HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 12-12-23; 7-a - Discussion on School and County Capital Planning and Financing Scenarios 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 12, 2023
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-a
SUBJECT: Discussion on School and County Capital Planning and Financing Scenarios
DEPARTMENT: County Manager, Finance and
Administrative Services, and
Asset Management Services
(AMS)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Attachment 1. Financing Scenario Travis Myren, (919) 245-2308
Illustrations Gary Donaldson, (919) 245-2453
Attachment 2. O'Brien Atkins Facility Kirk Vaughn, (919) 245-2153
Master Plan Steve Arndt, (919) 245-2658
Attachment 3. Woolpert School Facility
and Optimization Plan
PURPOSE: To review and discuss financing scenarios related to implementing the long range
County Facility Plan and the School Long Range Facilities Optimization Plan and to provide
direction to staff on adjustments to the financing scenarios defined in this abstract with the goal
of adopting a preferred plan of finance by the end of January 2024.
BACKGROUND: The County engaged two facility consulting firms to evaluate the condition and
adequacy of both County and School facilities and to make prioritized recommendations on capital
improvements over a ten year planning horizon. Both plans utilize the Facilities Conditions Index
which quantifies facility conditions and can be used to prioritize repairs and replacements.
County Facility Plan
The County selected O'Brien Atkins Associates on March 2022 to review the state of County
facilities from both a facility condition and space planning context over a 10-year period. O'Brien
Atkins Associates presented a final draft to the Board of Commissioners on November 9, 2023.
That draft identified eight decision points to improve public safety, justice, social services, and
recreational facilities over the next ten years. The lowest cost alternative identified a total of $130
million in renovation and construction needs.
School Facility Plan
The County and School Districts selected Woolpert in March 2023 to review the state of the school
facilities from a facility condition, space planning, and educational adequacy context. Woolpert
last presented to the County Board on December 4, 2023 outlining four options to address the
next five to fifteen years of school facility needs. The total cost of those options range from $219
million to $1.1 billion. Woolpert is recommending an option that would require $1 billion in capital
investment over the next 15 years.
2
County staff has worked with the County's financial advisors to determine alternative plans of
finance that would be needed to fund the various options. This presentation details the debt
metrics that are used to evaluate the amount of debt the County carries, the revenue and
expenditure assumptions contained in the debt model, and the tax rate and debt policy
implications of the options presented by Woolpert.
Debt Metrics
As credit rating agencies evaluate the County's financial condition, they examine three primary
metrics related to the amount of debt the County is obligated to pay.
• Ten Year Payout Ratio
This metric measures the amount of principal to be paid in the next ten-year period to
prevent backloading debt payments. One rating agency adds a positive adjustment if the
ten-year payout ratio is 65% or greater. This means that 65% of outstanding principal
payments are paid within ten years. The County's current payout ratio is 67.1% and is
managed by structuring level principal payments over the entire term of the debt issue.
• Debt to Assessed Value Ratio
This metric measures the amount of outstanding tax supported debt as a percentage of
the County's assessed value (tax base). This is one measure of the County's ability to raise
revenue to make debt service payments. As assessed values increase, the County's ability
to generate enough revenue to pay back existing debt also increases. The County's
current policy is that total outstanding debt will not exceed 3% of assessed value. The
County's current debt to assessed value ratio is 1.28%. Having a ratio under 3% also
results in a positive credit rating adjustment. All of the financing scenarios discussed below
maintain a debt to assessed value ratio of under 3%.
• Debt Service to General Fund Revenue Ratio
This metric compares the amount of debt service payments the County is obligated to pay
on an annual basis to total projected general fund revenues. This is a quantitative
representation of the County's ability to pay debt obligations on an annual basis. If debt
service is growing at a higher rate than general fund revenues, the proportion of the
County's budget that is dedicated to debt will increase and lower the ability to fund other
operating expenses. The County's current policy is to maintain annual debt service costs
at or below 15% of general fund revenues. The County has modestly exceeded this policy
in the past. According to one rating agency, a "strong" position is 8% to 15%, and an
"adequate" position is 15% to 25%. In FY2023-24, debt service is 13.60% of total general
fund revenues. This ratio is tracked in each of the financing scenarios below.
Model Assumptions
The debt model makes several assumptions to predict the likely impact that a given amount of
borrowing will have on the debt service to general fund revenue metric and the property tax rate
required to make annual debt service payments.
• Assessed Value
The assessed value growth assumption is important because it is directly linked to the debt
service to assessed value metric discussed above, and it dictates the amount of revenue
that each penny on the property tax rate can generate.
3
In most years, assessed value grows by approximately 2% annually. However, in years in
which a revaluation occurs, assessed value grows at a much higher rate as all of the real
property in the County is valued as closely as possible to market value. The Department
of Revenue has indicated that current market values are well above the assessed values
that were established in the 2020 revaluation. In the second quarter of 2023, the NC
Department of Revenue estimated that current assessed values are representing
approximately 64.8% of market value. As a result, total assessed value may increase by
as much as 50% when adjusted to market conditions, increasing the value of one penny
from $2,304,674 to $3,476,344 which is reflected in the debt model. In future revaluation
years, the rate of growth is moderated to approximately 11% which is consistent with prior
revaluation years.
• Total General Fund Revenue
Total General Fund Revenue is primarily comprised of property tax (68%) and sales tax
(15.6%). Total property tax collections are calculated by applying a tax rate to total
assessed value which is assumed to grow as described above. Sales tax collections are
assumed to grow at a rate of 4% annually. Additionally, the model assumes that the
operating budget will increase by 3% annually which requires associated revenue growth.
• Current Existing and Planned Resources
The County has already authorized and planned funding in the Capital Investment Plan
(CIP) that would partially address the needs identified in the facility studies. The County
has approximately $202 million in existing and planned tax supported capital investments,
and the School Districts have approximately $148 million in approved and planned funding
to address the Woolpert Scenarios. Funding for school recurring capital and technology
investments are not included in the effort to fund the Woolpert recommendations.
County Projects Approved Projects Not Financed $10 million
County Projects—Ten Year CIP $192 million
Total Existing and Planned $202 million
School Districts Existing and Planned Tax Supported Borrowing
Remaining 2016 Bond Funds $15 million
Remaining Deferred Maintenance Funds $38 million
School Projects—Ten Year CIP $95 million
Total Existing and Planned $148 million
Financing Scenarios
Each of the financing scenarios is evaluated on the basis of tax rate impacts and the resulting
debt service to general fund revenue metric. In order to manage the number of scenarios
presented, each model assumes that existing and planned tax supported borrowing is funded at
the amounts contained in the accepted Capital Investment Plan.
The variable in each of the scenarios is the amount of new funding for County and School facility
needs. As a starting point, the amount of funding for County projects represents either the first
five years of the County Facility Plan or all ten years. The financing scenario illustrations
(attached) indicate the tax rate impact on each scenario if only the first five years of County
projects were funded over the ten-year period in an effort to reduce the number of options. The
amount of funding for school projects substantially align with the options contained in the Woolpert
study of long range school capital needs. To provide a consistent comparison between options,
4
all models assume an upfront tax increase in FY 2026, after a potential bond referendum in
November 2024.
