetings—Monthly, with ability to drop meetings
■ Jean, Rani, Bonnie discuss outcome of this process — Bond, or
other aspects of the CIP process
• Review School Maintenance Needs Reports
o Patrick to present Orange County's School Maintenance
■ Breaking down bond projects—
• Expanded Parking &Ag Building not complete at CRHS
• Roof projects complete save one roof,under budget
• Mechanical projects in process
o See attached slides
• School safety projects mostly complete
• Purchased property OC Welcome Center
■ Breakdown major projects by school
• Broken down by safety, new construction, Major Systems
10 year service life, Other Major Building Improvements
• Total needs of$142 M over next ten years
• Shows Grady Brown Major Projects Summary
■ Stresses cost increases and delays for supplies in pandemic.
26
• Suggests combining projects between county and school
districts to mitigate this issue
■ Question: Renee asks if older schools are being bandaided, if they
match the needs of the 21St century
• Patrick discusses the increased costs for new schools — says
$40 M for Elem $100 M for High School
■ Question: Bonnie asks if costs of schools are driven by being
designed to last 50 years. Is there a model where we build schools
for 20 years?
■ Renee and Bonnie point out the design of Grady Brown do not
match the modern safety standards
o Andre to present CHCCS report slideshow
■ 9 structures that are over 50 years, newer structures are 10 — 30
years old
■ Worked with external consultant to plan different structures
determined 3 options
■ Eric to discuss difference between repair v new schools
• New structures may cost more but can save costs in long
run
• Wake County high school building 2200 kids $176 M costs
• Question: Jean asks about the cost of land, and how do you move
kids from structure in repair?
• Eric suggests different models, both moving into swing
space - building temporary facility - vs keep students on
site. Both add costs.
■ Question: Bonnie asked about charter school's cheaper
construction costs. How can we use those efficiencies?
• Eric discuss meeting with construction, generating
efficiencies in constructions and operating costs.
■ Question: Bonnie wants group to review innovations in building
standards and structures to make efficiencies
• Patrick discussed getting best practices session from other
entities. SOG, other schools.
2. Peer Jurisdiction School Maintenance Report Outs
o Patrick to discuss OCS construction standards, notes other counties
that use DPI standards. Orange County standards are out of date and
drive up costs. Discuss how schools need to construct for growth, i.e.
larger elementary schools.
• Patrick discussed hiring and retention in trade staff, turnover
drives costs, delays
o Eric shows slide on CHCCS classified employee study, to determine
proper salary ranges.
• Discuss hiring construction professionals as project managers,
can be costed in the project budgets.
o Question: Bonnie asks about hiring versus contracting for this staff.
27
• Eric discussed how for major construction, school needs to
have manager that represents the schools, not the construction
company.
o Question: Bonnie asks about maintenance, and how both are in the CIP
process
• Patrick talks about how construction and maintenance are two
different skill sets, and we have same staff doing both.
• Weakness in maintenance drives costs in CIP, parts not lasting
full length.
• Patrick includes conversation on sustainability possibly built
into projects, and how that can drive up costs.
o Question: Jean asks about maintenance costs, are they capital costs or
operating costs
o Patrick states that they are costs in both. Staff in operating, both school
systems use recurring capital for projects
4. Discussion and Next Steps
o Jean wants to get those costs in our meeting, both operating and capital
costs
o Bonnie ask about capital versus operating. County puts schools in
tension of deciding between using per-pupil on instructional versus
maintenance needs. Should we use separate funding sources
o Jean wants to know total costs, then we can decide how to get there.
Believes this group is the basis to determine the need.
o Renee points out that we have a CIP budget, separate from operating
budget. Should CIP budget be set up differently? Especially since
Orange County Schools does not have extra funding source.
o Rani states that the county has all these assets, between county and
two school systems.
o Renee wants to make sure maintenance costs in new construction are
considered
o Patrick wants to look at other counties that have county/city schools.
How do they allocate in timing between systems?
5. Schedule Next Meeting &Next Topics
o Jean wanted to ask about next meeting: timing and items. Suggests 3rd
Wednesday of the month in mornings. 8:30 to 10am
• February 16th at 8:30am— I Oam will be next meeting
o Eric asks timing for construction. Takes 18 months to advertise,plan, get DPI
approval. Wants to make sure that construction time is built in.
• Gary stated that that is built into county CIP
o Bonnie wants invite an outsider to upcoming meeting to learn about best
practices. Wants to ask about different financing methods.
28
o Steve asked about facility condition index. Ratio of deferred maintenance to
replacement cost. Can use that to rank the schools to make decisions on which
can be replaced.
• Eric states Mosley to update report to include that detail.
• Patrick states that facility study can include that metric.
o Bonnie asks if we have two different frameworks, how can we standardize
reports?
• Eric states we don't have design guideline for school systems, rely on
firm. Next step can be merging guidelines.
o Jean made closing statement and requested that CIP budget requests be shared
at the next meeting to understand the impact on debt.
• Gary stated both School District Finance Officers have received the
necessary forms and timeline to provide their CIP requests to the
county.
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting,please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford(a,oran eg countync.gov before 3:00 pm on January 25,
2022.
29
2106 EDUCATION BOND
Project Budget Expenditures %Exp Balance Notes
Classroom addition completed.Expanded parking and AG
CRHS Classroom Addition $14,500,000.00 $12,984,021.00 89.54% $1,515,979.00 building not completed.
Transportation Joint Facility $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 Removed from the projects by CHCCS/OCS
Roof Replacements $4,038,889.00 $3,040,560.00 75.28% $998,329.00 See below
Mechanical Systems $24,096,118.00 $14,264,360.92 59.20% $9,831,757.08 See below
School Safety $2,156,993.00 $1,940,205.97 89.95% $216,787.03 Vesitbules installed all locations except HES.
Purchase Real Property OC-Welcome Center $3,100,000.00 $3,100,000.00 100.00% $216,787.03
$47,892,000.00 $35,329,147.89 73.77% $12,562,852.11
Bond Sales by Orange County Dates
Year 1 Funding FY'18(2017-2018) $15,964,000
Year 3 Funding FY'20(2019-2020) $15,964,000
Year Funding FY'22 (2021-2022) $15,964,000
$47,892,000
30
BOND PROJECTS 2016
Mechanical Projects Status Update
River Park Elementary Phase II Ongoing 50% complete
Central Elementary 100% design, rebid in Feb/Mar '22
Efland Cheeks 100% design, bid in Feb/Mar '22
AL Stanback 85% design, bid in Feb/Mar '22
New Hope Partial complete, working with DPI on replacement schedule
Hillsborough Not started
Grady A Brown Not started
31
BOND PROJECTS 2016
Roof Projects Status Update
AL Stanback Middle Completed
River Park Elementary Completed
Efland-Cheeks Elementary Completed
Grady A Brown Elementary Completed
Hilsborough Elementary Not completed-TBC '2023
32
New Construction or Major Systems<10 Other MajorTotal Projected
Safety Additions Years Service Life Building Cost
School Name Improvements
Central ES $140,000 $5,707,090 $5,269,961 $4,313,469 $15,430,520
Efand-Cheeks Global ES $140,000 $4,027,933 $3,780,204 $1,252,864 $9,201,001 1
Grady A Brown ES $140,000 $1,358,930 $2,792,961 $5,659,457 $9,951,348
Hillsborough ES $186,948 $26,848,000 $5,229,972 $6,078,122 $38,343,042 ' Orange
Hope ES $140,000 $0 $3,034,092 $1,300,000 $4,474,092
Pathways ES $140,000 $0 $2,567,101 $643,604 $3,350,705 County River Park ES $140,000 $18,276,225 $1,724,746 $778,632 $20,919,603
A L Stanback MS $140,000 $0 $1,781,607 $2,728,768 $4,650,375 Schools
Gravelly Hill MS $222,701 $0 $2,533,034 $1,334,593 $4,090,328
Orange MS $184,827 $0 $1,908,865 $3,872,360 $5,966,052 NORTH CAROLINA
Cedar Ridge HS $325,719 $0 $7,285,461 $523,650 $8,134,830
Orange HS $975,000 $5,491,775 $3,922,766 $5,336,208 $15,725,749
Partnership $47,479 $2,500,000 $45,449 $77,869 $2,670,797
DISTRICT TOTALS $2,922,674 $64,209,953 $41,876,219 $33,899,596 $142,908,442
33
AL STANBACK MIDDLE SCHOOL School Capacityl
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY i 74_0
MEMBERSHIP COUNT. 65.1
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1995
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT'
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
I :;IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $100,000 $140,000 N
a
Subtotal i $100,000 i $140,000
0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
Subtotal $0 $0 0
;MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
Option LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
a
1 NEW BOILER $242,396 $302,994 N
3 :ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $515,091 $721,127 N
1 :NEW CHILLER $605,989 $757,486 N
Subtotal $1,363,475 i $1,781,607 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
3
.RENOVATE 6TH GRADE CLASSROOM WING $136,348 1 $166,647 N
a
1 ;FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS
$9,090 $10,908 N
a
3 ;:INTERIOR FACILITIES UPGRADES AND REPAIRS: SCIENCE Room I
$252,495 $378,743 N
1 :LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $745,366 $975,642 N
1 ::NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $309,054 $515,091 N
:EXTERIOR RECOMMENDED REPAIRS $605,989 $681,738 N
a
Subtotal $2,058,342 $2,728,768
0
Grand Tota13(2024 cost estimate):. $3,521,818 $4,650,376 0
Number of classrooms below DPI minimums sf: TBD Number of mobile units: 0
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
I School Capacity:Orange County NC Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(SAPFO).Annual membership count November 15,2019. Optionof
Service(LOS)means the amount(/eve/)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary
Option(K-5),Middle Option(6-8),High School Option(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange
County NC SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3
shall be at the following ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
2 Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
3 Annual inflationary construction cost is calculated at 6%.
Priority Ranking Key
Repair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to the health and safety of the students and
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Optionl being met by current systems)
Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class size square footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option2 and/or meet future capacity needs and the Orange County School Building Standards of 585 students for elementary schools.
uprionf I Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class size square footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
REVISED DATE:2/20/20
34
CEDAR RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL School Capacity'
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY;: 1,50T
MEMBERSHIP COUNT; 1,067
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 2002
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST! CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY
LOW HIGH
1 :IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $287,845 $325,719 N
a
Subtotal
$287,845 $325,719 0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
Subtotal $0 $0 500
MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10 Option LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
I ;MECHANICAL HVAC SYSTEM $1,856,750 $2,542,124 N
I ::ROOF COATING/SEALING(20 yr) $2,000,000 $3,500,000
1 ::ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $626,896
$940,343 N
1 NEW BOILER $242,396 $302,994 N
Subtotal $4,726,041 $7,285,461 0
—Option :MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
I ;FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $42,419 $53,024 N
I :INTERIOR FACILITIES UPGRADES AND REPAIRS: SCIENCE ROOM $183,312 $226,488 N
1 LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $149,111
$244,138 N
a
Subtotal $374,842 $523,650 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs wlincreased capacity): $5,388,728 $8,134,831 0
Number of mobile units currently on site 0
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
following ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
12Capacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option 1 being met by current systems)
Option 2 Re air and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option J Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/8/2022
35
• CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School Capacity'
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY;: 428
MEMBERSHIP COIJ...: ---
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1953
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
I IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $100,000 $140,000 N
Subtotal
$100,000 $140,000 0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
2 :CLASSROOM EXPANSION(UNIT PRICES INCLUDE PROJECT COSTS): $3,306,427 1 $4,133,034 TBD
IMEDIA CENTER EXPANSION(upgrades
3 $757,486 $946,858
N
:completed without SF expansion in 2018)
3 :OFFICE EXPANSION $545,390 $627,199 N
a
Subtotal $4,609,303 $5,707,090 1 TBD
'MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
Option LOW
HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
1 NEW BOILER $121,198 $151,497 a N
a
a
I :ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADEa
$325,472 $418,464 N
:MECHANICAL HVAC
1 $2,100,000 $4,700,000 N
:;EQUIPMENT/ELECTRICAL UPGRADES
Subtotal $2,546,670 $5,269,961 0
Option :MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
1 :FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $151,497 $181,797 N
:INTERIOR FINISHINGS(VCT,CABINETS,
I ::SINKS, RESTROOM UPGRADES, PAINTING, $1,500,000 $3,000,000
::GYM RENOVATIONS)
1 ::PRE-K PLAYGROUND SURFACE REPLACEMENT $348,444 $475,000 N
1 :PLAYGROUND FENCE INSTALLATION
$121,198 $166,647 N
I :LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $212,096
$257,545 N
1 NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $139,488 $232,480 N
Subtotal $2,472,723 $4,313,469 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity). $9,728,696 $15,430,521 TED
Number of mobile units currently on site 0
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
7 Scnool Capacity:urange County Nu Scoos equate PulTic Facintles urainance Annuai mem ijersnip count Novemijer 7b, 2079.Levei or
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
following ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
12Capacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost)
Priority Ranking Key
Repair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to tWhealth and safety of the students and
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option 1 being met by current systems)
Option 2 Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option.5 Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/8120
36
EFLAND CHEEKS GLOBAL ELEMENTARY! School Capacity'
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY. 455
MEMBERSHIP COUNT. 499
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1952
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
.IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS
1 $100,000 $140,000 N
Subtotal $140,000 0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
2 CLASSROOM EXPANSION $2,485,502 $2,982,602 126
2 PRE-KADDITION $908,983 $1,045,331 TBD
Subtotal
$3,394,485 i $4,027,933 TED
:MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
OptionLOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
3 ROOF REPLACEMENT $318,144 $363,593 N
1 ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $345,102
$443,702 N
1 NEW BOILER
$121,198 $151,497 N
1 NEW COOLING TOWER $48,479 $60,599 N
1 :TOTAL HVAC REPLACEMENT $2,366,411 $2,760,813 N
Subtotal
$3,199,334 $3,780,204 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
I FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS
$278,906 $332,385 N
I :EXTERIOR RECOMMENDED REPAIRS $181,797 $206,036 N
:LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $357,221 $467,942 N
a
1 NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $147,901 $246,501
N
Subtotal $965,825 $1,252,864 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity): #VALUE! $9,201,001 TBD
Number of mobile units currently on site 0
Note:The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
Ifollowing ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
12Gapacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option 1 being met by current systems)
Option 2 Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option.5 Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/8/2022
37
GRADY BROWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School Capacity'
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY 49
MEMBERSHIPCOUNT 442
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1974
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
a
I :IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $100,000 $140,000 N
a Subtotal $100,000 $140,000 0
a
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
I MAIN ENTRANCE ADDITION $1,181,678 $1,358,930 N
Subtotal
$1,181,678 $1,358,930 0
:MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
OptionLOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
I ;BOILER UPGRADES $166,647 $212,096 N
a
1 NEW COOLING TOWER $48,479
$60,599 N
1 :NEW ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM $397,765 $511,412 N
a
1 :MECHANICAL HVAC UPGRADE $1,702,829
$2,008,853 N
Subtotal $2,315,720 $2,792,961 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
3 MEDIA CENTER/TEACHER SUPPORT RENOVATIONS
$2,461,830 $2,954,196 N
:PARKING LOT REPAVING AND CANOPY
$300,000 $600,000
::REPAIR a
1 :HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REMOVAL $250,000 $600,000 N
1 ;FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $202,022 $251,561 N
3 WOVE FRONT PLAYGROUNG/NEW PARKING/QUEUE LINE $681,738 $833,235 N
I :LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE
$106,048 1 $136,348 N
1 ::NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $170,471 $284,118 N
Subtotal $4,172,108 1 $5,659,457 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity). $7,769,507 $9,951,348 0
Number of mobile units currently on site
Note:The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
, ow,uu,�ajjawty. 'J1,111yu UUU111y 1�u Ou'luul��Uvqudtv�Uullu�dwllvv��Iulllallu�[0uj. 1-111—wilp uuwll,�Uvv...Uut ,0, ZU I".LtVul U1
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary/eve/
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
1following ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
ZGapacity impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option 1 being met by current systems)
Option 2 Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
uption.3 Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/8/2022
38
GRAVELLY HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL School Capacity'
major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY 7_00
MEMBERSHIP COUNT 46
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 2006
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
.IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS
1 $199,976 $222,701 N
Subtotal
$199,976 $222,701 0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
Subtotal $0 $0 0
:MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
OptionLOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
.NEW BOILER $242,396 $302,994 N
I NEW CHILLER $605,989 $757,486 N
1 NEW HVAC COMPONENTS(DOAS,AHU, FCU) $1,042,301 $1,472,553 N
Subtotal $1,890,685 $2,533,034 0
Option :MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
.INTERIOR RENOVATIONS: UPGRADE SCIENCE CLASSROOMS TO
a
3 $90,000 $180,000 N
:DPI STANDARDS
1 :NEW GENERATOR
$60,599 $75,749 N
a
a
:PAVING/SIDEWALK REPAIR; PAVE REAR
1 $502,994 $840,994 N
a
:GRAVEL LOT
a
:STORMDRAIN BMP REFURBISHING AND TOPSOIL/SEEDING $151,497 $196,946 N
a
1 1IGHTING:AUDITORIUM ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $26,815 $40,904 N
a
Subtotal $831,905 $1,334,593 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity): $2,922,567 $4,090,328 0
Number of mobile units currently on site 0
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
1 School Capacity:Orange County NC;Schools Adequate Public 1--acIlitles Ordinance(SAPt-U).Annual membership count November 15, 2019.Level oT—
Service(LOS)means the amount(/eve/)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
following ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18),1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
Rpapacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
Kepair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to the health and safety of esutudents and
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option 1 �being met by current systems)
Option 2 1 Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option 3 I Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
'REVISED DATE:1/8/2022
39
HILLSBOROUGH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School Capacity'
Major Capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY;:
MEMBERSHIP COUNT. 444
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1952
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
I :IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $143,922 $186,948 N
a Subtotal $143,922 i $186,948 0
a
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
2 REPLACE BUILDING 100 $22,500,000 $26,848,000 TBD
Subtotal $22,500,000 $26,848,000 TBD
MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
Option . LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
I ;NEW HVAC SYSTEM $1,735,837 $2,433,176 N
:ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $386,397 $496,796 N
a
1 :ROOF REPLACEMENT(BLDG 200/300/1 OO/LC) $1,800,000 $2,300,000 N
Subtotal $3,922,234 $5,229,972 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
I BUILDING CONNECTORS $2,500,000 $3,500,000 N
I OUTDOOR UPGRADE $545,390 $621,139 N
I :SEWER LINE REPAIR
$340,869 1 $393,893 N
1 IHAZARDOUS MATERIAL REMOVAL $525,492 $618,987 N
a
:FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $209,596 $281,709 1 N
I ::LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $331,197 $386,397 N
I :NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $165,708 $275,998
N
Subtotal i $4,618,253 $6,078,122 0
Grand Total (2024 Costs w/increased capacity). $31,184,409 $38,343,042 TBD
2 OPTION: REMOVE 100,200 AND 300 BUILDINGS AND REPLACE WITH 1 $28,000,000 $32,000,000 TED
I NEW BUILDING BUILT TO NCDPI SPECIFICATIONS
Note:The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
1 School Gapace ty.,Orange County NG Schools Adequate Public Facilities ordinance(SAPI-U).Annual Membership count November 15, 2019.Level ot
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary/eve/
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall beat the
Ifollowing ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
12Capacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
Kepair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to the health and safety of esutudents and
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option I being met by current systems)
Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class size square footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option 2 and/or meet future capacity needs and the Orange County School Building Standards of 585 students for elementary schools.
Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
Option 3 future capaicty needs or capacity standards of 637 students for elementary schools.
REVISED DATE:1/812022
40
NEW HOPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School Capacity'
- Major Capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY _526
MEMBERSHIP COUNT 579
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1991
CAPACITY
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST.
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
a
.IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS
$100,000.00 $140,000.00 N
Subtotal $100,000.00 $140,000.00
0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
Subtotal $0.00 $0.00
0
MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
Option . LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
a
1
.NEW HVAC SYSTEM $1,727,825.97 $2,351,237.09 N
1 ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $531,109.92 $682,855.61 N
Subtotal $2,258,935.88 $3,034,092.70 0
Option :MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
LOW HIGH
I FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $18,937.15 $26,057.52 N
a
a
1 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REMOVAL:CARPET AND MASTIC $340,868.78 $378,743.09 N
I LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $409,669.73 $515,835.97 N
1 :NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $227,618.54 $379,364.23 s N
Subtotal $997,094.20 i $1,300,000.81
0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity). $3,356,030.09 $4,474,093.50 0
Number of mobile units currently on site 2
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
7 Scnool uapace ty:Orange uounty rVuScrI001S equate Pu Facuirles Ordinance(SAFFU).Annual mem oersnip counovember 75,ZU79.Leve76r—
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
Ifollowing ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
12Capacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
F;[d`pajr,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems tnat are important to tne neaitn an satety of thesu ens-a-ncT-
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option I being met by current systems)
Option 2 Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option 3 Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/812022
41
ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL School Capacity'
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY 1,3
MEMBERSHIP COUNT 1,2913
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1962
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
I IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $524,180
$975,000 N
a
Subtotal $524,180 $975,000 0
a
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
3 REPLACE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BUILDING $4,393,420 $5,491,775 TBD
Subtotal $4,393,420 $5,491,775 TBD
MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10 Option LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
I ROOF REPLACEMENTS(400/AUX GYM) $350,000 $525,000 N
1 ::NEW BOILER-FIELD HOUSE
$121,198 1 $151,497 N
I ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $1,132,112 1 $1,455,572 N
1 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS UGRADE $1,375,595 $1,790,697 N
Subtotal $2,978,904 $3,922,766 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
LOW HIGH
1 :FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $266,938 $348,065
N
1 ::BACK DRIVEWAY REPAIR $1,363,475 $1,666,470 N
I ::INTERIOR RENOVATIONS: NON-ACCESSIBLE GROUP RESTROOMS 1 $699,917 1 $769,606 N
1 :INTERIOR RENOVATIONS:WOOD GYM FLOORS REFURBISH $143,922
$159,072 N
I 1IGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $1,222,252 $1,584,344 N
1 ;NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $485,191 $808,651
N
Subtotal $4,181,696 $5,336,208 1 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity) $12,078,201 $15,725,749 TED
Number of mobile units currently on site 8
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
I School Capacity:Orange County NC Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(SAPFO).Annual membership count November 15,2019.Level of
Service(LOS)means the amount(/eve/)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group,[i.e.,Elementary/eve/
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
ifollowing ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18),1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
12capacity impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option 1 being met by current systems)
option 2 Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option 3 Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/812022
ORANGE MIDDLE SCHOOL School Capacity' 42
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY;: 726
MEMBERSHIP COUNT" 642
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1968
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
I IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $162,102 $184,827 N
Subtotal
$162,102 $184,827 0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
Subtotal $0 $0 0
MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10 Option LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE a
1 NEW BOILER $242,396 $302,994 N
a
a
a
I :;NEW CHILLER $393,893 $454,492 :: N
a a
a a
1 :REPLACE ALL AIR HANDLERS $1,060,481 $1,151,379 N
a
Subtotal $1,696,769 i $1,908,865 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
I REPLACE CANOPIES CAMPUS-WIDE
$1,724,039 $1,896,745 N
1 ::FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $268,908 $309,736 N
::INTERIOR RENOVATIONS: UPGRADE SCIENCE CLASSROOMS TO
$325,719 $356,019 N
:DPI STANDARDS
1 :LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE $655,066 $859,542 N
NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $270,354 $450,318 N
Subtotal $3,244,086 $3,872,360 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity). $5,102,957 $5,966,052
0
Number of mobile units currently on site 0
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
I Owluul udlidully.Uldflyu LUUIIIY IV,-owluuls/wequalu r-uollu rawilues Litumance(omrru).mimuni muninumvp munt movenloer 10,ZUI&.LeVeIZT—
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
Ifollowing ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
12Gapacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
R-e—pair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to the health and safety of esutudents an
staffand to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option I being met by current systems)
air and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
PTI_on_ Rep
2�_ —1
upriond Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/8/2022
43
PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY School Capacity'
Major capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY 40
MEMBERSHIP COUNT 34
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 2006
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY
ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option SAFETY LOW HIGH
I IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS(CURRENT LOCATION): $39,389.28 $48,479.12 N
Subtotal
$39,389.28 $48,479.12
0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
1 RELOCATION WELCOME CENTER WITH ADMIN AND CAFE ADDITION: $1,200,000.00 $2,500,000.00
Subtotal $1,200,000.00 $2,500,000.00 0
MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
Option LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
a
a
1 HVAC SYSTEM REPLACEMENTS(CURRENT LOCATION)
$38,480.30 $45,449.17 N
Subtotal $38,480.30 $45,449.17 0
Option :MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
a
.EXTERIOR DRAINAGE WORK(CURRENT
a
1 $45,449.17 $68,173.76 N
.LOCATION)
a
1 ;LIGHTING: EXTERIOR LIGHTING UPGRADE(CURRENT LOCATION) $4,847.91 $9,695.82 N
a
a
Subtotal $50,297.08 $77,869.58 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity). $1,328,166.66 $2,671,797.86 0
Number of mobile units currently on site
Note:The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
7 Scnool Capacity:urange County TUC Scoos equate Fu1 Faclutles urclinance(SAFT-0)_14nnual mem oersnip count Movemoer 7, 2079.Level or
Service(LOS)means the amount(/eve/)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
following ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
2Capacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
Repair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to the health and safety of the students and
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option 1 being met by current systems)
0ption2 i Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200:S':::::�
uptionf �Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/812022
44
PA TH WA YS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School Capacity'
Major Capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY;:
MEMBERSHIP COUNT. 381
AGE OF SCHOOUBUILDINGS 2000
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT 2
Option :SAFETY LOW HIGH
I IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $100,000 $140,000 N
Subtotal $100,000 $140,000 0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
Subtotal $0 $0 0
MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
Option . LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
1 NEW BOILER $242,396 $302,994 N
1 NEW CHILLER $605,989 $757,486 N
I :MECHANICAL HVAC EQUIPMENT $714,309 $1,054,421 N
1 ::ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $323,000 $452,200 N
a
Subtotal 1 $1,885,694 $2,567,101 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
1 ;FOOD SERVICE RENOVATIONS $7,120 $10,605 N
I PARKING LOT EXPANSION $252,000 $310,000 N
I NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING $193,800 $323,000 N
Subtotal
$452,920 $643,604 0
Grand Total(2024 Costs w/increased capacity). $2,438,614 $3,350,705 0
Number of mobile units currently on site 0
Note:The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
1 School Capacity:Orange County NG Schools Adequate Public t-acilities Ordinance nnual membership count November 15,2019.LeveFo-T--
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
12Capacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
Priority Ranking Key
----R-e—pair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to the health and safety of esutudents an
staffand to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option I I being met by current systems)
Option 2 Repair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
Option J Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/812022
- -) River Park Elementary School School Capacity' 45
Major Capital Projects Requiring Additional Funding SAPFO CAPACITY 502
MEMBERSHIP COUNT 601
AGE OF SCHOOL/BUILDINGS 1956
PROJECT PRIORITY&CATEGORY ESTIMATED RANGE OF COST. CAPACITY
IMPACT'
Option iSAFETY LOW HIGH
1 :IMPLEMENT SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS $100,000 $140,000 N
a
a
Subtotal $100,000 $140,000 0
Option NEW CONSTRUCTION&BUILDING ADDITIONS LOW HIGH
2 RENOVATE/EXPAND EXISTING 2-4 WING
$4,999,409 i $5,732,655 Y
a
2 ::DECONSTRUCT/EXPAND EXISTING 4-5 WING $6,665,878 $8,332,348 Y
3 ::NEW CONNECTOR
$587,052 $733,815 N
3 :,RENOVATE EXISTING K-1 WING $2,670,139 $3,076,000 N
3 ::RENOVATE EXISTING OFFICE SUITE $348,444 $401,407 N
Subtotal $15,270,921 $18,276,225 TED
;MAJOR SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH<10
Option LOW HIGH
.YEARS OF USABLE LIFE
1 :;NEW BOILER $242,396 $302,994 1 N
a
:HVAC MECHANICAL UPGRADES
1 $439,000 $939,000
I(CLASSROOM WINGS)
3 ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE $375,474 $482,752
N
Subtotal $1,056,869 i $1,724,746 0
Option MAJOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS LOW HIGH
1 LIGHTING: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING UPGRADE
$370,326 $510,437 N
1 :NEW EMERGENCY GENERATOR LIGHTING
$160,917 $268,196 N
Subtotal $531,243 i $778,632
150
Grand Tota13(2024 cost estimate):. $16,959,034 $20,919,604 TBD
TBD Number of mobile 2
Note: The above cost estimates include major projects that were identified in the 2013-2014 Schools Comprehensive Facilities
Assessment as well as projects that have been identified since that study.None of the projects listed have been fully funded.
I School Capacity:Orange County NC Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(SAPFO).Annual membership count November 15,2019.Level of
Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated(serviced)at certain school system grade group.[i.e.,Elementary level
(K-5),Middle Level(6-8),High School Level(9-12)]Standards for LOS:Elementary 105%,Middle 107%,High School 110%.Source:Orange County NC
SAPFO Annual Report. Class size reduction phase-in based on House Bill 90(SL 2017).Allotment and average class size in grades K-3 shall be at the
following ratios for 2021-2022:Kindergarten(1:18), 1st Grade(1:16),2nd&3rd Grade(1:17).
F2Capacity Impact:YIN(number indicates number of potential seats gained or lost.)
3Annual inflaitonary construction cost increased is calculated at 6%
Priority Ranking Key
Repair,replacement or renovation of items,components or systems that are important to the health and safety of the students and
staff and to sustain the overall operation of the facility.General maintaince and system service life upgrades.(state building code
violations,health department violations,handicapped accessibility issues,removal of hazardous material,security issues not
Option �being met by current systems)
OP ion R�eair and renovation of long-range items that also bring the class sizes uare footage of elementary classrooms to 1,200 sf
uptionj 'Repair and long-range improvements that extend a minimum of twenty-five years of additional operation to a facility and meet
REVISED DATE:1/812022
I
I
o
4 '
1 r�ldl
Joint Taskforce Facilities Report
Andre` Stewart and Eric Allen
s ;
.,,5
Aging Structures
CHCCS has 9 structures that Our newer
are 50 years or older. structures range
between 10 and 30
Carrboro ES (1957) years old.