SchoolScenario New County New One Time Tax Peak
FundingTitle Funding .
Al $75 million $130 million 4.00 cents 17.4%
A2 $130 million $130 million 4.57 cents 18.0%
C1 $130 million $400 million 7.89 cents 22.0%
C2 $130 million $300 million bond + 8.66 cents 19.4%
$100 million pay-go
D $130 million $630 million 11.22 cents 26.6%
Scenario Descriptions
• Scenario Al
o Spreads the first five years of County Facility Plan ($70 million) over ten years and
adds 3% annual inflation ($5 million) to account for spreading the projects over a
longer timeframe
o Continues the $130 million school bond from the FY2023-24 CIP
o When combined with existing and planned resources, provides $219 million in the
first five years to meet Woolpert's Option A and an additional $59 million over the
ten-year planning horizon to address other priority needs.
o The County would have sufficient collateral to finance this scenario with a Limited
Obligation Bond instead of a voter approved General Obligation Bond.
• Scenario A2
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Continues the $130 million school bond from FY2023-24 CIP
o When combined with existing and planned resources, provides $219 million in the
first five years to meet Woolpert's Option A and an additional $59 million over the
ten-year planning horizon to address other priority needs.
o The County would have sufficient collateral to finance this scenario with a Limited
Obligation Bond instead of a voter-approved General Obligation Bond.
• Scenario B
Option B from the Woolpert report was not analyzed since it costs more ($1 .1 billion) than
Option D ($1.0 billion) and does not address any of the educational adequacy or interior
space improvements.
• Scenario C1
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Adds a $400 million school bond
o When combined with existing and planned resources, yields total school resources
of $548 million which meets the Woolpert Option C target of $541.2 million with an
additional $6.8 million to address other priority needs.
5
• Scenario C2
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Adds a $300 million school bond and $100 million in pay-as-you go (cash)
o When combined with existing and planned resources, yields total school resources
of $548 million which meets the Woolpert Option C target of $541.2 million with an
additional $6.8 million to address other priority needs.
• Scenario D
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Adds a $630 million school bond to fund Phases I & II over ten years
o Does not include the third phase since it falls outside of the ten (10) year planning
horizon
o When combined with existing and planned resources, yields total school resources
of $778 million which meets the Woolpert Option D target of $776.9 million for
phases I & II with an additional $1.1 million to address other priority needs.
Bond Funding Practice
Historically, the County has allocated bond funds to the two school districts based on the average
daily membership in place at the time the bond was authorized. In FY 2023-24, that would mean
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools would receive 58.44% of the funding, and Orange County
Schools would receive 41.56% of the total. Unlike in the operating budget where average daily
membership must be used to allocate funding, the County is not obligated to fund capital projects
in the same way.
Since the County now has a prioritized plan for school funding, bond funds could be allocated on
a project basis instead of by average daily membership. Given that average daily membership
helps to drive facility needs, moving to a project-based approach would not have a dramatic
impact on these allocations. Based on the projects contained in Phase 1 of the Woolpert
recommended Option D, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools would implement projects
representing 58.2% of the total Phase 1 projects while Orange County Schools would implement
projects representing 41.8% of the recommended amount.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this item:
• GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people
should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The following Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impacts are applicable to this item:
• ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Initiate policies and programs that: 1) conserve energy; 2) reduce resource consumption; 3)
increase the use of recycled and renewable resources; and 4) minimize waste stream impacts
on the environment.
6
• RESULTANT IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AIR QUALITY
Assess and where possible mitigate adverse impacts created to the natural resources of the
site and adjoining area. Minimize production of greenhouse gases.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board provide direction to staff on
adjustments to the financing scenarios defined in this abstract with the goal of adopting a preferred
plan of finance by the end of January 2024.
Agenda Item ].a.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Attachment 1
Financing Scenario Illustrations
8
Scenario Al - $ 130 million bond + $75 million County Plan
Financing Amounts
• First five years of County Facility Scenario Al-Tax Rate
Total County Funding Plan ($70 million)spread over ten Existing CIP 2.Ocents
Existing County CIP $ 192.0 million years with additional inflationadded ($5 million). County Facility Plan 0.11 cents
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million Additional School Needs 1.89 cents
• $130 million bond assumed in otal Tax Impact 4.00cents
County Facility Plan $ 75.0 million FY2023-24 CIP
Total Capital Funding-County $ 277 million Produces$59 million over
Scenario Al - Debt Service to Revenue Policy
Woolpert Option A
- Would provide$11.9 million 20.0%
Total School Funding annual) for maintenance in 18.0% 16.9% 17.4%
y 16.6%
15.4% 15.8% 15.8% 15.1% 14.7%
years 6-10 or additional priority 16.0% 13 ° 14.5%
Existing School CIP $ 95.Omillion needs 14.0% °
12.0%
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.Omillion l8.0%
s
Front loaded School borrowings .o%
Additional School Needs $ 130.0 million - $130 million over three 6.0%
consecutive years 4.0%
Total Capital Funding $ 278.0 million 2.0%
o.o%
• Could be accomplished with a
Woolpert Option A over 5 ears 219.0 million Limited Obligation Bond instead of �� �� �� V A, cb, o, Ci'
p p � years) $ g ti ,roti ti ,,roti ,,roti ,,roti ,,roti
a voter approved General e e e F F e
Over Target $ 59.0 million Obligation Bond
�Option Ratios -Policy
*Does not include$33 million in recurring capital or$33
million in projected Article 46 revenue for technology
ORANGE COUNTY
2 T'.TC7RT H CARC)LINA
9
Existing Annual Debt Service
• County tax rate impact is minimized due to Annual Debt Service Payments on Existing Debt
decline in existing debt service between $40,000,000
FY2026-27 and FY2027-28
$35,000,000
• Approximately $58.8 million of$75 million
is timed to occur after capacity is gained in $30,000,000
FY2027-28
$25,000,000
• School projects are front loaded resulting
in a higher tax impact $2o,000,000
$15,000,000
• School project timing could be adjusted to
benefit from capacity gained in FY2027-28 $10,000,000
$5,000,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
■County Annual Debt Service ■Schools Annual Debt Service ■Durham Tech Annual Debt Service
GRANGE COUNTY"
3 NORTH CAROLIN.A
10
Scenario A2 - $ 130 million bond + $ 130 million County Plan
Financing Amounts
Total County Funding $130 million County Facilities Plan Scenario A2-Tax Rate