Glenwood ES (195
Estes Hills ES (1958) McDougle MS
Seawell ES (1969) _ McDougle ES
Culbreth MS (1969) East CHHS
Phillips MS (1962) �a`�a„ Scroggs ES
FP Graham ES (1963) r '- Smith MS
Ephesus ES (1972) Rashkis ES
Lincoln Center (1950) Carrboro HS
Aging Infrastructure ADA Egress Issues Morris Grove ES
Phoenix Academy
�- Northside
W mom
Y-
s i 2
. . :O'•
Campus Security Issues Lighting
Options for Structure Renovation or Replacement
Option One Option Two Option 3
Repair, replacement or renovation Repair and renovation of long-range Repair and renovation f long-range
of items, components or systems items that also bring the class size items that also bring the class size
that are important to the health square footage of elementary square footage of elementary
and safety of the students and classrooms to 1,200 sf and/or meet classrooms to 1,200 sf and/or meet
staff and to sustain the overall future capacity needs and the future capacity needs and the
operation of the facility. General Orange County School Building Orange County School Building
maintenance and system service Standards of 585 students for Standards of 637 students for
life upgrades. (state building code elementary schools. (OC standard at elementary schools. Utilize
violations, health department 585 currently: New standard =517 sustainable approaches to extend
violations, handicapped with class size changes) INTERIOR building life while reducing overall
accessibility issues, removal of RENOVATIONS BUILDING maintenance and operation costs.
hazardous material, security ADDITION AND SITE (DPI building size old standard=
issues not being met by current IMPROVEMENT MECHANICAL 700 students/new standard with
systems) SYSTEM UPGRADES MAJOR class size changes =637 students)
BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
HAPEL HILL-
49
Estimated Renovation Cost
Structures with Option 1 & 3 Structures with Option 1
Option 1 (cost est. 2024)
Option 1 (cost Option 3 (cost _ School Name cost range
est. 2024) cost est. 2024) cost
School Name range range Glenwood Elementary School $5 - $6.4 million
Carrboro $12.3 - $15.7 $31.5 - $40.7 Frank Porter Graham
Elementary School million million Elementary School $5 - $6.2 million
Seawell Elementary School $6 - $7.5 million
Estes Hills $34.9 - $45.1
Elementary School $5.2 - $6.9 million million Phillips Middle School $8.5 - $10.6 million
Ephesus $35.6 - $44.4
Culbreth Middle School $10 - $12.9 million
Elementary School $5.6 - $7.3 million million Lincoln Center $44.5 - $46.9 million
'IWEL HILL-
Ways in which other counties fund 50
Renovation/Reconstruction
51
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
February 16, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on February 16, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting
remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. Review School Facilities Definitions (Orange County Finance staff)
a. Capital Project
b. Maintenance
c. Deferred Maintenance
d. Recurring Capital
e. Operating Costs
3. Current (FY22-23) School Facilities Planning and Budgeting Process
(OCS and CHCCS staff)
a. Explain how facility needs are planned, and how they are
submitted to the county in capital and operating budgets.
b. Preview of 2022-23 Capital budgets that are currently under
development.
c. How are capital and maintenance projects prioritized?
d. What needs are excluded from the capital budget request?
e. For longer term planning, what if we had a CIP with details for
10 years?
4. Discussion and Next Steps
5. Next Meeting is Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting,please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
52
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford&oran eg countync.gov before 3:00 pm on February 14,
2022
53
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
February 16, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on February 16, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting
remotely.
Panelist Attendees: Jean Hamilton, Bonnie Hauser, Andre' Stewart, Carrie Doyle,
Dr. Nyah Hamlett, Eric Allen, Greg Wilder, Jonathan Scott, Patrick Abele, Rani
Dasi, Renee Price, Rhonda Rath, Steve Arndt, Rebecca Crawford, Kirk Vaughn
Public Attendee: Kari Hamel
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
a. Jean asked if we needed to open the meeting with a motion but
the group determined that wasn't necessary for a workgroup
b. Jean reviewed the agenda and requested that the definition
section last no longer than 20 minutes.
c. Jean requested no introductions but that if you are presenting to
share your name first for those viewing.
d. Jean requested that you submit your slides from previous
meetings to Rebecca to share with the group.
2. Review School Facilities Definitions (Orange County Finance staff)
a. Capital Project
b. Maintenance
c. Deferred Maintenance
d. Recurring Capital
e. Operating Costs
• Notes: Gary Donaldson shared that the Orange County Finance
staff shared this presentation ahead of time for all to review and
proceeded to define the items listed on the agenda through
PowerPoint slides.
• Gary clarified that some operating costs can be debt financed as
approved by the Local Government Commission such as those
related to architectural design, engineering, and project
management related to capital expenditures
54
o LGC wants to prevent a change in scope such that we
don't finance soft costs and then don't follow through
with the related construction/capital project
o Operating Cost Impacts are projected to understand the
impact of capital projects to our operating budget
■ Ex: Southern Branch Library staff,utilities, etc.
• Patrick shared that SAPFO frequently discusses how to fund
future growth and renovations of schools
• Bonnie requested that we review the Finance definitions from
the school usage perspective
o Are computers considered capital equipment? Gary
shared that we have financed them in the past
• Bonnie shared that she still has questions about deferred
maintenance. District CFOs had no comments. Bonnie asked
why are maintenance items deferred rather than being funded
and pursued? Requested that we discuss further when we talk
about specific priorities.
• Jean commented that she wondered when we get caught-up?
What are the actual costs to do everything and how do we do
know the funding gap so we can catch up?
• Jean asked about the definition of recurring capital vs capital
asset—are they the same?
o Gary clarified they are different and have different useful
life
■ Recurring capital items that are debt financed always
match the useful life of the assets with the bond
principal amortization schedule.
■ The County delineates recurring capital items separate
from longer term projects in its NC Local Government
Commission application.
■ Ex: vertical building = capital asset but the
furniture inside is recurring capital (shorter
useful life)
■ The county would like to shift towards using
more PAYGO funding for recurring capital
rather than financing
o Would like to have a better idea of school needs and then
figure out how to finance
• Bonnie asked if ongoing maintenance staff are considered
operating or capital?
o Gary shared they should be operating. If you hire a
project manager for a specific capital project, that could
be financed as a part of the construction cost
o Bonnie shared that if we aren't making improvements
that are needed, it will overinflate our operating budget
causing more needs for handymen to fix ongoing
55
problems. Could that be a savings if we did the
renovations in the capital budget?
■ Patrick responded that is an issue, especially
when you're operating older buildings. More
costly to keep older systems up and running.
Harder to replace — have to bring other systems
up to code at the same time.
■ Agrees with Gary that we should try to shift
recurring capital off of debt financing so we have
as much flexibility as possible about how to use
those funds
• The restrictions cause a burden on
schools and parents, especially athletics
for paint, grass seed, etc., which don't
meet the definition for debt financing and
have to be covered in school budgets
■ Eric shared that utility usage also contributes to
higher operating costs — the longer you use a
system, the more costly it is to run vs replace
3. Current(FY22-23) School Facilities Planning and Budgeting Process(OCS
and CHCCS staff)
a. Explain how facility needs are planned, and how they are
submitted to the county in capital and operating budgets.
i. OCS
1. Patrick shared there is no formal presentation but
in the past planning is done through county CIP
a. We are aligning to a new format for a 10
year plan so everyone looks at the same
format and will be helpful for ongoing
meetings with county staff and both
systems
b. Use reports to divide up categories and
then analyze projects from there
i. Roof systems, windows, etc. that
impact operating costs
(mechanical systems such as
HVAC, boilers, chillers, fire
alarm systems, etc.),
sustainability projects, learning
environments (need adequate
furnishings, bathrooms, learning
equipment)
ii. Do assessments, then review
available funding both from
system and from county
56
ii. CHCCS
1. Andre' and Eric shared a PowerPoint
presentation
a. Partner with Mosley Architects for
facility needs study
i. Have 9 older buildings and
continuously have to band aid
systems
ii. Eric echoed that failing older
units are definitely an issue —
there is a point where a system is
costing more to fix than to replace
1. Andre' shared that is also
true of roofing projects
b. Preview of 2022-23 Capital budgets that are currently under
development.
i. CHCCS
1. Athletic field upgrades, abatement projects,
building improvements, electrical/lighting and
HVAC upgrades,roofing and pavement, security
upgrades, technology upgrades
ii. OCS
1. Completing HVAC renovation projects, Elfand
Cheeks, River Park, Stanback, Grady Brown,
Hillsborough (mechanical plus projects —
upgrade classrooms and buildings when go in to
replace HVAC such as flooring, lighting, ceiling
tiles, bathrooms, etc. since they will be impacted
by the mechanical system replacements)
a. No swing space in OCS — renovations
can't necessarily be completed over the
summer any more (buildings are in use,
not enough time) so have to bring in
mobile units for swing space for students
during times of renovations while school
is in session
c. How are capital and maintenance projects prioritized?
i. CHCCS —Andre'
1. Use Facility Condition Assessment and FCI to
determine the prioritization and order of projects
to be taken on — structural safety and
sustainability come first
ii. OCS - Patrick
1. Don't have a sustainability coordinator but will
be looking into it
57
2. Would like to use FCI to prioritize and help with
feasibility and planning
d. What needs are excluded from the capital budget request?
i. CHCCS —Andre'
1. New school construction, swing space needed
during renovations not included in request
ii. OCS -Patrick
1. School growth from west(Mebane)—difficult to
project increases
e. For longer term planning, what if we had a CIP with details for
10 years?
i. CHCCS
1. Have shifted to 10 year framework and submitted
request to county
ii. Note from Orange County Manager and Finance: It
is critical to have detail in years 6 through 10 of the
10 year CIP in order to best understand the
implications on debt service and predict next bond
issuance.
4. Discussion and Next Steps
a. Jean:
i. Example of template used for submitting CIP requests to
county
ii. If there were no funding limits what would that look
like?
1. Patrick and Andre' shared that if funding wasn't
a limit, would build new schools rather than
renovate old schools (would still need swing
space to house students while build and demolish
older buildings)
a. Eric shared that he would engage with
Green Tract site to build a new
elementary site, land next to Morris
Grove for more swing space for Phillips
Middle school to start renovate it, and
start working on more renovations at
other middle schools
iii. Could we construct the"aspirational"CIP so we can talk
about how could we make it work and look at the
priorities countywide?
1. BOCC will hear the long term financial plan
presentation and debt model this Thursday
evening so this is good timing
b. Bonnie:
i. Loves the idea of an aspirational CIP.
58
ii. Would like to review the idea of standards. Are our
useful life standards of buildings too long? How do we
build schools cheaper like Eno River Academy and make
that consistent across the school district?
iii. Can we do maintenance across campuses? Is it currently
done at the same time or should we do it that way for
economies?
c. Renee: Both school systems have told us previously what they
need but the funding isn't there.Mandates coming from the state
have been hard
i. Schools and BOCC have had goals with the bonds, but
then weather catastrophes and cost increases came up
and we had to re-prioritize, The same with state
mandated class sizes.
1. Definitely should look at needs but be prepared
for things to derail that are unanticipated
2. How can we plan these together? Especially
since the state won't give us our lottery money.
d. Carrie:
i. When we do delay replacing school buildings,we do lose
ADM when kids go to charter schools and private
schools and then lose funding
e. Rani:
i. It's important that we consider the elements of the plan
and the funding elements. Renee is right that there are
local funding limitations but maybe we can all advocate
for more funding on the state level
1. State has a surplus of excess revenue receipts
2. Likes the idea of the aspirational plan to work
towards while advocating for other funding from
the state
f. Renee:
i. Do you still have your list of capital needs from the last
bond? That might help as a starting point
1. Patrick: those are the mechanical projects that
we're working on—larger parts are complete and
additional funding from the county will be used
against escalating costs from the pandemic
a. The only proj ect not funded,was the j oint
transportation facility. Everything else
the district intended to fund will be
funded with the bond$
2. Eric: Have the 2013/2014 Facility Commission
report—what could do/have to do/like to do
a. Updated in 2018 and in the process now
to update the last version
59
b. CHCCS will use that to create the
aspirational list, especially for Lincoln
Center and Transportation building
(erosion problems)
3. Rani:
a. Basic needs vs aspirational
b. Walked through an older school
yesterday and was very apparent how
much better it would be to rebuild it vs
renovating
i. Still constrained by time and
energy even if had money
g. Bonnie
i. Our building and construction standards are too outdated
and don't match between the two districts
1. Eric asked if Bonnie was referring to joint design
standards between both districts? Could draft
them but would be up to boards to review and
approve
a. DPI standards vs Orange County building
standards
ii. It takes too long to get projects completed
iii. Need to take weather conditions into account, too
h. Jean—Next agenda:
i. Discuss difference between OC standards and DPI
design standards?
1. Implications on costs?
ii. Joint bidding/shared contractors for projects across both
districts
1. Implications on costs?
iii. Outsourcing of maintenance for assets
iv. Someone to present on best practices for construction,
design, and maintenance standards
i. Patrick
i. Could they have longer than a month — lots of topics
discussed
ii. Eric said he could reach out to experts to come back and
present about construction standards but would need
longer than a month (the group agreed upon May as the
target date for the subject matter expert to share
information)
1. The group agreed this would be helpful
j. Jean
i. When could we get a spreadsheet with the"aspirational"
CIP? To be kept in mind when making decisions about
funding?
60
k. Bonnie — it's hard to imagine doing aspirational or the next
round of bond funding before we have design standards
1. Rani isn't sure that it's going to change the scale of the needs
and the first priorities may need to be to create the list and then
break down how we confront each need
i. The CHCCS needs assessment is underway and that will
help determine needs. Will be completed in April and it
may be June at the earliest before can put together the
list.
in. Jean—both districts may not want to have the same standards so
we can't let that slow down the work that needs to be done
i. Ok if we have to delay if we need the time to do it right
and be prepared for the future
n. Renee—reminded the group about SAPFO and the implications
of Pre-K, which is not included in SAPFO numbers
i. Providing universal Pre-K may need to be added and ask
Planning staff to redo formula to anticipate that
o. Carrie — agree with Renee, we really need to integrate Pre-K,
was discussed pre-COVID
i. At what time do we need to garner stakeholder input for
this?
ii. Jean responded that she see that coming from the boards
—recommendations will go to the boards for their review
then
p. Bonnie — standards are important to her because they would
change the urgency for replacing schools and accelerate
renovations if we have a plan
i. Not having standards is harming our efficiency and not
working
ii. Would like to see maintenance timelines standards that
we should use
q. Jean—Draft timeline
i. March-talk about SAPFO—understand what is SAPFO,
how it limits and impacts our decisions
1. Gary shared we could coordinate with Planning
Office (Ashley Moncado)
2. How we move forward with funding advocacy
ii. April—no meeting
iii. May — plan to discuss standards and having a subject
matter expert (Eric volunteered to contact a Subject
Matter Expert) to share about industry standards,
standards for design, efficiencies in contracting and
maintenance
iv. June/July—have aspirational CIP drafted for review
5. Next Meeting is Wednesday, March 16, 2022
61
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford(a�oran ecountync.gov before 3:00 pm on February 14,
2022
62
Avow-
GRANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
School Capital Needs Work Group
Terms and Definitions
Prepared by Department of Finance
February 16, 2022
63
Capital Asset and Capital Project
Capital Asset - An item with a value exceeding $5,000 and a useful life
of one year or greater; includes motor vehicles, furniture, fixtures and
equipment.
Capital Project - A project with an estimated cost exceeding $100,000 or
more and useful life exceeding ten years or greater. Capital projects
include the construction, purchase, or major renovation of buildings,
parks, utility systems, or other structures and sites; and purchase of land
and major landscaping projects.
Source - Page 375 of the FY 21 -22 Commissioner Approved Budget —
the preface to the CIP document.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
64
Maintenance & Deferred Maintenance
Maintenance — Regular repair to county and school assets, such as
HVACs, Fire Alarm Systems, Roofs, and Electrical systems. To maintain
and extend the useful lives of these assets.
Deferred Maintenance — Supplemental Funding provided by the county
to fund the backlog of school maintenance needs. In FY 2020-21 , the
County funded $30 million over 3 years to the school systems to expedite
the list of deferred maintenance projects. Extended to 4 years at school
request.
Source — School deferred maintenance projects are found on pages 462
and 479 of the FY 21 -22 Commissioner Approved Budget. Similar county
maintenance projects can be found on page 389-391 for Facility Safety,
392-393 for HVACs, and 405-406 for Roofs.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
65
Deferred Maintenance
Deferred Maintenance Projects -CHCCS
Project Category School Project Status: Active Project Type
Functional Service Area; Education Proposed Bid Date: TBD New
School System; CHCCS Starting Date: 7/1/2021 Expansion
Completion Date; TBD Renovation x
Project Number: 54D22 Replacement x
Project Description/Justification:
The FY 2020-21 CIR included a supplemental funding program for deferred maintenance and life/safety
improvements. The program would involve a total of$30 million over the next three (3)years to expedite each
School district's backlog of deferred maintenance projects. Based on the FY 2020-21 Average Daily
Membership(ADM)percentage, CHCCS share will be $17,997,000 over the three(3)year period.
The Supplemental Deferred Maintenance program described above would use debt financing to supplement an
additional$3 million that is recommended to be funded using bond premiums that was earned when the
County issued$85.4 million in General Obligation Bonds in FY 2017-18. The$3 million appropriation in FY2020-
21 will exhaust the bond premium earned in FY 2017-18. CHCCS share of this$3 million was$1,799,700 in
FY2020-21.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Five Year 6
Prior Years Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year to
Prot Budget Funding 2020.21 202122 2022.23 202324 2024.2S 2025-26 Total Year 10
Appropriardon
ProlessIonol Services 1,300,wo
Cans[ruction/RepairsJReeiovarians 1,804,200 2,299,201) 10,000,000 6,157.000 16,197,000 49,203,493
Appropriotion rotal 1,804.200 3,599,700 10,000.000 6,1'57.1100 16,197,000 49,207,493
Revenues/Funding Source
Deb[Financing-School Improvements 118001000 10,000,000 6,195,000 16,197,00d 49,207,493
From Corpltal Reserve Funds 1,804,2100 1,799,700
Revenues/Funding Source Total 1,804,204 3,599,700 10,000,000 6,197,000 16,197,000 49,707,493
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
66
Deferred Maintenance
Deferred Maintenance Projects - OCS
Project Category School Project Status; Active Project Type
Functional Service Area; Edj,,ation Proposed Bid date; T8D New
School System: oc5 Starting Date: 7/1/2020 Expansion
Completion Date: TBD Renovation x
Project Number: 51445 Replacement x
Project Description/Justification:
The FY2020-21 CIP included a supplemental funding program for deferred maintenance and life/safety
improvements. The program would involve a total of$30 million over the next three(3)year to expedite
each School District's backlog of deferred maintenance projects. Based on the FY 2021-22 Average Daily
Membership (ADM)percentage,OCS share will be$12,003,000 over the three (3)year period.
The Supplemental Deferred Maintenance program described above would use debt financing to supplement
an additional $3 million that is recommended to be funded using band premiums that were earned when
the County issued$85.4 million in General Obligation Bonds in FY 2017-18. The$3 million appropriation in
FY2020-21 will exhaust the bond premium earned in FY 2017-18. OCS share of this$3 million was
$1,200,300 in FY2020-21.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Five Year 6
Prior Years Fistal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year to
Project budget Funding 2020-21 2021-22 2622-23 202.3-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Year 10
Approprio tion
Construction/Re airsfRenovotions 1,19S,800 S,350,300 3,600,000 4,2S3,000 7,053,0100 44,303,06S
Appropriation Total 11195,800 5,350,300 3,600,000 4,253,000 7,953,000 44,303,065
Revenues/funding Source
DebtMancing-Schoolfrtlprovemeelts 4,150,000 3,600,000 4,253,000 7,853,000 44,303,065
From Ca italReserve Funds 1,195,800 1,200,300
Revenues1Funding Source Total 1,195,800 5,350,300 3,600,000 4,253,000 7,8$3,000 44,303,065
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
67
Recurring Capital
Recurring Capital - Recurring capital outlay funding supports Category I
(facility improvements), Category II (equipment and furnishings), and
Category III (vehicles and bus purchases) expenditures. The equal per
pupil allocations required by law for current expense appropriations are
not applicable to this category of local school funding. However, Orange
County splits $3 million between the school districts by current ADM.
Source — Definition found on 332 of the FY 21 -22 Commissioner
Approved Budget — the education section of the budget. Project pages
found on 471 and 482.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
68
RecurringCapital
Recurring Capital Projects - CHCCS
Project Category School Project Status: Active Project Type
Functional Service Area, Education Proposed Bid hate; T91) New
School System: CHCCS Starting Date: 71112021 Expansion
Completion iDate: T8117 Renovation X
Project Number: 54010 111-eplacernent x
Project Description/justification:
To address recurring capital projects as identified by the school system each fiscal. The $1,810,800 each
fiscal year represents CHCCS portion, based on the current ADM, of the $3,000,000 provided schools each
year for recurring capital projects. The funding source for these annual projects used to be pay-as-you-go,
but beginning in FY 2018-19, they changed to debt financing. Examples of FY 2021-22 projects include:
furnishings and equipment at schools district-wide, drainage improvements, carpet/tile installation, roof
repairs, and mechanical and plumbing repairs/renovations.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Fire Year 6
Prior Years Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year to
Pro ectBud et Funding 2020-21 2021-22 2D22-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025.26 Total Year 10
Appropriation
Con0ructionlRepoirsIRLnovations 3,626,100 1,799,7D0 1,810,800 1,810,80D 1,61DADO 1,810,900 1,81006 9,054,0170 9,0S4,D00
,4ppropriatlon Totat 3,626,100 1,799,71)0 1,810,800 1,810,800 1,810,500 1,810,800 1,810,806 9,054,000 9,054,404
Revenues/Fun[ltng Source
Debt financIn -School fm rvvements 3,626,180 1,799,71)0 1,810,800 1,910,800 1,810,840 1,810,800 1,810,800 9,854,000 9,054,408
ReveriveslFuAdirpq Source Total 3,626,100 1,799,7D0 1,810,800 1,814.800 1,810,SD0 1,810,800 1,510,804 9,054,008 9,0S4,D00
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
69
RecurrinqCapital
Recurring Capital Projects - DCS
Project Category School Project Status: New Project Type
Functional Service Area: Education Proposed Bid Date: TBD New
School System: ocs Starting Date: 7/1/2021 Expansion
Completion Date: TBD Renovation X
Project Number: 51009 Replacement X
Project Description/JUStifiCation:
To address recurring capital projects as identified by the school system each fiscal. The$1,189,200 each
fiscal year represents 005 portion, based on the current ADM,of the$3,000,000 provided schools each year
for recurring capital projects. The funding source for these annual projects used to be pay-as-you-go, but
beginning in FY 2018-19,they changed to debt financing. Examples of FY 2021-22 projects include: mobile
units, HVAC replacements, roof repairs,new classroom set-up, computer equipment maintenance,and
environmental maintenance.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Five Year 6
Prior Years Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year to
Project Budget Funding 202021 2021 22 2022 21 2023-24 242425 2025.26 Total Year 10
Appropriotion
Construction,/Re airs RMOV0100f 2,373,900 1,200,300 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,169,206 S,946,0010 5,946,[300
Ainarwriatiort Total 2,373,900 1,200,300 1,189,200 t,189,200 1,189,200 1,il9,Z00 1,189,200 5,946,000 5,9"'Wo
Revenues/Funding source
Debtflbonrin -School;m roaements 2,373,900 1,200,300 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 s,946,000 5,946,0041
ReveotueSlFun ding Source Totol 2,373,900 1,200,300 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 1,189,200 5,946,000 5,946,000
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
70
Operating Cost
Operating Cost — Per the NC Local Government Commission and U .S.
Public Finance laws. A limited amount of operating costs tied to capital
projects can be capitalized. These specific operating costs are generally
restricted to architecture design, engineering and project management
costs related to the capital expenditures being debt financed.
The majority of County staff costs to manage the capital projects are
funded with operating revenues. Education operating costs are provided
by the County through the current expense appropriation. The current
expense is funded through taxes and is the primary funding source for
capital staff requirements.
Source — The Education funding section of the FY 2021 -22
Commissioner Approved Budget begins at page 329.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
71
Operating Cost Impact
Operating Impact — The estimated impact of completing a project on the
county's operating budget in upcoming years. Estimated operating
impacts are included in the Long Term Financial Model to better
anticipate upcoming budget costs.
Source — Examples of operating impact in the FY 2021 -22 Commissioner
Approved budget:
Page 399 — The cost to staff and operate the Orange County Southern
Branch Library.
Page 412 — The annual subscription costs for IT software in the IT
Governance Council Initiatives.
Page 445 — the revenue generated by enclosing the field house for the
Sportsplex.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
72
County Example :
Operating Cost Impact — Southern Branch Library
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year Years Five Year 6
Friar Years Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year to
Project Budget Funding 2020}21 2021-22 2022=23 2023=24 2424.25 2035.26 Total Year 10
Appropriation
Professional Services 1,172,504 400,000 414,993 414,993
Cans tructlonfRepalrsJRenavations
dPor'king Construction 1,000,000 95f7,000 2,125,335 2,125,335
Construction w/CantangenCy 4.625,400 5,339,052 5,339,052
£ ul mentfFurnishln s 802,225 8112,125
Appropriation Total 6,797,580 1,350,000 8,681,645 9,681,605
a RevenuesfFunding Swrre
Debt Financing 6,533,55 1,350,(IW 81681,6,45 x,605
Available Project Balances 264,000
Revenues/Funding Source Tectal 6,797,509 1,350,000 e,6a1,6nS g,681,60s
impact ars Operating Budget
Personnel 385,668 385,668 385,668 385,668 1,542,672 1,928,344
D erertions 152,000 152,000 1S 2,004 152,004 608,000 760,004
Impact Dn Operating Budget Total 537,668 537,668 537,668 537,668 2,150.672 2,688,3+10
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
73
QUESTIONS
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
i i e
i
o
4 '
CHCCS CIP for the Facilities Work Group
February 16, 2022 Presented by: Andre' Stewart and Eric Allen
Question One 75
Explain how facility needs Our process begins as a
are planned , and how part of the budget
they are submitted to the process in conjunction
county in capital and with principal and
operating budgets. operational department
considerations. We
analyze the facilities
assessments and index to
prioritize projects.
W�ERRL HILL-
LIIII A► 1 ���M �IFI � ���� S�Ho0Ls
Question Two 76
Preview of 2022-23
Capital budgets that are • Athletic field upgrades at CHS
currently under • Abatement Projects
development. • Building Improvements
• Electrical, lighting and HVAC
upgrades
• Roofing and pavement
• Security upgrades
• Technology upgrades
WCHA�PEL HILL-
11►1RIPE► it �/11 ,��1'��IF INN
� HOOLS
o�
Question Three 77
How are capital and After collaborating with
maintenance projects our outside partners, the
prioritization is made by
prioritized ?
the Facility Condition
Assessment and FCI
(facilities condition index)
on the order of projects.
Structural safety and
sustainability are taken
into account.
(�HAPEL HJJJ. ..LMISI A117�� M '%�'������� 1�� � � ��o
Question Four 78
What needs are excluded New school construction
from the capital budget
request?
(CHAPEL HILL-
L11 K11AA117��r,►,r� '%OFI loll
A o�
Question Five 79
For longer term planning, Our plan has been
what if we had a CIP with developed on the ten
details for 10 years? year cycle .
(CHAPEL HILL-
LMIII A► 117���M '�'�l'F1411L)I
,�W`� o�
80
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
March 16, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on March 16, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting
remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. Orange County Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)
Discussion—Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Inspections
a. Delayed — Please send Rebecca any questions you have about
SAPFO
3. School Funding Advocacy
4. Discussion and Next Steps
5. Next Meeting is Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting,please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawfordkorangecountync.gov before 3:00 pm on March 14, 2022
81
Mar 16, 2022 1 Capital Needs Work Group
Attendees:
OC: Renee Price, Jean Hamilton, Gary Donaldson, Rebecca Crawford, Kirk Vaughn, Alan
Dorman, and Greg Wilder
OCS: Carrie Doyle, Bonnie Hauser, Dr. Monique Felder, Rhonda Rath, Catherine Mau, and
Nick Mincey
CHCCS: Rani Dasi, Jilllian Laserna, Dr. Nyah Hamlett, Eric Allen, Andre Stewart, and Jonathan
Scott
Notes:
1. Welcome —Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. Orange County Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)
Discussion — Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Inspections
Skipped due to County staff scheduling conflict.
3. School Funding Advocacy
Rani Dasi suggested a collaboration in advocacy between the County and School Districts
with the State. Engaging the community in the form of a campaign. Engaging State
organizations.
Lobby the State for lottery funds and an additional State bond.
Bonnie Hauser asked if the County raised taxes could they be earmarked for the schools
capital needs exclusively? Schools need a recurring revenue stream for capital needs.
What is happening with the light rail funds? Gary Donaldson advised they are for public
transportation and administered by Go Triangle.
Rani Dasi asked Gary Donaldson about the timing of the next school bond. Opportunity
for $120 million in fiscal year 2027. There is another opportunity for limited obligation
bonds prior to ($30 million 2024)
Rene Price advised the County does not earmark funds on tax rate increases.
Jean Hamilton suggested the possibility of increasing the Article 46 Sales Tax Revenue
percentage to school districts.
82
Jean Hamilton asked about the status of the original$30 million limited obligation bonds.
Covid Issues, supply chain, lack of central services, contractors would not bid on
equipment replacement for materials they could not access.
Dr. Hamlett asked for clarification on deferred maintenance vs. larger renovation projects.
Bonnie Hauser suggested the need for a model or set of standards to dictate renovation
timelines.