over ten years Existing CIP 2.Ocents
Existing County CIP $ 192.0 million $130 million bond assumed in County Facility Plan 0.68cents
•
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million FY2023-24 CIP Additional School Needs 1.89 cents
Total Tax Impact 4.57 cents
County Facility Plan $ 130.0 million Produces$59 million over Woolpert
Total Capital Funding-County $ 332.00 million Option A
Could provide$11.9 million
annually for maintenance in Scenario A2 - Debt Service to Revenue Policy
years 6-10 or for additional 20.0% 17.6% 18.0%
Total School Fundingpriority needs 18.0% 16.5% 17'1%
y 15.3% 16.1% 15.9% 15.6%
16.0% 13 ° 14.7%
Existing School CIP $ 95.0 million Front loaded School borrowings 14.0% °
12.0%
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.Omillion - $130 million over three 10.0%
consecutive years 8.0%
Additional School Needs $ 130.0 million - Results in higher tax impact 6.0%
4.0%
Total Capital Funding $ 278.0 million 2.0%
p g Could be accomplished with a 0.0%
Limited Obligation Bond instead of a �� ti� do �� �� �� 30
Woolpert Option A (over 5 years) $ 219.0 million voter approved General Obligation otic' oti° oti' otio oti1 otic' otic 030 o3y o'er o'';'
Over Target $ 59.0 million
Bond
Option Ratios -Policy
*Does not include$33 million in recurring capital or$33
million in projected Article 46 revenue for technology
ORANGE COUNTY
4 T'.TC7RT H CARC)LINA
11
Scenario C1 - $400 million bond + $ 130 million County Plan
Financing Amounts
Total County Funding '
County Facility Plan over ten years Scenario C1 -Tax Rate
— Tax impact can be reduced by Existing CIP 2.Ocents
ExistingCount CIP $ 192.0 million .70 cents if County plan reduced County Facility Plan 0.68cents
y to$75 million
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million Additional School Needs 5.21 cents
• Woolpert Option C Target–$541.2 Total Tax Impact 7.89 cents
County Facility Plan $ 130.0 million million
Total Capital Funding-County $ 332.00 million $6.8 million over Woolpert Scenario Scenario C1 - Debt Service to Revenue Policy
C target to address additional 25.0%
priority needs 21.1% 22.0%21.2%
Total School Funding 20°% 1a°� 19.1r°
20.0%20.6%
Existing School CIP* $ 95.0 million Three tranches of school borrowing 148% 15.2%
of$133.33 each over a seven year 15.0% 13 °
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million period
10.0%
Additional School Needs $ 400.0 million
5.0%
Total Capital Funding $ 548.0 million
0.0%
Woolpert Option C $ 541.2 million o ti ti 3
h#
oti oti oti oti oti oti oti o'� 03 03 0'� o'�
Over Target $ 6.8 million �,� ��� �,� ��� ��ti �,� <(I l(ti l(ti <4ti
*Does not include$33 million in recurring capital or$33 Option Ratios —Policy
million in projected Article 46 revenue for technology
GRANGE COUNTY
5 NORTH CAROLINA
12
$400 million bond + $ 130 million County Plan with
Incremental Tax Rate Increase
Scenario C1 - Debt Service to Revenue Policy
• Each scenario couldear 25.0%
Increase in Cents
be funded using an
incremental tax rate FY2024-25 20.7% 2o.zi 0 21.3% 20.5%
20.0% 19.2
increase instead of FY2025-26 1.24 19.6%
an upfront increase. FY2026-27 2.08 18.3%
This table illustrates 15.9%
an incremental FY2027-28 .52 15.5%
15.0%
FY2028-29 2.76 13.6%
approach for 13.1%
Scenario C1 FY2029-30 1.08
FY2030-31 1.78
10.0%
FY2031-32
FY2032-33
FY2033-34 1.40 5.0%
FY2034-35
Total 10.86
0.0%
Cumulative total is 2.97 cents FY2023-24FY2024-25 FY2025-26FY2026-27 FY2027-28 FY2028-29FY2029-30FY2030-31 FY2031-32 FY2032-33 FY2033-34FY2034-35
over upfront impact
Option Ratios -Policy
ORANGE COUNTY
6 T'.TC)RT H CARC}LINA
13
Scenario C2 - $300 million bond + $100 million School Pay-Go + $130 million County Plan
Financing Amounts Scenario C2-Tax Rate
Existing CIP 2.Ocents
Total County Funding County Facility Plan over ten County Facility Plan 0.68cents
years
Existing County CIP $ 192.0 million — Tax impact can be reduced Additional School Needs - Borrowed 3.25 cents
by.60 cents if reduced to Additional School Needs— Pa Go 2.73 cents
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million
$75 million y-
Total Tax Impact 8.66 cents
County Facility Plan $ 130.0 million Woolpert Option C Target
Total Capital Funding-County $ 332.00 million $6.8 million over Woolpert Scenario C2 - Debt Service to Revenue
Scenario C target for additional Policy
Total School Funding contingency 25.0%
Existing School CIP* $ 95.0 million $10 million in annual pay-as- 20.0% 169%177%19.1%182%18.5%19.4%18.9%
you-go funds(not borrowed) ° 14.6%14.7%
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million
provides flexibility during 15.0% 13
Additional School Needs -
economic downturns 10.0%
Borrowing $ 300.0 million Three tranches of school 5.0%
Additional School Needs— Pay-Go $ 100.0 million borrowing$100 each over 0.o%° fl
seven year period
N'
Total Capital Funding $ 548.0 million
Woolpert Option C $ 541.2 million Option Ratios -Policy
Over Target $ 6.8 million
*Does not include$33 million in recurring capital or$33
million in projected Article 46 revenue for technology ORANGE COUNTY
7 NORTH CARC]LINA
14
Scenario D - $630 million bond + $ 130 million County Plan
Financing Amounts
Total County Funding '
County Facility Plan over ten Scenario D -Tax Rate
years Existing CIP 2.Ocents
Existing County CIP $ 192.0 million — Tax impact can be reduced by County Facility Plan 0.68cents
.73 cents if reduced to$75
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million million Additional School Needs 8.54cents
County Facility Plan $ 130.0 million Woolpert Option D Target-
Total Tax Impact 11.22 cents
Phases I & I I for ten-year
Total Capital Funding-County $ 332.00 million comparison ($776.9 million)
Scenario D - Debt Service to Revenue Policy
Phase III in years 11-15-$223.1 30.0% 26'6% 25.5%
Total School Funding million 25 24.3%0% 23.1% 24.2%
21.3%
Existing School CIP* $ 95.0 million 200 1 19.6%
• $1.1 over Woolpert target ls.s%
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million 15.0% 13 °
4.2
• Three tranches of school 10.0%
Additional School Needs $ 630.0 million borrowing of$210 million each
Total Capital Funding $ 778.0 million over seven years 5.0%
0.0%
Woolpert Option C $ 776.9 million
p p ti3' ti° tie' tie' y�' tiv tie'
J,�O J,�O �,ti0 �,ti0 �,ti0 J,tO J,LO
Over Target $ 1.1 million e e F F F
Option Ratios -Policy
*Does not include$33 million in recurring capital or$33
million in projected Article 46 revenue for technology
GRANGE COUNTY"
8 NORTH CARC)LIN.A
15
Proposed Timeline
FWr Proposed 1 • Planning and Bond Referendum Schedule
. Review schedule of approvals for a bond referendum and review
November 9th Work Session
the County Facilities Master Plan
2. Review School Facilities Long Range Optimization Plan - Woolpert December 4th Business Meeting
3. Review Financing Scenarios December 12th Business Meeting
4. Approve a tentative plan for Bond Referendum i January 16th Business Meeting and/or
January 19th Retreat
5. Staff meets with Local Government Commission on tentative
Bond plan January/February 2024
6. School Boards adopt a resolution supporting the referendum February 2024
7. Review potential adjustments to the bond referendum plan, if
March 7 Business Meeting
needed. March 12 Work Session
March 19 Business Meeting
ORANGE COUNTY
9 r*-;ORT H CAnOLI14A
16
Proposed Timeline
' • • • - • 2024 CapitalPlanning and Bond Referendum Schedule
8. BOCC adopts preliminary resolution establishing the bond purpose(s) and sets a not to
exceed bond amount(s). Neither the purpose nor the not to exceed amount may change April 2nd BOCC Business Meeting
following this action.