4. Discussion and Next Steps
May meeting 18th: Presentation on building standards,
June, when to reschedule the (SAPFO), IT allocations,
What is the expectation of the Task Force's work? (Report to the Boards, Plan of Action —
discuss at July meeting)
5. Next Meeting is Wednesday, May 18, 2022
83
Active Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Capital Projects as of 3/10/22
Note:()=negative available balance
Actual Available
Project#and Name Expenditure Expenditures Balance Percent
Budget 3/10/22 3/10/22 (including prior Complete
year carry overs)
53001 -CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL $72,295,024.00 $73,562,288.10 ($1,267,264.10) 101.75%
53003-CHHS-MAJOR RENOVATIONS $598,478.00 $598,477.65 $0.35 100.00%
53018-TRANSPORTATION CENTER $300,508.00 $300,508.18 ($0.18) 100.00%
53019-CARRBORO HIGH SCHOOL $75,000.00 $75,000.15 ($0.15) 100.00%
53023-DOORS,HARWARE,CANOPIES $678,000.00 $493,963.27 $184,036.73 72.86%
53025-CLASSROOM/ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENTS $3,953,227.00 $3,342,122.81 $611,104.19 84.54%
53026-ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS $1,683,852.00 $1,331,398.73 $352,453.27 79.07%
53027-WINDOW REPLACEMENTS $508,691.00 $417,647.10 $91,043.90 82.10%
53040-LINCOLN CENTER CONVERSION $760,868.00 $796,868.19 ($36,000.19) 104.73%
53050-MORRIS GROVE ELEMENTARY $38,911.00 $38,911.36 ($0.36) 100.00%
53051 -NORTHSIDE ELEMENTARY $23,108,762.00 $23,119,562.29 ($10,800.29) 100.05%
53052-CARRBORO HIGH ARTS WING $4,048,028.00 $4,048,027.33 $0.67 100.00%
54000-ADA REQUIREMENTS $515,616.00 $248,765.43 $266,850.57 48.25%
54001-ABATEMENT PROJECTS $1,390,080.00 $1,037,211.48 $352,868.52 74.62%
54002-ATH FACILITIES/PLAYGROUNDS $2,424,053.00 $1,888,297.44 $535,755.56 77.90%
54003-ENERGY EFFICIENCY RENOVS $1,125,088.00 $399,322.55 $725,765.45 35.49%
54004-FIRE/SAFETY/SECURITY $1,961,053.00 $1,869,307.73 $91,745.27 95.32%
54005-INDOOR AIR QUALITY $881,340.00 $775,246.16 $106,093.84 87.96%
54006-MECHANICAL SYSTEMS $4,879,359.00 $4,073,517.91 $805,841.09 83.48%
54007-MOBILE CLASSROOMS $883,696.00 $846,616.22 $37,079.78 95.80%
54008-PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS $980,000.00 $848,318.69 $131,681.31 86.56%
54009-PLANNING FOR FUTURE PROJECTS $1,200,000.00 $1,145,550.80 $54,449.20 95.46%
54010-RECURRING CAPITAL $7,236,600.00 $6,633,000.00 $603,600.00 91.66%
54012-ROOFING PROJECTS $6,709,001.00 $6,303,268.92 $405,732.08 93.95%
54013-TECHNOLOGY $17,935,839.00 $17,341,512.95 $594,326.05 96.69%
54017-BATHROOM RENOVATIONS $193,406.00 $193,406.00 $0.00 100.00%
54018-CULBRETH SCIENCE WING $4,971,676.00 $4,971,676.00 $0.00 100.00%
54019-RENTAL SPACE $840,000.00 $688,251.12 $151,748.88 81.93%
54020-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT $250,000.00 $160,555.85 $89,444.15 64.22%
54021-SUSTAINABILITY INVESTMENT $250,000.00 $177,126.29 $72,873.71 70.85%
54022-DEFERRED MAINTENANCE* $6,369,224.00 $2,822,888.32 $3,546,335.68 44.32%
Total $169,045,380.00 $160,548,615.02 $8,496,764.98 94.97%
*Only includes funding approved for FY 20-21 and FY 21-22 of the supplemental deferred maintenance plus a prior year balance from previously
Article 46 Sales Tax Projects
Available
Project#and Name Expenditure Expenditures Balance Percent
Budget 3/10/22 3/10/22 (including prior Complete
year carry overs)
53025-CLASSROOM/ACADEMIC IMPROVI 880000-CONSTRUCTION $ 380,000.00 $ 350,281.41 $ 29,718.59 92.18%
54006-MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 890000-EQUIPMENT $1,988,587.00 $1,614,135.80 $374,451.20 81.17%
54012-ROOFING PROJECTS 882000-ROOFING $135,966.00 $0.00 $135,966.00 0.00%
54013-TECHNOLOGY 897100-TECHNOLOGY $6,121,418.00 $6,097,400.56 $24,017.44 99.61%
54016-RENOVATIONS&SITE IMPROVEM 892000-GENERAL RENOVATIONS $2,020,922.00 $2,029,562.51 ($8,640.51) 100.43%
54021-SUSTAINABILITY INVESTMENT 892021 -ENERGY MANAGEMENT $90,000.00 $0.00 $90,000.00 0.00%
Total $10,736,893.00 $10,091,380.28 $645,512.72 93.99%
84
Active Orange County Schools Capital Projects as of 3/10/22
Note:()=negative available balance
Expenditure Expenditures Available Balance Percent
Project#and Name Budget 3/10/22 3/10/22 (including prior year Complete
carry overs)
50000-A.L.STANBACK MIDDLE SCHOOL $5,795.00 $5,794.25 $0.75 99.99%
50001 -CAMERON PARK ELEMENTARY $525,468.00 $524,921.82 $546.18 99.90%
50003-EFLAND CHEEKS ELEMENTARY $448,423.00 $443,646.69 $4,776.31 98.93%
50004-GRADY BROWN ELEMENTARY $54,023.00 $54,022.65 $0.35 100.00%
50005-HILLSBOROUGH ELEMENTARY $362,899.00 $320,300.53 $42,598.47 88.26%
50006-ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL $558,481.00 $558,481.22 ($0.22) 100.00%
50008-STANFORD MIDDLE SCHOOL $686,939.00 $686,938.00 $1.00 100.00%
50009-ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL $361,653.00 $307,043.61 $54,609.39 84.90%
50010-NEW HOPE ELEMENTARY RENOVATIONS $264,917.00 $264,917.01 ($0.01) 100.00%
50011 -ELEMENTARY#8 $300,000.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 0.00%
51002-ELECTRIC SERVICE UPGRADES $83,000.00 $0.00 $83,000.00 0.00%
51005-HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY $483,300.00 $168,234.02 $315,065.98 34.81%
51007-PLANNING FOR FUTURE PROJECTS $778,000.00 $744,269.60 $33,730.40 95.66%
51009-RECURRING CAPITAL $4,763,400.00 $4,367,000.00 $396,400.00 91.68%
51010-ROOFING PROJECTS $6,913,130.00 $4,678,217.05 $2,234,912.95 67.67%
51011 -TECHNOLOGY PLAN $4,619,893.00 $3,476,226.17 $1,143,666.83 75.24%
51013-HVAC UPGRADE/IMPROVEMENTS $1,614,361.00 $1,533,484.60 $80,876.40 94.99%
51016-CENTRAL ELEMENTARY AIR $118,584.00 $111,439.11 $7,144.89 93.97%
51019-INDOOR AIR QUALITY $4,807.00 $4,806.33 $0.67 99.99%
51021 -DISTRICT WIDE IMPROVEMENTS $247,487.00 $234,781.97 $12,705.03 94.87%
51022-ORANGE HIGH TRACK REPAIRS $495,634.00 $495,633.97 $0.03 100.00%
51023-BATHROOM RENOVATIONS $105,314.00 $105,313.05 $0.95 100.00%
51024-FIRE/SAFETY UPGRADES $1,224,918.00 $379,500.53 $845,417.47 30.98%
51025-CLASSROOM/BUIILDING IMPROVEMENTS $6,800,521.00 $3,860,419.61 $2,940,101.39 56.77%
51026-WINDOW REPLACEMENTS $575,348.00 $305,656.70 $269,691.30 53.13%
51027-ATHLETIC FACILITIES $1,089,931.00 $561,780.64 $528,150.36 51.54%
51028-ENERGY EFF/LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS $259,918.00 $246,382.27 $13,535.73 94.79%
51029-MECHANICAL SYSTEMS $1,347,013.00 $348,934.28 $998,078.72 25.90%
51030-PAVING/PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS $818,000.00 $256,810.15 $561,189.85 31.39%
51031 -CEDAR RIDGE AUXILIARY GYM $2,846,949.00 $2,846,948.95 $0.05 100.00%
51032-VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS $255,000.00 $267,441.76 ($12,441.76) 104.88%
51033-FOOD SERVICES $1,047,704.00 $450,211.00 $597,493.00 42.97%
51034-SCHOOL SAFETY/SECURITY $2,075,602.00 $908,815.55 $1,166,786.45 43.79%
51035-PROPERTY ACQUISITION $3,100,000.00 $3,104,352.78 ($4,352.78) 100.14%
51036-ROOFING PROJECTS-2016 BONDS $4,363,579.00 $1,876,868.33 $2,486,710.67 43.01%
51038-MECHANICAL SYSTEMS-2016 BONDS $22,909,574.00 $11,783,759.08 $11,125,814.92 51.44%
51039-SCHOOL SAFETY/SECURITY-2016 BONDS $2,500,000.00 $1,508,192.34 $991,807.66 60.33%
51040-CEDAR RIDGE AGRICULTURE ADDITION $481,801.00 $45,904.58 $435,896.42 9.53%
51041 -CRHS CLASSROOM ADDITION-2016 BONDS $14,500,000.00 $13,419,916.56 $1,080,083.44 92.55%
51042-CLASSROOM/BLD IMPROV-2016 BONDS $1,284,250.00 $882,094.06 $402,155.94 68.69%
51045-DEFERRED MAINTENANCE* $10,712,699.00 $1,067,210.79 $9,645,488.21 9.96%
Total $101,988,315.00 $63,206,671.61 $38,781,643.39 61.97%
*Only includes funding approved for FY 20-21 and FY 21-22 of the supplemental deferred maintenance plus a prior year balance from
Article 46 Sales Tax Projects
85
Expenditure Expenditures Available Balance Percent
Project#and Name Budget 3/10/22 3/10/22 (including prior year Complete
carry overs)
51011 -TECHNOLOGY PLAN 897100-TECHNOLOGY $6,975,510.00 $5,996,115.68 $979,394.32 85.96%
Total $6,975,510.00 $5,996,115.68 $979,394.32 85.96%
86
$30M Schools Deferred Maintenance Update
Bonds Bonds %Split by ADM
District Bonds Issued Authorized but
Authorized (FY 2020-21)
Un-Issued
OCS 12,003,000 0 12,003,000 41.10%
CHCCS 17,997,0001 631,7401 17,365,2601 58.90%
Total 1 30,000,0001 631,7401 29,368,2601 100.00%
BOCC Authorized $30M to both school systems on an ADM basis in FY 20-21. Bonds issued to date: $0 for
OCS and $631,740 for CHCCS.
Timing of Original Funding Tranches:
District FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Total
OCS 4,150,000 3,600,000 4,253,000 12,003,000
CHCCS* 1,800,000 10,000,000 6,197,000 17,997,000
Total 5,950,000 13,600,000 10,450,000 30,000,000
*Requested to delay Year 2 and Year 3 Tranches for 1 year due to pandemic
K-12 Supplemental Deferred
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Maintenance Funding
Initial Allocation $ 5,950,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 14,253,000 $ 6,197,000 $ 30,000,000
Proposed Additional Allocation $ 3,000,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 30,000,000
Total 1 $ 5,950,000 1 $ 3,600,000 1 $ 17,253,000 1 $ 33,197,000 1 $ 60,000,000
87
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
May 18, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on May 18, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. Best Practices in School Building Standards
3. Discussion and Next Steps
4. Next Meeting is Wednesday, June 15, 2022
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawfordgoran e�ync.gov before 3:00 pm on May 16, 2022
88
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
May 18, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on May 18, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
a. Steve Arndt, Bonnie Hauser, Greg Wilder, Jean Hamilton, Kirk
Vaughn, Patrick Abele, Carrie Doyle, Gary Donaldson, Rani
Dasi, Jonathan Scott, Rebecca Crawford, Eric Allen, Thomas
Hughes, Nyah Hamlett, Andre Stewart, Renee Price, Jillian La
Serna
2. Best Practices in School Building Standards (45 minutes) — Thomas
Hughes - sfl@a principle architect
a. Tom shared there are lots of state funding sources for school
capital right now:
i. ESSER, lottery, needs based school funding
b. Subheadings
i. Education
1. Sfl&A
a. Strong schools create vibrant
communities which create sustainable
futures
2. Technology is an important advancement in
schools
a. Distance learning, etc.
b. Computers are a mainstay in education
now
c. The jobs of architects are to put all of the
pieces together (furniture is especially
important — kids learn better when they
move around and not just sitting at a
desk)
3. Student-Centered collaborative learning
environments, natural materials and controlled
daylighting, environmental awareness and
stewardship, sustainable approach to learning
for future generations
89
ii. Environment
1. Natural light (absolute key to a creative
environment)
2. Learning commons
3. Visual transparency (see what's going on in the
world around you)
4. Controlled access
5. Appealing interior finishes
6. Flexible space for collaboration
7. Mechanical
8. Technology — wireless handware (including
locks), cameras, lighting controls, etc.
9. Spaces are designed in advance for expansion
when necessary
10. Horry County
a. Used a lot of pre-manufactured
mechanical systems assembled offsite —
construction time is minimized as a
result
b. Net-positive energy (geothermal and
solar panels)
c. This is the future of school design
d. 1,100 students in this middle school
e. Sfl&a operates the schools for first 5
years to make sure work to design-build
standards
iii. Process
1. Have had to tear down a lot of buildings built in
the `80's that aren't sustainable but also have
worked on a lot of really well built schools
2. Need to invest and build sustainable facilities
3. $ not used on facilities can be put back on
education
4. The #1 cost savings is on energy efficiency (air-
tight, operationally sensitive to the environment
they're in)
5. Doing 3 dimensional modeling now when
building schools — coordination at every step
(REVIT system)
6. Concrete based, spray foam insulation,
brick/metal panel veneer — proven construction
technology
7. Solar panels are really expensive but key for the
payback(8-12 years) for energy efficiency
8. Daylighting reduces need for artificial lighting
and saves costs
90
9. Sharing tech of the building with students so
they understand
10. All LED lighting, need for specific color,
11. Have to have bottle fillers (kids are demanding
them)
12. Doing less LEED certified focus since much of
that technology is now standard in school
design/build
iv. Construct
1. Seeing a lot more construction manager at risk
(larger districts with multiple projects)
2. Eliminating energy costs over 20 years and can
put the savings back into the construction of the
building
a. Tom can provide this comparative data
3. Procore is the project management system of the
day
a. Web based, can schedule, document and
photo management, communications,
quality control access, monthly drone
flights to record progress—really helpful
for documentation and avoids conflict
4. Supply chain issues
a. 56-58 weeks to order a generator
b. Steel vs concrete plank because couldn't
find steel (or gluelam)
c. Have to do lots of work ahead of time to
understand availability of workforce and
materials for the project
d. Be sensitive to having to push schedules
out because the supply chain is so
limited (pushes costs out and general
conditions)
e. Have to be able to adapt to the new
construction environment (not the same
as it was 5 years ago and have to be
really flexible)
v. Community
1. Design looks to match the pedagogy of the
clients/residents of community (both exterior
and interior)
c. Questions:
i. Renee Price: Concern about safety in schools— some of
the slides show how open the campuses are — what do
you do about safety?
91
1. Law enforcement typically prefer wide open
areas to be able to see everything going on
outside and inside
2. Work with them on hard entrances/exits (LE can
get there within 5-6 minutes)
3. Lots of cameras— school administrators and law
enforcement can see cameras at any time
ii. Renee Price: Schools look to be large with multiple
levels — how are the fire exits integrated to quickly get
large numbers of people out of the building
1. Tom—line of sight is integrated with purposeful
of intersections (avoid hidden corners)
2. Can close off sections for fire and can control
access in an emergency
3. Exits are all within 250 feet (part of code) but
do try to limit exterior exits (all controlled by
remote access systems)
iii. Bonnie Hauser: Do kids do better academically in these
facilities?
1. Tom — they are polling to understand that
(especially around performance with more
collaborative spaces)
2. Eric — kids treat buildings differently — when
they're new and nice they treat them better and
stop each other from mistreating it
iv. Bonnie Hauser: have about 30 schools between the 2
districts and most are obsolete — how do you build so
that these new schools will last 100 years?
1. Tom - Design is key — have to be built to be
flexible (can be easily renovated or
reconstructed)
a. Concrete base - have to be able to
withstand hurricanes (natural
environment and the wear and tear
schools get)
b. Terrazzo floors almost exclusively are
added to the schools
c. Floors are ground and don't have to be
waxed and stripped
d. Use carpet tiles so only have to replace
the tile, not the whole room
e. 100 years may be overstating but 50-60
years is reasonable
v. Jean Hamilton: how do these compare to the DPI
standards and what is required in a school?
92
1. Tom — work closely with DPI — they require
classroom sizes and the building"program"
a. DPI tends to be more appreciative of the
designs rather than discerning
b. More of a dialogue than a review (use
DPI as a resource rather than a
management structure)
c. Department of Insurance does all of the
code review
d. DPI standards are a minimum but don't
capture new design standards
vi. Jean Hamilton: cost — pre pandemic what would be the
cost per square footage compared to now
1. Tom - Inflation is driving the market right now.
No such thing as a credit
a. Have seen an upwards trend in cost
b. Used to be upper $300's per sq foot,
now closer to $500's
c. Seeing some decrease now (steel almost
doubled a few months ago — had to look
at alternative products)
d. Thinks will stabilize — chip shortage is
still out there
e. Just bidded out a project and it came in
under budget — may be a litmus test for
the market
3. Discussion and Next Steps
a. Is SAPFO still possible for June?
i. Rebecca will work with Planning team to see if can get
a combination of staff to present
b. Is technology still an area of interest for the group?
c. What should we be planning for maintenance of buildings?
Should we have a guideline for cost per square foot that is
shared between districts?
i. Next Meeting — discussion of a design standard policy
for both districts?
ii. Patrick Abele — could we focus on one or 2 systems
such as mechanical systems or roof design
1. New school construction is completely different
from renovating older facilities (harder to
standardize)
iii. Steve Arndt — spent a lot of time in higher ed facilities
management
1. It's important to understand that we should take
the operating costs into account when build new
93
buildings—lots of info about there about how to
standardize—don't have to start from scratch
a. Steve will provide info
iv. Eric Allen- if we have design standard guidelines could
use them for bidding (and life cycle management
guidelines)
1. This group could construct along with
consultants
4. Next Meeting is Wednesday, June 15, 2022
a. SAPFO
5. Meeting after that
a. Design Standard Policy/Guidelines for both Districts
Discussion
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawfordgoran eg countync.gov before 3:00 pm on May 16, 2022
94
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES PLANNING AND DESIGN sfL+a
ARCHITECTS
Project Experience
Northwest Harnett Elementary School,New Construction,Harnett County Schools
F. Erwin Elementary School,New Construction,Harnett County Schools
McDeed's Creek Elementary School,New Construction,Moore County Schools
Aberdeen Elementary School,New Construction,Moore County Schools
Southern Pines Elementary School,New Construction,Moore County Schools
Harding HS Renovations/Additions,Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
South Mecklenburg HS Renovations/Additions,Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Pinecrest HS and Union Pines HS gymnasium/cafeteria additions,Moore County Schools
Westmoore ES Addition,Moore County Schools
"!i I Johnsonville ES Phase I&Phase II Add/Reno,Harnett County Schools
High la nd/Overhi lls/Harnett Primary Additions,Harnett County Schools
Highland Middle School,New Construction,Harnett County Schools
Penderlea K-8 School,New Construction,Fender Public Schools
Ahoskie Elementary School,New Construction,Hertford County Public Schools
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE West Rowan Elementary School,New Construction,Rowan-Salisbury School System
Thomas W. Hughes, AIA, REFP, LEED AP Blair Elementary School,New Construction,New Hanover County Schools
Turrentine Middle School,Walkway Renovation,Alamance-Burlington Schools
Within the educational facilities planning and design Boone Trail Elementary School,New Construction,Harnett County Schools
community,Tom is recognized for supporting a collaborative Poplar Springs ES,New Construction,Stokes County Schools
and interactive approach to educational planning and design. Southeastern Middle School Addition/Renovation,Stokes County Schools
His approach starts with your educational program,promotes Bleinheim Elementary/Middle School,New Construction,Marlboro County Schools
an understanding of your vision and goals for curriculum and Dillon Auditorium/Admin Offices,New Construction,Dillon School District 4,SC
instruction,and works with your communities as a whole to *Dillon Middle School,New Construction,Dillon School District 4,Sc
develop innovative and creative learning environments for Clio Elementary/Middle School Addition&Renovation,Marlboro County Schools,SC
students and teachers.Tom has over 35 years of educational *Rocky Mount HS,New Construction,Nash-Rocky Mount School System
facilities planning and design,specialized in K-12 facilities,and Southeastern Middle School Addition/Renovation,Stokes County Schools
is a Recognized Educational Facilities Professional(REFP)as *Career&Technical Education Center,Alamance-Burlington School System
accredited by the Association for Learning Environments(fomer ly New Century International ES&Regional Public Library,Cumberland County Schools,NC
CEFPI).AS a LEED AP,he is well-versed in the design of High Lakeview High School/Middle School Addition,Dillon School District 4,SC
Performance educational facilities and LEED certification. Tom
Lakeview Elementary Addition/Renovation,Dillon School District 4,SC
has provided leadership on over 100 school projects in his career
Latta Early Childhood Center,New Construction,Dillon School District 3,SC
and brings a unique perspective on the design of educational
*Snipes Academy of Arts and Design,New Hanover County Schools
environments for the 21st century learner.
Wagram Classroom Addition/PE Classroom Addition,Scotland County Schools
Clio Elementary/Middle School Addition&Renovation,Marlboro County Schools,SC
Registered Architect - NC, SC Croatan HS Auditorium Addition,Carteret County Schools
East Carteret HS Addition&Renovation,Carteret County Schools,NC
Professional Affiliations Ft Awards: Knightdale ES Additions,Wake County Public School System
American Institute of Architects Newport ES Addition&Renovations,Carteret County Schools
Association for Learning Environments (A4LE) Fred A.Smith ES Addition&Renovations,New Hanover County Schools
A41LE NC Chapter, Board Member/Past President White Oak ES Addition&Renovations,Carteret County Schools
NCARB Certified With Other Firm
Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Highland ES,Alamance-Burlington School System
Recognized Educational Facilities Professional (REFP) Nation Ford High School,Fort Mill School District,SC
LEED®Accredited Professional Northern ES,Guilford County Schools
Chapel Hill-Carrboro High School
Education India Hook Elementary School,Rock Hill,SC
University of Richmond, Bachelor of Arts Whitesides ES,Charleston County Schools,SC
Syracuse University, Master of Architecture *WG Pearson ES,Durham Public School System
*LEED Certified facility
333 FAYETTEVILLE STREET, SUITE 225, RALEIGH, NC (919) 573-6350
95
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
June 15, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on June 15, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. Orange County Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)
Discussion—Orange County Planning and Inspections
3. Discussion and Next Steps
4. Next Meeting is Wednesday, July 20, 2022
a. Design Standard Policy/Guidelines for Both Districts
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawfordAoran e�ync.gov before 3:00 pm on June 13, 2022
96
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
June 15, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on June 15, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
Attendees: Bonnie Hauser, Jonathan Scott, Jean Hamilton, Gary Donaldson, Rani Dasi,
Perdita Holtz, Travis Myren, Greg Wilder, Patrick Abele, Rhonda Rath, Renee Price,
Andre Stewart, Eric Allen, Carrie Doyle, Kirk Vaughn, Steve Arndt, Dr. Nyah Hamlett,
Dr. Monique Felder
2. Orange County Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)
Discussion—Orange County Planning and Inspections
a. Perdita Holtz from OC Planning and Inspections shared a
presentation explaining the purpose, administration, and history
of SAPFO
b. Patrick Abele
i. For OCS, Mebane is not a participant of the SAPFO
process or MOUs and OCS is facing a tremendous
amount of growth from the part of the county — those
students aren't considered until they come to school
1. There are other mechanisms the schools are
having to use in addition to SAPFO
2. OCS approved spot ordinances for some new
developments in that part of the county — will
have to update GIS maps, etc. since advertised as
districted in OC
a. Send updates to new Planning Director,
Perdita, and Brian Carson
3. Travis — we've had discussions with Mebane to
be a part of SAPFO—they are reluctant to be tied
to the CAPS process but send us their numbers
a. If capacity didn't exist in district,
wouldn't approve the development
4. Jean— would be helpful to put the Mebane data
into our model so we know ahead of time what's
happening and when we need to build new
97
schools or renovate since CAPS is unlikely to be
used
ii. Pre-K: how is SAPFO addressing Pre-K given that those
numbers aren't addressed in the numbers used for
capacity?
1. Perdita: a committee of elected officials from
BOCC and BOE were working on it prior to
COVID but it was paused
2. Pre-K numbers are now tracked in the SAPFO
report
iii. Bonnie: special set-asides and special settings aren't
included in SAPFO either
iv. Bonnie: SAPFO doesn't predict school replacement —
both districts are facing declining enrollment so don't
need new capacity but about when we need maintenance
and school replacements
1. Jean: let's get the capacity correct(including pre-
K, Mebane, etc.) and then
maintenance/replacement is outside of SAPFO
c. Patrick: as people in Hillsborough look at SAPFO reports it
looks like we have plenty of seats and are open to development,
same with Mebane,but there are developments in queue that are
filling seats that aren't included in the SAPFO reports
i. Need a crosswalk with CAPS and SAPFO to see all seats
needed
ii. Lots of development that is coming quickly but we can't
see it until it's actually here
iii. Jean:how can re-establish the Pre-K group so we can get
the numbers into SAPFO
1. Travis: each agency appointed 2 representatives
for the Pre-K group so we can initiate that
meeting again and broaden the scope
d. Carrie: adding Pre-K numbers is also about adding different
space—same with special setting students
e. Eric: Eric reviewed OC construction settings and classroom size
numbers have changed dramatically from DPI (DPI #s are
smaller than OC construction standards)
i. Are we going to look at class size, and what is a
reasonable time frame to review
1. Perdita: hasn't changed for many years but DPI
standards are included in the SAPFO #s
a. Capacity goes down as DPI updates their
standards
ii. When we reduce the size of the school with same # of
kids we're running out of room
98
f. Jean: What are the numbers currently for capacity?
i. Eric: we've been tracking those and can share them
ii. Makes it tricky to house kids when we are renovating
g. Jean: where do the capacity standards exist? An ordinance?
i. Travis: no—policy only but can be amended
ii. Can email to group
h. Bonnie: Is SAPFO a standard tool for capacity building in other
districts?
i. Eric: his experience is that most districts use DPI
standards (online)
ii. Rani: clarified how we get ahead of capacity planning
and what other tools are other districts using
1. Could the SAPFO task force consider this
question and do benchmarking?
iii. Renee: SAPFO is pretty unique to OC
iv. Perdita: some other districts attempted similar
ordinances but were tied to impact fees, which were
struck down — original intent was to recognize that
development had an impact on school capacity
v. Bonnie: we're realizing SAPFO is out of date and so
should we be looking at revisiting SAFPO or replacing
it
vi. Perdita: the modeling and predicting part is used by
many other districts; we do include growth in Mebane n
our projections
1. Includes those developments/units approved but
not yet built
vii. Patrick: in other districts they never wait until the kids
show up—once CAPS certificates are signed the districts
begin planning
1. Happy to reach out to other districts to
understand how they plan
2. Having to redistrict kids coming from western
OC to Cedar Ridge rather than Orange High
because of capacity at Cedar Ridge (planned for
this 5 years ago — anticipated would need
additional capacity so did expansion to
accommodate)
3. Orange Middle School and Culbreth Middle
School most likely do not meet standards for
room sizes) either OC or DPI but according to
SAPFO looks like it meets capacity (older
schools)
4. Alamance Co. Is already building schools on the
border with OC to account for growth in
99
developments shared with OC but OC isn't
building new schools
5. Thanks to County staff for all of their work —
bound by the same restrictions schools are and
have done their best(Perdita, Ashley, and Craig)
viii. Jean: should make the broader scope of the SAPFO work
group more immediate
1. Pre-K, space at schools, don't wait on kids to get
to school and predict ahead of time based on
capacity, account for age of schools
2. This is a board issue—SAPFO report has been on
consent and we haven't really thought about or
considered it
a. Staff have done a great job of doing what
we've asked them to do but the board
needs to figure out what changes are
needed to update
b. Renee: previous boards have been very
active in the review of SAPFO but in the
past couple of years it's been placed on
consent and no one asked to pull it —
COVID may have impacted this
i. In the past have pointed out issues
with SAPFO, Mebane has always
been an issue (definitely should
work more closely with Mebane)
ii. Have had long discussions about
Pre-K with school boards and
Finance (Maggie Chotas may
have minutes from those
meetings)
ix. Rani: Echos everything Patrick said
1. Encourage us to be really specific in next steps,
very urgent
2. Willing to be a part of the team to review and
discuss (have participated in the past)
3. Thanks so much to Perdita for all of her help in
understanding context
4. Bonnie: can we send a recommendation forward
to boards sooner rather than later (doesn't have
to replace, can just update) or include in our final
report?
5. Jean: let's discuss that during next steps
x. Renee: hard to plan for capacity with charter schools —
kids going back and forth (numbers going to charter
schools is increasing)
100
xi. Jean: with numbers of kids per development that are
planned, how do we check that against the actual
numbers from those developments attending schools?
(check that our assumptions are accurate)
i. Bonnie: how difficult would it be to update capacity projections
with numbers from Eric and Patrick with Pre-K, Mebane, etc
i. Perdita: wouldn't be that difficult — models are fairly
automated
3. Discussion and Next Steps
a. Next Steps:
i. Jean: envision that the Capital Needs Work Group would
recommend changes to SAPFO as a part of the final
report that goes to different boards
ii. Renee: agree — this group doesn't need to focus on
making policy
1. A review of SAPFO is needed
iii. Travis: could start at a staff level with SAPFOTAC to
work through concerns and then use that group to
escalate to boards
iv. Rani: report is important but don't want us to hold our
ideas until have a perfect report
1. Could we go ahead and share that SAPFO is
understating capacity and recommend to review
process for SAPFO through the SAPFOTAC to
see if need to make changes for future capacity
planning
v. Renee: could the next Joint meeting review
recommendations made for changes by SAPFOTAC?
1. Could be done at next meeting this fall
vi. Jean: SAPFOTAC can start working on this immediately
to update policy and make it more accurate
1. Board representatives on that can go back to
boards and report out on work happening
2. Jean could report out at next BOCC meeting
3. Need to work on a report from Capital Needs
Work Group, too
vii. Bonnie: should we think through what we say to boards
about changes to be made (unified update to each board)
1. Update formula (how far off are the numbers
from SAPFO?)
2. Update or replace SAPFO
3. Can we all get a copy of the ordinance?
a. Jean: online on county website
4. Why do we keep putting out wrong numbers
when we know they're wrong?
101
viii. Renee: pinpoint all of the things that are problematic,
make a list, and then make a list of what we're looking
for
1. If we're looking for Mebane#s and Mebane isn't
participating, that's a problem
2. Do we continue using our formulas with using a
standard 3 bedroom house for generating student
#s (is this still accurate)
3. Has had issues with SAPFO from day 1 but have
learned to live with it
4. How do we integrate universal Pre-K#s?
5. Can bring up at next BOCC meeting but should
put it on the agenda for the next meeting in the
fall
ix. Patrick: did an analysis a few years ago with Craig and
compared actuals with projections based on
developments and found that projects are pretty accurate
(some developments are underestimated and others are
overestimated)
1. If we're looking at a formula, should run at 100%
capacity rather than 105% for E, 107% for
middle, and 110% for high schools
a. Most districts use 100%
b. Have to have seats for kids when they
show up
c. Eric: agrees about using 100% capacity
#s
x. Carrie: Likes the plan to review this fall but look at
specific problems
1. Districts can share specific examples of issues
such as the Orange High/Cedar Ridge re-
districting
xi. Jean: What do we do about the older schools in addition
to capacity?
1. Group has talked about financing, needs of older
schools, what new schools can bring, capacity,
next month talking about design standards
a. What else do we need to talk about that
we haven't addressed to get the full
picture that can be put into a report?
b. Email Jean with any ideas
i. Patrick: safety and security
ii. Rani: school needs
iii. Bonnie: we don't have enough
money to do what we need to do
102
iv. How do we finance what we
need?
2. Do we need a consultant? A professional to help
us figure out what needs to be done and how to
finance it?
xii. Renee: Durham Co. is going to do a bond referendum in
a few years for—$440 million and are planning for it now
to do an overhaul of schools
1. Need safe and modern classrooms
2. Will have an impact on Orange County
a. Parents, teachers, and community
members will compare OC to Durham
Co.