9. BOCC appoints a bond education committee and appropriates funds for outreach April 16t" BOCC Business Meeting
10. Staff publishes a notice of intent to file an application for a general obligation bond
referendum By May 1
11. Staff files bond application with the Local Government Commission By May 10
12. BOCC introduces bond order and schedules a public hearing May 7t" BOCC Business Meeting
13. BOCC holds public hearing on bond referendum May 21St BOCC Business Meeting
14. BOCC adopts the bond order, formally set the ballot question and referendum date June 4t" BOCC Business Meeting
15. Community vote on bond referendum November 5, 2024
ORANGE COUNTY
10 r*-;C)RT 17I CAR0LII4A
17
Attachment 2
Facilities Master Plan
A. Goals for the Facilities Planning Process: The following facilities planning
goals were established early in the process:
• Provide customer service in safe, secure and accessible facilities.
• Be good stewards of the County's financial and land resources.
• Where possible, move out of older facilities that have reached the end of their
useful life cycle.
• Consolidate departments and services to gain efficiency.
• Respond to floodplain issues.
B. Space Planning Analysis: The Space Planning phase identified an additional
111,891 Departmental Gross Square Feet (DGSF) of space needed by 2040.
This translates into a Gross Square Foot (GSF) need of 156,732 by the year
2040. The chart below summarizes this information.
Net Change Grossing Factor by GSF Space
Category DGSF Type Needs bt 2040
Admin 13,090 Office 30% 17,017
Community
Service 21,880 Office 25% 27,350
Human
Services 25,079 Health 45% 36,365
Justice 23,923 Court 45% 21,653
Office 30% 11,686
Public Safety 22,807 Sheriff 30% 15,191
EMS 25% 21,080
Support
Services 5,112 Office 25% 6,390
Total Space
Needed 111,8911 156,732
18
Facilities Condition Assessment
Executive Summary
ORANGE CotR{TY,PSC 9{1REM)WEFiITA'S PRMEGT: 153546.21RODD-0111 354
E
Facility Condition Index (FCI) LLJ
CL
One of Ow major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building's Facifty Condition Indeic FCla,which provides a thea reiical •
objective indication of a building's overall condrtirnl_ By definition,the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs
divided by c uffelrt replatoprnent value(CRV)of the facility_ The charl below presents the industry standard ranges and cut-
off points.
r
FC1 Ranges
? Description
0-5% In new or welknainitained conduhon,with little or rio Asual evidence of wear or deficenciese
5-100 Subjected to wear but is slill in a serviceable and functioning condition-
10 30% Subjected to hard or lorKFterm weElr_Ilearina tie end of its useful or serviceable life_
3Li%and above Has reached the end of its ksefiti of serviceable life_Renewal is now neressaly.
The defidencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a pDTftlio-wide capital improvement
finding strategy. In addition to the current FCI,extended FCI's have been developed to provide owners itire intelligence
needed to plan and budget for the'keep-up costf for their fac Wties. As such the 3-year,5-year, and 1&year FCI's are
calculated by dividing the anficapated needs oflhlose respective time periuds by current replacement value. As a final point
the FCJ's ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a porftio instead of being over-
analyzed and senAinized as stand-alone values_ The table below summarizes the individual findings forthi5 FCA:
9F Yal�
119 E.IS1'q Svoal Slag 5,95E 51.122jun 0.0% 2.9% 3.R% 7.341
AM$Imrnlnry F400y 4CIWWlu,R)Wi iIA001 4105 4..W $401.510 0:7°.'4 7.7°.4 39.94: 445''.
AM551Qag.F"ly{91p C(.i 4NlShi1 l^.All 3105 1,741 }73.41:2 91.444 1121,7174 513.944 119.944
Z J
Alrmul 5urmea Oen ter uM9U $1116 U5M 54A16.1X0 U:A% 1.8% 10.2% 48:9% = [L
NlPdiwxd Fun Pa*lmaus K ramal I laz01 $i n 2.225 TAMAM P5.A 51.1% 47.,0% 69h% 0 =
Ecard ai EMlicn (Uawrrnwr.Said n Anrwr 11901 $185 12,456 SZ3032AS 0.0% 0.044 G.a% 18.0% 11J
Eonnla B.Daws En,lrmffaH and 0.2rca[.Iv:al Cnn[Rr 12031 r Sire 17,247 &3p92,671 M% TO% 0M. 7.1% Z
l +^rld.Jerrxul?wv[}1n®.s'k:1a; $inti #9J;639 1,6x 21,0% 21,444 9.20%
[:.-u. qy OV 111311 $210 '.w.TA2 $a 04370 0fi5: r 0x a 2$.1% 0 LLJ
I-
Cariarpmna CammnrnMp Ct Park Brans i:'+^LF'. 5105 1.446 5952.839 0:0?v 3.8% 94.944 SE.diG J
Ce WW Raraolkn lAnrm E41UI ',137-� 5206 19,x36 5S 055.3[9 0.1% r1.9% 14.9% 292%
C-u:-ek-70AW.Erna PA&.,d-.1-;A7, $105 252 428.562 0.4% 3,941 A 9?: 15519
Caurl EhlAnrm 110361 5247 8,560 52,257,537 1.(76 42* 11.7% 1S.E%-
r5ie.4.l.cer Ft..-fKOW�it Orr.*.Pulri�R"true,Ckw e*Off Hpr4.0 l"RX11 31$9 9.250 4811.909 00% 4s'.. 76-9 143Y% w
piald=r AD-ie.Fa.Weq,.i;A71 419$ 7,930 30,985,614 01371 241'1. 270% 463% z
Band,Ufteks Com*unt CarrW Park Uater ik'; , $105 2.2m $231.$84 00'2 41.04, 1T:P%. 25.6%- IXW
Eiund-UtpeMUom,unty
eland-Chocks Garr nuno Cordy Park ShWar IEmWo 1,:2700°. 5105 569 959 ON 007, 61.1% 138.E% 1921%
1vww.w.burseuverltae.Yxxn I pm'].-.2-.-6:7
0 Q'BRIEN AI KINS 241
19
OFAN;E C0LJWr f,61r- 1BUREAU WER9TR3 PROJ ECT: 151546-21F OOGDU1,354
aeE
r
fftWkl-C.J-ok@ i5a.vnrrtiA'CeMW:I'Zgl 712'66 1.755 5�5 31s II fl-, 12:1?l 262% nR 1%,
�.BtFId=€'Mels L"+xrmunly Cenkr Rask Slteker(Smdla l2kvY.A 516& so Mean U.:P, 01.1% "99.6% 1021%
Emalpencr kerKue;`_IaILV1.I)V URI 5788 1.310 5248.iza a.;i+, 28.2% 97.7% 854%
Emalgancy5ammiCtii-La1 l':O@9l 5771 22,000 5}.76@,990 O.P. 7.r,"i T0AN 206%
Enitr mwt d J.3'Kulural Carlla l IVO l 5773 M087 53.302221 62"-: 32.0% 40.3% 722%
fy.viwr R4.'k 9'.IIIPUR(au 94rr412U161 $165 t,6UU g18A.T22 U'1^-., @6�., 11SH 6%)
F41Irrpl.Il'Hadw FxvWm.W.,fi7,, 6165 3.453 &M2Sr>fi nrl•l nnh 1774,
fuel Sta4cn 115'.15'. 5105 86 S@240 U:;1`, 972.6% 1.188.746 3.0050%
-Galenay C+x rj LV 2nd 6 3rd Ficom ILIXIN S17U 71.846 83 39.947 0.41% 3.1% 9.0% 29.5%
AlkGaraAh r�mm lCap6173111TEROR,Skyl"6 HWAC;EguFrtw=t ONy(15@@:, Sir 13,000 52.7Iszm 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 76%
HlkteanaAh Crnma 177°'51:1980- 5757 95,000 Ls.7@G,79@ 0.0% 0.2% 7.5% 32.4%
IiAlA1G!1vlllluttae 118451 $706 7,73$ $1.34aw n 9',.. 37.896 43,5= 46990
Hd4W". t40ft-PRk11A261 51% 5U@@ 3507pd-10 n'I'. 'I'., I9'x. A7ti,
9eil.192.9 '#371 49.227 110.663.256 63w 1311% 115V% 200?.
.+Wy M Nosm"Uno QORW I I 12,34 217 950 15521.546 OR% n.39< 4.4% 23 7°t,
AmiFa Ilty1l_x'a; 5237 dd.07 $15.478;+14 0,0% 2 U'4 4.0% 21.7%
L4)a IF41,1rt,Plrrt Rar. Slnlrn,[1rw Tl rere l-Ianrn Sl�lla+s.dl Rw9ev+m(I11511? SIM 'dW 1$y?ftb "4% 32:0% 01^ 1142%
M tmw RDD Pa0.617p�luns LSma(Gamgelydarkalwgl(11W) 5786 2997 #48-.5 U:5". 12.7% i4+A% 44.9%
ihs6orPudL.gF,9P:1=:IU: 507 1a.8U0 it449249 I/.% 8:5% 22.4% 52h%
Crarlpa CmaYy @.o-gra n CoNar 1!021, 3,3,34 5+,3@0 114ryA@ 125 0.1% 0.1% 0.3 3 3 r':
Z J
AmCL yy,, Crr9e Ct. kr Pu6dc LCrat}":2.151 5199 13.d'St t�.,x r.7s9 O;fr% r.:9% i.$'% 24F5%
0 Orwgo Pohle lan7st:wral1o1a1`.98DI 3I@@ 2.40E 5452221 OR% a.[[% 1.7`x, 31.7%
`jJ Paris Operadnrs baso:i!'i SIM 6.732 11.20&A81 0.41% 0.0% 0.5% E
Z + Red-j F(.)d 4 h9 P.a X0-10 o'..A6pl 3166 14 dUU $1W.62s 00% 0,4% @-3% 836%
Rur/rlA Ftigd 5.y. 'C'F,rlr ?:,,1 3166 31 7" 152,34.141 00% 6,@9R 7,^ 3574:.
LLJ Rapers Faced CominmlFtr Cemcr•"23 t 5198 .3_+186 W41.941 0.6% 0.9% um 102%
saravCv�3�aerOrnrar�1b1n4'1 !v;y; 5278 z-523 �6s1.T�1 8.U% 8.855 17.9% 29.5%
Sd1d lA7l6t4 Pdmnklra Unh EalkkQ,.7C7: 31@8 9.680 51,at,545 M% 66% 14.045 22.3%
Sall*Wac Ekadchm OuwV Rsad;"'F 9"I SIPS 144 579,174 01.0% O.C''® 1763% 140.974
LL
W.1 Mi ma.F'ok Rijn 1'4;15 31M 1 24A 1194,816 00. 202% 47,8% 620%
z
LL! °a 7ldri.ras[^.l• mAP a,w IS-gh. j:t.'7 110 15m $158.110 0ON. D6= 1:i.
2 Solltl'Ivaeta High Hark Road 1'a?_I 5786 141 $18.'179 G -=.U'. 'A.9% W.711 1"A%
Sda Mi"MON Rad I t4y'l 5700 3.610 5404.761 O.U% 12.6:5 34.0% Wa%
LU
Sandvgasm UValutC�a'199±., ;705 454 962,071 0.0% 54.4% 1164.474 567:7%
C
(�J SWgs &r.1)ay(2isee 5200 3" 5929;451 0,095 1.7`.. 4.6% 1E.9%
'A'KV/.IJ8.C10 F@9112'@rII3@.00II'1 I PL77C'7;id,pEFy
242 O'BRIEN "..I K1 NS
20
ORANGE COUNTY",NC BUREAU VERITAS PHOJE- T- 15354A.21RU0D�001.35$
i
i
;S��ihirn rk Orr1 977 #1¢E 29.700 #4,5p4,733 90x� ib 7W: 391$ 44,2.% •
Tvdntnfx+7apalRlalpiek)pg5l 1J7Ti 3I'm jAm $744,374 6111* 9-4% 2&6% 66.O%
VWlom Bye a a illi 33S 444.41 FraMIn SlrW 7 10} 52sa 4.0130 3W.,T2a 00% 4364 7..2% 122%
1NCfk IA, -MN-r5rilp, #7577 dVlm #7.a42.102 QOti IM.s mlira. 3a.S% +
Whf9labHunmSarvlonCarrw{MdaAJ�+eat7sDWL1?9Z11 $174 77.559 &5.�24.420 61i"k14b% 17.6' 25.0%
WhIMdHuAIW$9nrior9Cef,*{911lIBIPS.INlCaihe $174 74.50 #5.139.35€7 Opk;. 9 21 145% 320%
z
L) Lu
Lu
c,
Z
0 Lu
J_
LL
F—
z
W
2
z
W
C)
CD
ikwmua.[iureauvarlkas.corn
O BRIEN AI KI NS 243
21
End of Useful Life
Five Year Ten Year
Building Name s.f Building Name s.f.