3. Durham is planning videos and ambassadors to
share info with public and plan
xiii. Bonnie: Guilford did something similar with $800
million bond,worked with consultant on a joint planning
effort and came up with $2 billion facility plan
1. We could ask Guilford how they did it
xiv. Jean: Can we use ARPA $ to hire a consultant?
xv. Eric: leaving CHCCS to work for a private developer to
manage the Guilford building project(Wake is doing the
same with Cumming Project Management—fees are paid
out of the bond)
1. Will be happy to come back and share
information about that process with this group
2. Will be a 10 year project over 20 schools
a. $500 million for life cycle replacements
3. Goal is to use as many Guilford County-based
companies as possible
4. Next Meeting is Wednesday, July 20, 2022
a. Design Standard Policy/Guidelines for Both Districts
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting,please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford&oran eg countync.gov before 3:00 pm on June 13, 2022
1
ORANGE
NORTH CAROLINA
SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE
(SAPFO ) - ADOPTED 2003
Presented by: Perdita Holtz,AICP
Special Projects & GIS Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
104
ADOPTION NUTS & BOLTS
■ An Ordinance of the County and Towns
Based on Statutory Zoning Authority
Two `overlay' districts were created; one for each school
district
Signatory local governments adopted necessary provisions
into their respective zoning and subdivision regulations
Inter-local Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) for
each appropriate Board of Education ( BOE), County, and
associated town (s) which defined elements/parameters
of SAPFO
105
■ To the `maximum extent practical' :
Approval of new residential development will become
effective only when it can reasonably be expected that
adequate public school facilities [i .e., student capacity] will be
available to accommodate the new development
■ Local Governments approve development
■ Synchronized with the availability of capacity
Boards of Education determine, within MOU parameters
School districts will use their best efforts to construct new
schools and permanent expansions or additions to existing
schools in accordance with the CIP
■ County will use its best efforts to provide funding to carry
out the CI P
106
ELEMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
Topic Level of Service
Elementary Schools — 105% of capacity (combined)
Standard Middle Schools — 107% of capacity (combined)
High Schools — 110% of capacity (combined)
Topic Building Capacity
Standard
2003 NC Department Public Instruction and
updates (e.g. Class Size)
Topic Capital Investment Program (County)
Standard 5 to 10- year plan
107
ELEMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING MIL
Topic Student Growth Rate
Average five different student projection models
Standard and updates (actual historical numbersp )
Topic Student Generation Rate
Standard 2001 TISCHLER Study and updates (2009, 2014)
108
SAPFO ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM - Two PARTS
1 . Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) Needs (County
and Board of Education)
Annual budget review
2 . Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
( Local Governments and Board of Education )
Development approval process
109
PART ONE - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLANNING ( CIP ) NEEDS
Historic enrollment
• Actual November enrollment update
■ Student projections compared to actual existing
capacity
IF Identifies new capacity needs in the future
Completely new school
Renovation and expansion
School Construction standards contain school sizes
( including targeted maximum number of students in
elementary, middle, and high schools)
110
PART ONE - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLANNING ( CIP ) NEEDS PROCESS
November Orange County requests student membership (enrollment) and
capacity numbers (based on November 15 ) from schools
December BOCC accepts numbers
December - March Student membership and projections are utilized during the
budget process (BOCC and BOE)
Schools Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) meets to
January review draft report and 10-year student projections
March Draft report distributed to SAPFO partners for comment
Draft report and 10-year student projections presented to elected
April officials
May Final report is certified by the BOCC
111
PART Two CAPS SYSTEM
A test of new development impacts using Student
Generation Rates (SGR's) against available capacity
CAPS issued if capacity exists, OR
CAPS deferred until Part 1 CIP needs and associated
funding for more capacity is achieved
■ Historically, the identification of future CIP capacity
has been far enough in advance to foresee and
construct new capacity without CAPS deferral
CAPS system was previously suspended for a certain
school level in 2005 until new capacity was
constructed for a certain level
112
PART Two CAPS SYSTEM
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
contained in a multi-part, integrated Excel
workbook
■ Tracks existing membership and capacity
Test for and log new development impacts ( multi-
year as appropriate) against capacity levels
Local governments review development projects
■ BOE and school staff confirms adequate capacity
■ CAPS certificate given to local government from
BOE for final development approval
113
SAPFO OTHER AsPECTS
■ SAPFOTAC (SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee)
also monitors and informally reports :
Changes in class size averages at the state level
Charter school enrollment and impacts
Pre-K membership
COVID impacts (alternative projections)
Future school construction projects
Major residential development projects
114
FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE SAPFO PROGRAM
COMPREHENSIVE CAPITAL
PLAN IMPROVEMENT
(public facilities PROGRAM AND
planning) BUDGET
(finance)
ADEQUATE CAPS
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES SYSTEM
ORDINANCE (administrative)
(regulation)
115
SAPFO CONSIDERATIONS
What doesn't SAPFO do?
Identify school-by-school capacity needs
Level only (elementary, middle, high )
Determine per pupil funding
Identify school maintenance/repair needs
SAPFO is better attuned for capital facilities
planning for new capacity needs rather than to
defer development ( i . e. CAPS)
Tied to residential land use and student
membership/capacity due to residential
development
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
117
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
July 20, 2022
Meeting—8:30-1 Oam
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on July 20, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. Design Standard Policy/Guidelines for Both Districts
3. Discussion and Next Steps
4. Next Meeting is Wednesday, August 17, 2022
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford(aboran ecountync.gov before 3:00 pm on July 18, 2022
118
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
July 20, 2022
Meeting—8:30-10am
Due to current public health concerns, the Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual
Meeting on July 20, 2022. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely.
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
a. Attendees: Jean Hamilton, Bonnie Hauser, Gary Donaldson,
Patrick Abele, Steve Arndt, Al Ciarochi, Andre' Stewart, Kirk
Vaughn,Greg Wilder,Nyah Hamlett,Rebecca Crawford,Carrie
Doyle, Jonathan Scott, Monique Felder
2. Design Standard Policy/Guidelines for Both Districts
a. Jean: frame conversation today around design standards only,
save maintenance standards for another discussion
b. Jean: what design standards are used for the school districts?
i. Patrick: primary driver of school facility construction
across the state is DPI standards
1. Has prototype school designs in addition to
standards
a. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/media/570/down
load
b. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/media/569/down
load
2. OC has own design standards — worked with
former AMS director to review both DPI and OC
standards to find commonalities
a. Roofing, energy efficiencies,
b. Have heard the cost of doing business in
OC from contractors is very high because
of the OC specific construction and
design standards, zoning is harder to get
plans approved — could OC standards be
driving up costs
c. OC has more initiatives in terms of green
policies and energy efficiencies than
other counties
i. Could we focus on DPI standards
but layer over the energy
119
efficiency and sustainability
policies? Paused this discussion
during COVID.
ii. Would help with alignment
between two districts to use DPI
standards.
iii. Ex.Don't need to build an athletic
stadium for capacity in case make
it to state playoffs. Can build
standard size and rent if ever need
more seating
ii. Jean: Steve, where do we find the OC design standards?
1. Steve: not in county policy but county uses
LEED as our county standards — used within
design community
2. Al: echoed Patrick and Steve's comments about
importance of standards and LEED
3. Patrick: drywall and insulation are not going to
protect students and staff in an active shooter
situation
4. Jean: do we need county-wide design standards?
a. Al: school needs do vary from county
building but in his experience design
standards are not typically at a local level
unless it's a local ordinance that says all
new school buildings must be built to a
silver LEED standard—just want to make
sure we don't restrict ourselves in terms
of cost(Platinum may be the standard but
then we can't afford to build it in lean
economic times).
5. Bonnie: are there standards on size?
a. Al: size of the school may depend on the
capacity needed
b. Jean: hearing the county has additional
standards on top of DPI — are districts
speaking of the Uniform Development
Ordinance? (page 286)
C. https://www.oran eg countync. og v/Do
cumentCenter/View/7179/UDO-MO ST-
CURRENT-updated-050319
i. Al: these are baseline standards
d. Jean: everyone review UDO standards
and then discuss at next meeting about
whether they are restricting our progress.
120
e. Steve: county is going through a Climate
Action Plan. Part of that will be
recommendations about sustainability of
OC construction that may impact school
construction
f. Bonnie: are there standards for building
for long term sustainability but charter
schools are building cheaper and may not
last as long. Has anyone see any
standards that shift public schools
towards more of the charter school
model?
iii. Al: you get what you pay for. Drywall is cheaper than
block wall but won't last. VCT tile is cheaper than
polished concrete but concrete is cheaper in the long run
and will last longer.
1. Trends in school design come and go — open
concept has come around twice in his career
2. Updated standards are applied to new spaces as
schools add or replace capacity, not just when
buildings are replaced.
a. Patrick: This was the approach for the
new wing at Cedar Ridge High School
3. Discussion and Next Steps
a. Jean: Is there anything in the UDO that has maintenance
standards?Not sure—Check with Planning
L http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=410
5&searchid=2fObaaa8-15f6-4c36-bdda-99ae9d14cdff&dbid=0
ii. https://www.oran eg countync.gov/DocumentCenterNie
w/7179/UDO-MO ST-CURRENT-updated-050319
1. Beginning page 286
b. Bonnie: are there any building maintenance standards in the DPI
guidance?
i. Al: experience has been that maintenance is a local
choice
ii. Steve: often maintenance standards are set but funding
isn't available to replace according to the standards
1. Renovations and replacements are an
intermediary step between maintenance and new
construction
c. Bonnie: are there any financing standards we should consider
for how much to budget for school maintenance?
i. Al: could the finance people find a benchmark for % of
operating budget to put in for ongoing maintenance?
What does the county do?
121
ii. Nyah: shared Loudon County Capital Asset Program
Fund model via email:
https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/1641
24/13a---Capital-Asset-Preservation-Program-Fund
d. Jean: Group has met seven times, has been very valuable in
understanding the breadth of the issues facing — aging schools
aren't serving our students well
i. Time to write a report on what we've learned— state of
our capital needs - and have recommendations for next
steps in the report
ii. Would like to have a draft of the report/executive
summary for our next meeting in August to be reviewed
by group and discuss whether to approve
1. Would then go to BOCC and school boards for
review
a. Would like to get a consultant to review
the needs and come up with a 10 year plan
to address needs in both districts
i. What policy changes do we need
to make
2. Need buy-in from group — would continue to
meet but as an advisory group to consultant
iii. Bonnie: agrees with Jean's idea
iv. Jean:we need a sub-committee—Jean,Bonnie,OC staff,
member of staff from each district(total of 5 people)
1. Jean will reach out to people individually outside
of the meeting
v. Carrie: agrees with plan and thanked chair and vice chair
for leadership — should we add a board member from
CHCCS to the sub-committee?
vi. Bonnie — how hard is it to hire and offer competitive
salaries for school facilities staff?
1. Al: Qualified people are out there but salaries are
hard — can be rewarding even if not able to pay
as much as in private sector
2. Patrick: depends on local contractors — have a
large HVAC/mechanical contractor in
Hillsborough and often lose HVAC mechanics to
that company and to area universities
a. No career ladder so how do they do that
to retain staff? Help with licensing? Job
shadowing with current high school
students as a recruitment tool
4. Next Meeting is Wednesday, August 17, 2022
122
a. Discuss UDO school design standards and whether too
restrictive
b. Monique: Could we keep in mind that reopening schools next
month and some members of the group may not be able to attend
the meeting
i. Jean: if report isn't ready won't meet. If report is ready
and can't attend, feel free to submit comments ahead of
time
Adjourn
Capital Needs Work Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should
any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register:
Capital Needs Workgroup Registration Link
After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the
meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to
the group, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please
email Rebecca Crawford at rcrawford(aoran e�ync.gov before 3:00 pm on July 18, 2022
123
Appendix 2: Existing School Building Inventory
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Orange County Schools
School Name Year Built Age School Name Built Year Age
Lincoln Center 1950 72 Central Elementary 1952 70
Glenwood 1952 70 Efland Cheeks 1952 70
Elementary Global Elementary
Carrboro 1957 65 Hillsborough 1952 70
Elementary Elementary
Estes Hills 1957 64 River Park 1956 66
Elementary Elementary
Phillips Middle 1962 60 Orange High 1962 60
Frank Porter 1963 59 Orange Middle 1968 54
Graham
Elementary
Chapel Hill High 1966 56 Grady Brown 1974 48
Elementary
Seawell 1969 53 New Hope 1991 31
Elementary Elementary
Culbreth Middle 1969 53 AL Stanback Middle 1995 27
Ephesus 1972 50 Pathways 2000 22
Elementary Elementary
CHCCS 1977 45 Cedar Ridge High 2002 20
Maintenance
McDougle Middle 1994 28 Gravelly Hill 2006 16
Middle
East Chapel Hill 1996 26 Partnership 2006 16
High Academy
Scroggs 1999 23
Elementary
Smith Middle 2001 21
Rashkis 2003 19
Elementary
Carrboro 2007 15
Elementary
Morris Grove 2008 14
Elementary
Phoenix Academy 2009 13
Northside 2013 9
Elementary
d
i
Aging Infrastructure ADA Egress Issues
:010-
Jov
moi'!' err
Campus Security Issues Lighting
�.
i Aging Infrastructure ADA Egress Issues
Campus Security Issues Lighting
125
Exhibit 6
Work Group Guiding Questions
• From an independent expert perspective:
o What is the state of our schools and school facilities? Which facilities should be
replaced? Renovated? Repaired and maintained?
o What is the state of facility maintenance operations? What approaches and tools
are recommended to improve maintenance management, prioritization, staffing,
and funding?
• Are the building and construction standards used by the county and both school districts
effective for creating safe and effective learning environments?That includes space design,
technology, energy efficiency, and maintainability
• How should projects be prioritized and resources be allocated across two school districts?
• What are the most effective approaches to complete projects in a timely and cost-effective
manner?Where are opportunities to work/contract across campuses?Across districts? How
can contractors and program managers be used effectively?
• What sources are available and appropriate for funding school capital considering the
county's size and risk tolerance, local debt capacity limits, available grants, and alternative
contracting?
EXHIBIT C
School Facility Listing 126
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Building Years
Site Square Renovations/ Shared Site
School Name Site Number Acreage footage Year Constructed Additions Acreage
Elementary Schools
1959,1986,
Glenwood Elementary 681320 9.6 50,764 1952 2016
Carrboro Elementary 681304 17.7 61,562 1957 1964,1989
Estes Hill Elementary 681312 33.1 56,299 1958 1986,1998
Frank Porter Graham Elementary 681316 9.8 66,689 1960 1977,1989
Smith Middle,
Seawell Elementary 1 681310 10.95 52,896 1969 1975,1989 Chapel Hill High
Ephesus Elementary 681311 13.4 66,952 1972 1991
Scroggs Elementary 681330 13.05 92,900 1999
Rashkis Elementary 681334 22.04 95,729 2003
Morris Grove Elementary 681332 19.035 90,221 2008
McDougle
McDougle Elementary 681326 11.7 98,000 1996 Middle
Northside Elementary 681300 7.89 97,423 2013
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL 168.265 829,435
Middle Schools
Phillips Middle 681324 33.1 109,498 1962 1978,1990
1977,1988,
1989,1997,
1999,2001,
Culbreth Middle 681322 35.4 114,776 1969 2010
McDougle
McDougle Middle 681309 28.8 136,221 1994 Elementary
Seawell
Elementary,
Smith Middle 681336 20.43 128,764 2001 Chapel Hill High
MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTAL 117.73 489,259
High Schools
Seawell
Elementary,
Chapel Hill High 681308 85.31 274,542 2020 Smith Middle
East Chapel Hill High 681314 87.4 259,869 1996
Carrboro High 681305 62.32 148,023 2007
Phoenix Academy 681338 12.8 5,207 2009 Lincoln Center
HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL 247.83 687,641
ADMINISTRATION
Phoenix
Lincoln Center 1 33,7311 1950 Academy
ADMINISTRATION TOTALS 33,731
DISTRICT TOTALS 533.83 2,040,066
127
Orange County Schools
Approx. Total Sq.
Property Year Ft.
Size Student Addition Sq.Ft. (excluding
School Name Address (Acreage) Capacity Year Built Sq.Ft. Added Addition #Mobiles mobiles)
River Park Elementary 308 240 St.Mary's Rd 19 598 1956 22,798 1959 22,798 2 70,812
Hillsborough,NC 1977 4,720 2
1988 20,496
Central Elementary 312 154 Hayes St 22 483 1952 8,890 1965 25,892 0 61,382
Hillsborough,NC 1975 18,700
1990 7,900
Efland Cheeks Elementary 324 4401 Fuller Rd 31 529 1952 24,249 1977 40,067 0 65,084
Efland,NC 1999 768
Grady A.Brown Elementary 328 1100 New Grady Brown Rd 18 575 1974 74,016 1996 1,000 2 75,016
Hillsborough,NC
Hillsborough Elementary 100 Bldg.329 402 N.Nash St. 10 514 1959 22,310 0 0 0 72,872
Hillsborough Elementary 200 Bldg. Hillsborough,NC 1952 8,980
Hillsborough Elementary 300 Bldg. 1958 14,770
Hillsborough Elementary Gym 1958 15,316
Hillsborough Elementary Cafe 1952 4,500
Hillsborough Elementary Learning Center 1960-1962 6,996
New Hope Elementary 330 1900 New Hope Ch Rd 26 621 1991 100,164 0 0 2 100,164
Chapel Hill,NC 2
Pathways Elementary 336 431 Strouds Creek 18.1 600 2000 85,282 0 0 0 85,282
Hillsborough,NC
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL 144.1 530,612
A.L.Stanback Middle 304 3700 NC Hwy 86 5 35.9 740 1995 136,000 0 0 0 136,000
Hillsborough,NC
Orange Middle 316 308 Orange High Sch Rd 57 726 1968 102,780 1977 4,840 0 118,970
GYM
Wrestling
Hillsborough,NC Rm 1999 1,350
AUD 2011 10,000
Gravelly Hill Middle 327 4801 West Ten 66.173 600 2006 122,793 0 0 0 122,793
Note:Acreage for GHMS includes soccer field
owned by Orange County) Efland,NC
MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTAL 159.073 377,763
Cedar Ridge High School 310 1125 New Grady Brown Rd 71.01 1000 2002 206,900 0 0 0 263,732
Hillsborough,NC Aux Gym 2017 9,870
Clsrm Add 2020 46,962
Orange High School 332 500 Orange High Sch Rd 92 1518 1962 49,798 1965 49,150 8 217,203
Hillsborough,NC 1969 15,000
GYM 1971 36,469
1979 17,480
1986 45,612
Bldg E 2015 3,694
Partnership Academy Alternative School 1006 East Storey Ln 20.8 50 2006 3,600 2010 3,000 0 6,600
335 Hillsborough,NC 27278
HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL 183.81 487,535
Maintenance Department 123 E Oakdale Dr 2 1940 17,559 0 0 0 17,559
Hillsborough,NC
Transportation Department 231 Holman Dr 1 1 19711 11,704 01 01 1 11,704
128
Hillsborough,NC
Administrative Annex II(Transp Dispatch) 1010 East Storey Ln 12 1,575 0 0 0 1,575
Hillsborough,NC
Central Office 200 East King St 4 1971 6,210 0 0 0 6,210
Hillsborough,NC
Administrative Annex 1914 New Hope Ch Rd 3 150 1971 6,000 0 0 0 6,000
Hillsborough,NC
Approx. Tota Sq.