AMS Maintenance 4,663 AMS Maintenance 4,663
AMS storage 1,702 AMS storage 1,702
Efland Cheeks Shelter 560 Animal Services Center 23,500
Emeregency Rescue#1 1,310 Caldwell Jones Law Office 360
OLD EAC 19,087 District Attorney Building 7,359
Fuel Station 86 Effland Cheeks Community Center 2,755
Historic Courthouse 7,128 Efland Cheeks Shelter 560
Southern Human Service 26,780 Emeregency Rescue#1 1,310
61,316 OLD EAC 19,087
Fuel Station 86
Total%Beyond Service Life 8% Hillsborough Commons 56,000
Historic Courthouse 7,128
Motor Pool 10,600
Public Transportation 2,400
Piedmont Food and Ag 10,400
Seymour Center 31,780
Southern Human Services 26,780
West Campus Office Bldg 46,716
Whitted,Bldg B 29,550
282,736
Total%Beyond Service Life 36%
Nearing End of Useful Life
Five Year Ten Year
Building Name s.f. Building Name s.f.
Animal Services Center 23,500 Board of Elections 12,250
Caldwell Jones Law Office 360 Cedar Grove Community Center 30,782
Central Rec 19,000 Central Rec 19,000
Court StrAnnex 8,500 Communications Tower 252
District Attorney Building 7,359 Court Str Annex 8,500
Effland Cheeks Community Center 2,755 Dickson House 3,250
Emergency Services 22,069 Effland Cheeks Community Center 2,755
Old Jail 40,227 Emergency Services 22,069
Motor Pool 10,600 Farmers Market Pavillion 3,453
Whitted A 33,550 Gateway Center 22,846
WhittedB 29,550 Old Jail 40,227
197,470 Passmore Senior Center 20,950
Justice Facility 64,937
Total%nearing end of Service Life 25% Hillsborough Public Library 23,454
Rogers Road Community Center 3,960
Solty's daycare 3,500
Visistors Bureau 4,060
Whitted A 33,550
319,795
Total%nearing end of Service Life 40%
22
Facilities Master Plan
Project Phasing
SHORT RANGE(2025-2029)
# Description Cost YR
SR1 Renovate Link Building $9,903,231 2025
Renovate Wings of Cedar Grove Community
SR2 Center for Storage $4,320,000 2025
De-construct old jail - move Sherriff evidence
SR3 storage to Cedar Grove $2,025,534 2026
De-construct Court Stret Annex- Build Parking
SR4 Lot $551,250 2026
Deconstruct District Attorney Building- Buildi
SR5 Parking Lot $324,531 2027
SR6 Build EMS Facility $26,559,570 2028
SR7 Convert old EMS building for use by AMS $5,518,287 2028
Move storage out of Old EAC Buildingto Cedar
SR8 Grove $0 2029
Build Central Recreation Building at Motor Pool
SR9 Site $17,340,851 2029
Build Transportation Addition to Motor Pool
SR10 Building $4,266,299 2029
TOTAL $70,809,553
MID RANGE(2030-2034)
# Description Cost YR
MR 1 Develop EAC Property for Affordable Housing $0 2030
MR 2 Deconstruct Central Rec&Create Open space $996,197 2030
MR 3 Build Addition to Southern Health & HS Bldg. $16,086,726 2031
MR4 Deconstruct Transportation Bldg $122,987 2032
MRS Build Sherriff Office at Motor Pool site $22,556,272 2033
MR 6 Renovate Ground Floor of Justice Bldg $2,740,762 2033
MR 7 Build Parking Deck at Old Jail $14,831,155 2034
MR 8 Move CJRD out to Link, Renovate CJDR space $228,018 2034
MR9 Renovate 3 District Courtrooms in Justice Center $1,900,155 2035
TOTAL $59,462,272
Note: First ten years of phasing plan total $130,271,805
23
LONG RANGE(2035-2040)
# Description Cost YR
Move Public defender out of 115 E. King st
LR 1 (lease) and into Justice center 2nd Floor 2035
Deconstruct Battle Courtroom and build a new
LR 2 Superior Court Addition to Justice Center 2035
Build Addition to the east of Justice center for a
new Superior Courtroom. Move Superior Court
LR 3 out of Historic Courthouse. 2036
Convert Historic Courthouse to a Cultural
LR 4 Center/Museum 2036
Build Health (Med +Dental Clinics) Building,
LR 5 move staff out of Whitted. 2037
Build Addition to LR 5 Building for Helath Admin
LR 6 Spaces, move staff out of Whitted. 2037
Move County Attorney, Equity& Inclusion to
Whitted Building. Exit lease of 1000 Corpoerate
LR 7 Drive. 2038
Build Social Services campus to Replace
Hillsborough Common Exit Hillsborough
LR 8 Commons lease. 2039
Move Finance &Administrative Services and
Risk Management out of West Campus Office
LR 9 Building to Whitted Building. 2039
Renovate West campus to accommodate growth
LR 10 of remaining departments. 2040
Note: Long Range projects are not budgeted, as they occur at a future date that would make such
budgets unreliable. It is recommended that the Facilities Master Plan should be reviewed and updated
every five years. These projects should be budgeted at a time closer to actual implementation.
Supporting the mission of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools to build an
inclusive school community that engages,empowers,and inspires students and provides an educa-
tion that addresses the social,emotional,intellectual,and physical needs of every student.
LONG= RANGE FACILITIES
OPTIMIZATION PLAN
MMS Y/t •V�
s .
i Py+
I
t
Iwo
LO
_ t �
i
r
1 p
1/ 1`
r
k
CONTENTS 00 Executive Summary 1
01 Introduction 3
02 Approach And Findings 5
03 CHCCS Options 11 -za
04 OCS Options 15 Y '
05 Recommendation 19
06 Ongoing Capital Renewals 25
07 Conclusion 31
27
responsiblyRecommendations that strategically and
schoolimpact the greatest number of students. Investing in
impacts student learning,student and staff health,and community vitality.
00 SUMMARY
in��
This Long-Range Facilities Optimization Plan supports the This information was organized and analyzed in various
mission of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and options ranging from minimum viable repairs through
Orange County Schools (OCS) to build an inclusive school potential renovations and replacement. The options were
community that engages,empowers,and inspires students vetted through an iterative process with leadership from
and provides an education that addresses the social,emo- Orange County,CHCCS,and OCS. Based on the feedback
tional,intellectual,and physical needs of every student. received from the stakeholders,a final recommendation
This plan provides guidance to county and district lead-
was compiled for consideration.
ership in making decisions to adequately fund facility
improvements while working within fiscal realities. Invest- FINAL RECOMMENDATION
ing in school facilities directly impacts student learning, Woolpert recommends that Orange County pursue a long-
student and staff health,and community vitality. term plan that prioritizes replacing the oldest, smallest,
least educationally adequate facilities with newer facili-
APPROACH AND FINDINGS ties appropriately sized and arranged to support modern
teaching and learning standards. The recommendation
To understand existing conditions and create an action- recognizes that many facilities will never catch upon their
able plan, Orange County engaged Woolpert to lead an backlog of deferred maintenance, and even if that was
assessment and master planning program for CHCCS and feasible, it would not be advisable. Several of the oldest
OCSschool districts.Facility condition assessments provide schools are not large enough to be financially self-sustain-
the baseline for school district master planning to effec- ing given today's standards, nor are they designed with
tively prioritize capital improvement projects that maxi- modern teaching and learning in mind. If a facility is inad-
mize return on investment and the student environment. equate to continue educating students over the coming
The components of the portfolio analysis included the facil- decades and has significant condition needs, planning to
ity condition assessments, educational adequacy assess- replace the school when possible makes the best financial
ments,enrollment,and capacity of 39 school and adminis- and educational sense.
trative facilities in CHCCS and OCS.The data was compiled
to understand the overall condition and needs of the indi-
vidual facilities to develop options and a final recommen- over 15 years. While a significant sum of money by any
dation. Assessment information can be found in the 2023 standard, the Facility Condition Assessment identified $1
State of Facilities Report. billion in total condition needs over the next ten years.Only
addressing these facility condition needs would do noth-
RECOMMENDEDOPTIONS ing to increase operational efficiency or educational ade-
quacy.This plan prioritizes replacements and renovations
Recommended options were developed after analyz- over merely addressing maintenance needs.
ing components of each district's portfolio of schools,
including grade configuration, geography, facility condi- PHASING. The plan can be best achieved through three five-
tion, educational program needs, proximity of schools to year construction phases prioritized by district leadership
one another, enrollment, utilization, and other relevant and designed to minimize student disruption and costs
elements. during construction.
1
28
FINAL RECOMMENDATION-COSTS PER PHASE PRIMARY BENEFITS
CHCCS OCs Total Enhanced teaching and
learning environments
Phase 1 $249.2M $179.2M $428.4M advance educational out-
comes and opportunities
Phase 2 $167.OM $181.5M $348.5M
• Improved school utiliza-
tion provides students the
Phase 3 $130.7M $103.2M $233.9M flexible spaces necessary
for multiple learning
Total $546.9M $463.9M $1,010.8M styles
• Updated classroom
STRATEGIES. The plan is organized around six distinct strategies: spaces and learning tools
1. Adequacy - school facilities that lack key learning and support spaces that meet today's educa-
relative to design standards. tion standards
Replacement School -schools that need to be rebuilt because of their
condition,educational adequacy,or utilization. A right-sized portfolio
Renovation - schools would receive renovations to provide interior creates operational
spaces more closely aligned to current design standards. efficiencies
New School-new schools are recommended when needed to alleviates
over capacity and where growth is occurring and anticipated to continue. Investing in the commu-
5. High Priority Needs - addresses the highest priority needs for facilities nity attracts and retains
that are not being renovated or replaced. residents by providing
6. Consolidate-combines two schools into a single facility. competitive schools
FINAL RECOMMENDATION-COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 15 YEARS $269.3M
$215.3M
■CHCCS [ OCS $192.5M
$102.5M
$71.5M
$48.6M $49.5M
$16.3M $16.4M $24.9M
$2.7M $1.3M
ADEQUACY CONSOLIDATE HIGH PRIORITY NEW SCHOOL RENOVATION REPLACEMENT
NEEDS SCHOOL
e.
4�' o0 00
2
Public school facilities that are well planned,
designed,built,operated,and maintained have an 1�
outsized positive impact on education,health,the "` J
natural environment,and our communities
INTRODUCTION
A
Q
_ � • f! 1
s
30
OVERVIEW
Orange County,Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools(CHCCS), The Long-Range Facilities Optimization Plan supports the
and Orange County Schools (OCS) have embarked on a missions ofCHCCS"to build an inclusive school community
monumental task of evaluating the condition, adequacy, that engages, empowers, and inspires students," and OCS
and locations of their 39 campuses to develop a com- "to provide an education that addresses the social, emo-
prehensive Long-Range Facilities Optimization Plan to tional,intellectual,and physical needs of every student."
improve the condition of school facilities for their students
and community. Orange County is responsible for the 3.8 STRATEGIES
million square feet of facilities at 39 campuses that make
up CHCCS and OCS.
This Long Range Facilities Optimization Plan organizes its
School facilities have a direct impact on student learning, recommendations around six distinct strategies:
student and staff health, and community. The 2021 State
of Our Schools Report' uses the best available school dis- 1. ADEQUACY
trict fiscal data about U.S. elementary and secondary
(pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade) to analyze the Adequacy refers to the degree to which school
state of public school facilities. The report finds that the facilities lack key learning and support spaces
gap between expenditures and good stewardship of facil- 4 relative to North Carolina Department of Public
ities continues to increase. The research performed esti- Instruction (NCDPI) design standards and the
mates the nation is under-investing in school buildings and degree to which learning and support spaces are less than
grounds by$85 billion each year. 90%the size called for in the NCDPI standards. This strat-
egy does not include schools recommended for major ren-
Public School facilities are the second largest infrastructure ovation or replacement.
behind highways. However, unlike transportation, which
has most of its capital costs paid from federal and state 2. REPLACEMENT SCHOOL
sources, local school districts bear most of the responsi- The plan recommends schools for replacement
bility for school construction capital funding. Each school based on their on their condition, educational
day, nearly one-sixth of the U.S. population spends their adequacy,and utilization.These schools would
day in a public school building.
be rebuilt on the same or adjacent sites.
Public school facilities that are well planned, designed, 3. RENOVATION
built, operated, and maintained have an outsized pos
itive impact on education, health, the natural environ- Facilities recommended for renovation would
ment, and our communities. Historically, research has not be fully rebuilt, but rather receive renova-
concluded a relationship between the condition of school tions to provide interior spaces more closely
facilities and educational outcomes. Schools with proper aligned to current NCDPI standards.
indoor air quality, natural lighting,and temperatures have
shown to improve the student and teacher experience and 4. NEW SCHOOL
productivity.
New schools are recommended when needed
All facilities deteriorate with time and use. Major building o o to alleviates over capacity and where growth
systems, components, furniture, fixtures, and equipment is occurring and anticipated to continue.
need upgrades and replacement.Older schools need mod-
ernization (and sometimes replacement) to meet current 5. HIGH PRIORITY NEEDS
standards and support modern educational programs and
services.School districts need periodic large capital invest This strategy is used to address the highest prior-
ments for these critical capital projects. ity needs for facilities that are not being reno-
vated or replaced. The high priority needs strat-
egy does not include all ongoing capital renewal
PURPOSE needs identified in the Facility Condition Assessment.
This Long-Range Facilities Optimization Plan provides a 6. CONSOLIDATE
long and short-term strategic investment plan. This plan
will lay out recommended investments in each school asAA1
This strategy combines two schools into a
well as a suggested timeline.The final recommendation is single facility.
intended to be actionable and achievable given the current
state of CHCCS and OCS facilities.
1.Fi[ardo,Mary.2021 State of Our Schools:America's PK-12 Public School Facilities 2021.Washington,D.C.:21st Century School Fund.