Property Year Ft.
Size Student Addition Sq.Ft. #iMobiles (excluding
School/Facility Address (Acreage) Capacity 1 Year Built Sq.Ft. Added Addition #[Clrms mobiles)
Welcome Center 920 Corporate Dr 5.53 75 2006 14,644 0 0 0 34,733
Hillsborough,NC 2011 20,089
ADMINISTRATION TOTAL 26.53 77,781
DISTRICT TOTALS 514 1,473,691
Exhibit D 129
[Departmental Use Only]
TITLE
FY
NORTH CAROLINA
SERVICES AGREEMENT RFP/RFQ
ORANGE COUNTY
This Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), made and entered into this day
of , 20 , ("Effective Date") by and between Orange County, North Carolina a
political subdivision of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter, the "County") and ,
(hereinafter, the "Provider").
WITNESSETH:
That the County and Provider, for the consideration herein named, do hereby agree as
follows:
1. Services
a. Scope of Work.
i) This Services Agreement ("Agreement") is for services to be rendered by
Provider to County with respect to (insert type of project):
ii) By executing this Agreement, the Provider represents and agrees that Provider is
qualified to perform and fully capable of performing and providing the services
required or necessary under this Agreement in a fully competent, professional and
timely manner.
iii) Time is of the essence with respect to this Agreement.
iv) The services to be performed under this Agreement consist of Basic Services, as
described and designated in Section 3 hereof. Compensation to the Provider for
Basic Services under this Agreement shall be as set forth herein.
2. Responsibilities of the Provider
a. Services to be provided. The Provider shall provide the County with all services
required in Section 3 to satisfactorily complete the Project within the time limitations set
forth herein and in accordance with the highest professional standards.
b. Standard of Care.
i) The Provider shall exercise reasonable care and diligence in performing services
under this Agreement in accordance with the highest generally accepted standards
of this type of Provider practice throughout the United States and in accordance
with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the
performance of these services. Provider is solely responsible for the professional
Revised 06/21 1
130
quality, accuracy and timely completion and submission of all work related to the
Basic Services.
ii) Provider shall be responsible for all errors or omissions of its agents, contractors,
employees, or assigns in the performance of the Agreement. Provider shall
correct any and all errors, omissions, discrepancies, ambiguities, mistakes or
conflicts at no additional cost to the County.
iii) The Provider shall not, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement,
subcontract the performance of any work under this Agreement without prior
written permission of the County. No permission for subcontracting shall create,
between the County and the subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship.
iv) Provider is an independent contractor of County. Any and all employees of the
Provider engaged by the Provider in the performance of any work or services
required of the Provider under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or
agents of the Provider only and not of the County, and any and all claims that may
or might arise under any workers compensation or other law or contract on behalf
of said employees while so engaged shall be the sole obligation and responsibility
of the Provider.
v) If activities related to the performance of this Agreement require specific licenses,
certifications, or related credentials Provider represents that it or its employees,
agents and subcontractors engaged in such activities possess such licenses,
certifications, or credentials and that such licenses certifications, or credentials are
current, active, and not in a state of suspension or revocation.
vi) Should this Agreement involve project designs, the construction or creation of
which is to be bid out or fulfilled by other contractors, and bidding or negotiation
with contractors produce prices which, when added to the other elements of the
approved total project cost, produce a cost that is in excess of the approved total
project cost, the Provider shall participate with the County in negotiation and
design adjustments to the extent such are necessary to obtain prices within the
approved total project cost. All activity of the Provider with respect to these
matters shall constitute Basic Services and shall be performed by the Provider
without additional compensation. If negotiation and design adjustments fail to
bring costs within the total project cost the County may reject all bids and
Provider will redesign or reduce portions of the project in an effort to reduce the
bid prices to within the total project cost and rebid the project. One such redesign
is included within Basic Services. If this second letting for bids does not produce
bids that are within the approved total project cost initially or after negotiations
with the contractor the cost is not reduced to an amount within the total project
cost, the Provider is not obligated to engage in further redesign.
3. Basic Services
a. Basic Services.
Revised 06/21 2
131
i) The Provider shall perform as Basic Services the work and services described
herein and as specified in the County's Request for Proposals or Request for
Qualifications (the "RFP") "RFP Number for " " issued ,
20 , and the Provider's proposal, which are fully incorporated and integrated
herein by reference together with Attachments (designate all attachments).
In the event a term or condition in any referenced document or attachment
conflicts with a term or condition of this Agreement the term or condition in this
Agreement shall control. Should such conflict arise the priority of documents
shall be as follows: This Agreement, the County's RFP together with
attachments, Provider's Proposal together with attachments.
ii) The Basic Services will be performed by the Provider in accordance with the
following schedule: (Insert milestones task list, dates and fees. If milestones
are not established mark N/A under Milestone Task 1.)
Milestone Task Milestone Date Milestone Fee
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
iii) Should County reasonably determine that Provider has not met the Milestone
Dates established in Section 3(a)(ii), County shall notify Provider of the failure to
meet the Milestone Date. The County, at its discretion may provide the Provider
seven (7) days to cure the breach. County may withhold the accompanying
payment without penalty until such time as Provider cures the breach. In the
alternative, upon Provider's failure to meet any Milestone Date the County may
modify the Milestone Date schedule. Should Provider or its representatives fail to
cure the breach within seven (7) days, or fail to reasonably agree to such modified
schedule, County may immediately terminate this Agreement in writing, without
penalty or incurring further obligation to Provider. This section shall not be
interpreted to limit the definition of breach to the failure to meet Milestone Dates.
4. Duration of Services
a. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from to
b. Scheduling of Services
i) The Provider shall schedule and perform its activities in a timely manner so as to
meet the Milestone Dates listed in Section 3.
Revised 06/21 3
132
ii) Should the County determine that the Provider is behind schedule, it may require
the Provider to expedite and accelerate its efforts, including providing additional
resources and working overtime, as necessary, to perform its services in
accordance with the approved project schedule at no additional cost to the
County.
iii) The Commencement Date for the Provider's Basic Services shall be
5. Compensation
a. Compensation for Basic Services. Compensation for Basic Services shall include all
compensation due the Provider from the County for all services satisfactorily (as
determined by the County) performed pursuant to this Agreement. The maximum
amount payable for Basic Services is Dollars ($ ). In the event the amount
stated on an invoice is disputed by the County, the County may withhold payment of all
or a portion of the amount stated on an invoice until the parties resolve the dispute.
Payment for Basic Services shall become due and payable in direct proportion to
satisfactory services performed and work accomplished. Payments will be made as
Project milestones as set out in Section 3(a)(ii) are achieved up to the corresponding
milestone fee. (For example, Provider may invoice for the amount listed as the
milestone fee corresponding to the first milestone task upon County's acknowledgement
of the satisfactory completion of Task one. Upon the County's acknowledgement that
the second Task has been satisfactorily completed Provider may invoice for that
corresponding milestone fee.) Milestone fees shall be the maximum amount payable for
its corresponding milestone task which shall not be altered except by written
amendment.
b. Additional Services. County shall not be responsible for costs related to any services in
addition to the Basic Services performed by Provider unless County requests such
additional services in writing and such additional services are evidenced by a written
amendment to this Agreement.
6. Responsibilities of the County
a. Cooperation and Coordination. The County has designated ( ) to act as the
County's representative with respect to the Project who shall have the authority to render
decisions within guidelines established by the County Manager or the County Board of
Commissioners and who shall be available during working hours as often as may be
reasonably required to render decisions and to furnish information.
7. Insurance
a. General Requirements. Provider shall obtain, at its sole expense, Commercial General
Liability Insurance, Automobile Insurance, Workers' Compensation Insurance, and any
additional insurance as may be required by County's Risk Manager as such insurance
requirements are described in the Orange County Risk Transfer Policy and Orange
County Minimum Insurance Coverage Requirements (each document is incorporated
herein by reference and may be viewed at
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/purchasing division/contracts.php.) If
Revised 06/21 4
133
County's Risk Manager determines additional insurance coverage is required such
additional insurance shall consist of (if no additional insurance required mark
N/A as being not applicable). Provider shall not commence work until such insurance is
in effect and certification thereof has been received by the County's Risk Manager.
8. Indemnity
a. Indemnity. To the extent authorized by North Carolina law the Provider agrees, without
limitation, to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County from all loss, liability,
claims or expense, including attorney's fees, arising out of or related to the Project and
arising from property damage or bodily injury including death to any person or persons
caused in whole or in part by the negligence or misconduct of the Provider except to the
extent same are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the County. It is the
intent of this provision to require the Provider to indemnify the County to the fullest
extent permitted under North Carolina law.
9. Amendments to the Agreement
a. Changes in Basic Services. Changes in the Basic Services and entitlement to additional
compensation or a change in duration of this Agreement shall be made by a written
Amendment to this Agreement executed by the County and the Provider. The Provider
shall proceed to perform the Services required by the Amendment only after receiving a
fully executed Amendment from the County.
10. Termination
a. Termination for Convenience of the County. This Agreement may be terminated without
cause by the County and for its convenience upon seven (7) days prior written notice to
the Provider.
b. Other Termination. The Provider may terminate this Agreement based upon the County's
material breach of this Agreement; provided, the County has not taken all reasonable
actions to remedy the breach. The Provider shall give the County seven (7) days' prior
written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for cause. Either party may
terminate this Agreement upon notice to the other party that obligations pursuant to this
Agreement are made impractical due to declarations of emergency by Orange County or
by North Carolina due to events directly impacting Orange County. Both parties shall
remain responsible for all payment and performance due up to the receipt of such notice,
but shall have no further obligation or responsibility beyond that date provided the
terminating party has taken all reasonable steps to complete the performance of its
obligations.
c. Compensation After Termination.
i) In the event of termination, the Provider shall be paid that portion of the fees and
expenses that it has earned to the date of termination, less any costs or expenses
incurred or anticipated to be incurred by the County due to errors or omissions of
the Provider. Upon request of the County, the Provider shall submit to County all
Revised 06/21 5
134
relevant documentation, including but not limited to, job cost records, to support
its claims for final compensation.
ii) Should this Agreement be terminated, the Provider shall deliver to the County
within seven (7) days, at no additional cost, all deliverables including any
electronic data or files relating to the Project.
d. Waiver. The payment of any sums by the County under this Agreement or the failure of
the County to require compliance by the Provider with any provisions of this Agreement
or the waiver by the County of any breach of this Agreement shall not constitute a
waiver of any claim for damages by the County for any breach of this Agreement or a
waiver of any other required compliance with this Agreement.
e. Suspension. County may suspend the Basic Services and this Agreement at any time for
County's convenience and without penalty to County upon three (3) days' notice to
Provider. Upon any suspension by County, Provider shall discontinue the Basic
Services and shall not resume the Basic Services until notified to proceed by County.
11. Additional Provisions
a. Limitation and Assi mm�ent_. The County and the Provider each bind themselves, their
successors, assigns and legal representatives to the terms of this Agreement. Neither the
County nor the Provider shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
b. Governing. This Agreement and the duties, responsibilities, obligations and rights
of respective parties hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of North
Carolina.
c. Compliance with Laws. Provider shall at all times remain in compliance with all
applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations including but not limited
to all state and federal anti-discrimination laws, policies, rules, and regulations and the
Orange County Non-Discrimination Policy and Orange County Living Wage Policy
(each policy is incorporated herein by reference and may be viewed at
http://www.orangecountyLic.gov/departments/Turchasin.g division/contracts.php.) Any
violation of this requirement is a breach of this Agreement and County may immediately
terminate this Agreement without further obligation on the part of the County. This
paragraph is not intended to limit and does not limit the definition of breach to
discrimination. By executing this Agreement Provider affirms that Provider and any
subcontractors of Provider are and shall remain in compliance with Article 2 of Chapter
64 of the North Carolina General Statutes. By executing this Agreement Provider
certifies that Provider has not been identified, and has not utilized the services of any
agent or subcontractor identified, on the list created by the State Treasurer pursuant to
G.S. 147-86.58. By executing this Agreement Provider certifies that Provider has not
been identified, and has not utilized the services of any agent or subcontractor identified,
on the list created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147-86.81.
d. Dispute Resolution. Any and all suits or actions to enforce, interpret or seek damages
with respect to any provision of, or the performance or non-performance of, this
Revised 06/21 6
135
Agreement shall be brought in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina sitting in
Orange County, North Carolina. It is agreed by the parties that no other court shall have
jurisdiction or venue with respect to such suits or actions. Binding arbitration may not
be initiated by either Party, however, the Parties may agree to nonbinding mediation of
any dispute prior to the bringing of a suit or action.
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the RFP and its attachments and the
Proposal and its attachments, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
County and the Provider and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument signed by both parties. Modifications may be evidenced by facsimile
signatures.
f. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held as a matter of law to be
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and binding upon the
Parties.
g. Ownership of Work Product. Should Provider's performance of this Agreement generate
documents, items or things that are specific to this Project such documents, items or
things shall become the property of the County and may be used on any other project
without additional compensation to the Provider. The use of the documents, items or
things by the County or by any person or entity for any purpose other than the Project as
set forth in this Agreement shall be at the full risk of the County.
h. Non-Appropriation and Government Action. Provider acknowledges that County is a
governmental entity, and the validity of this Agreement is based upon the availability of
public funding under the authority of its statutory mandate.
In the event that public funds are unavailable or not appropriated for the performance of
County's obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall automatically
expire without penalty to County immediately upon written notice to Provider of the
unavailability or non-appropriation of public funds. It is expressly agreed that County
shall not activate this non-appropriation provision for its convenience or to circumvent
the requirements of this Agreement.
In the event of a change in the County's statutory authority, mandate or mandated
functions, by state or federal legislative or regulatory action, which adversely affects
County's authority to continue its obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement
shall automatically terminate without penalty to County upon written notice to Provider
of such limitation or change in County's legal authority.
i. Signatures. This Agreement together with any amendments or modifications may be
executed electronically. All electronic signatures affixed hereto evidence the consent of
the Parties to utilize electronic signatures and the intent of the Parties to comply with
Article I IA and Article 40 of North Carolina General Statute Chapter 66.
j. Notices. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by
certified or registered mail,return receipt requested to the following:
Revised 06/21 7
136
Orange County Provider's Name & Address
Attention:
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by and through their authorized agents, have hereunder
set their hands and seal, all as of the day and year first above written.
ORANGE COUNTY: PROVIDER:
By: By:
Printed Name and Title
Revised 06/21 8