4
Considering condition, capacity, utiliza-
tion,educational adequacy, and funding
to create a comprehensive plan f131313
APPROACH AND
IFINDINGS
SCS
M4 too
W
_ n
..W-
32
The Long-Range Facilities Optimization Plan provides guid- The final recommendation considers the facility needs for
ance to county and district leadership in making decisions students across both districts. It aims to promote good
to adequately fund facility improvements while working facility stewardship and educationally appropriate learn-
within fiscal realities. Ultimately,the plan provides oppor- ing environments for all students.
tunities for learning to occur in warm, cool, safe, and dry
facilities and provide strategic updates to learning spaces. As shown in Figure 2-1,the comprehensive data collection
To better understand existing conditions and create an leads to a series of options and a final recommendation
actionable plan, a comprehensive assessment and plan- that considers the best return on investment for the resi-
ning process were undertaken. Assessment information dents and students of Orange County based on the follow-
can be found in the 2023 State of Facilities Report. ing key planning questions:
The facility plan for CHCCS and OCS considers the condi- Given the condition needs of each building relative to
tion,capacity,utilization,educational adequacy,and fund- its replacement cost, should it be maintained, reno-
ing to create a comprehensive plan.To create a successful vated,or replaced?
plan, condition, adequacy and demographic information Given population trends relative to school capacity,
was organized and analyzed in various options ranging does Orange County need the same, more, or fewer
from minimum viable repairs through potential renova- facilities?
tions and replacement. Given the size and adequacy of this building,would a
The options were vetted through an iterative process with renovated facility be a viable option that is able to
leadership from Orange County, CHCCS, and OCS. Based educate students for decades to come?
on the feedback received from the stakeholders, a final Overall,what is the best strategy to make certain every
recommendation was compiled for consideration. This student in every community has access to safe and
report outlines the four options considered in each district. educationally adequate schools?
Figure 2-1: Long-Range Facility Optimization Plan Process
FACILITY CAPACITY
PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
•
JEE 0
10-YEAR MAIRTM STATE OF FACILITIES
LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT FACILITIESOPTIMIZATION
PLAN
x
DEFICIENCY COSTS EDUCATIONAL
ADEQUACY
6
33
OPTION DEVELOPMENT DEFICIENCY PRIORITY LEVELS
The development of a Long-Range Facility Optimization Plan analyzes compo- Facility deficiencies have been cat-
nents of a district's portfolio of schools based on grade configuration and geog- egorized into different priority
raphy. Considerations include facility condition, educational program needs, levels, ranging from Priority 1 to
proximity of schools to one another,enrollment, utilization,and other relevant Priority 5, with Priority 1 being the
components.The recommendation for each grade configuration took into con- most urgent and critical to address.
sideration their collective enrollment, capacity, and program goals and were Priorities are assigned based on
deemed as one planning unit. the importance of building compo-
nents and systems in keeping the
facility operational.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS QRIPPITY I -rRITIV ifthesecom-
ponents are inoperable or expected
The components of the portfolio analysis included the facility condition assess- to fail in the near term, it may
ments, educational adequacy assessments, enrollment, and capacity of 39 directly affect the facility's ability to
school and administrative facilities in CHCCS and OCS.The data was compiled to remain open or deliver the mission.
understand the overall condition and needs of the individual facilities to develop These deficiencies typically relate
options and final recommendations. to building safety systems.
The facility condition assessment findings contain detailed information associ- PRIORITY 2 - ESSENTIAL. Inoper-
ated with each building component, including the overall condition of school
facilities, as well as life cycle forecasting information that attempts to identify ability or failure of these compo-
future building and system needs. Information collected during the educational nents will cause damage to other
adequacy assessment included an inventory of facility features that support the building systems For to mpleedin
learning environment and an inventory of space types and sizes. the near future. For example leak-
ing or failing roofs.
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT PRIORITY 3-NECESSARY..Thesedefi-
ciencies are necessary to the facili-
Over the next five years, identified deficiencies and life cycle renewal needs cie mission but may not require
are expected to reach more than $498 million. Facility condition assessments ty'immediate attention. These items
revealed$262.8 million in current facility deficiency costs and the projected five- d be considered improve-
CHCCSlife cycle renewal needs are estimated to be $235.7 million. Considering shout required to maximize facility
CHCCS and OCS average campus age is 46 years, many of the building systems mentefficiency and usefulness.
in the state are nearing or have exceeded the end of their useful lives. Figure 2-2
shows the current deficiencies for CHCCS and OCS by building system. PRIORITY 4 - SIIGGESTEO. Systems
Figure 2-2:CHCCS and OCS Facility Deficiencies by Building System or components that may be con-
sidered improvements to the envi-
Millions ronment. The improvements may
$- $20 $40 $60 be aesthetic or provide improved
Site ` functionality.
Roofing PRIORITY 5 - IMPROVEMENh. Items
Exterior are aesthetic in nature and include
repainting,re-carpeting,orsignage.
Interior
Mechanical
Electrical
Plumbing
Fire Protection
Conveyances
■Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Orange County Schools
7
34
FACILITY CONDITION INDEX Figure 2-3:FCI Rating Scale
The Facility Condition Index(FCI) is an industry recognized for-
mula that provides a way to understand the condition of the BEST <10%
facility rather than the total need of that facility. The FCI pro- T
vides a metric to compare dissimilar facilities across a portfo- GOOD 10-20%
lio(Figure 2-3).Afive-year FCI was calculated by combining the T11
current deficiencies and five-year needs to anticipate the over- AVERAGL 21-30%
all condition of facilities. The five-year FCI at both CHCCS and 1
OCS(Figure 2-4) indicates that most of the schools are in good
to average condition. BELOW 31-50%
AVERAGE
A ten-year FCI was calculated by combining the current defi-
ciencies and ten-year needs to anticipate the overall condition
of facilities in the long-term.The ten-year FCI(Figure 2-5)shows POOR 51-65%
how the facilities will continue to degrade;while in the next five
years schools are in generally good to average condition, but
in ten years,facilities are anticipated to be in below average to
poor condition with some replacement candidates.
REPLACEMENT >65%
CANDIDATE
Figure 2-4:OCS and CHHCS Five-Year Facility Condition Index
Ranges
5-YEAR FCI CHCCS OCS Orange County
Campus Area (SF) Campus Area (SF) Campus Area (SF)
Best 0' 1 78,012 1 270,229 2 348,241
- 0 5 812,018 9 327,559 14 1,139,577
Average 21-30% 8 831,556 4 554,862 12 1,386,418
Below 31-50% 5 537,866 4 375,558 9 913,424
Average
% 0 - 0 - 0 -
Replace0 - 1 12,704 1 12,704
Total 19 2,259,452 19 1,540,912 38 3,800,364
Figure 2-5:OCS and CHHCS Ten-Year Facility Condition Index
Ranges
10-YEAR FCI CHCCS OCS Orange County
Campus Area (SF) Campus Area (SF) Campus Area (SF)
Best 0'. 0 - 0 - 0 -
1. 1 320,328 1 270,229 2 590,557
Average = °Io 1 109,100 3 34,879 4 143,979 IN 10 YEARS, MOST
LBelow SCHOOLS WILL MOVE
AM'gkr"';m'Q_'L31-500/.7 7 914,638 6 413,898 13 1,328,536 ��TO BELOW AVERAGE,
POOR, AND REPLACE
•• % 7 627,262 7 707,116 14 1,334,378 CONDITIONS
Replace 6 3 288,124 2 114,790 5 402,914
Total 19 2,259,452 19 1,540,912 38 3,800,364
s
35
EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT
The adequacy assessment indicates that in general most schools have the required
types of spaces;however,many of the spaces are undersized.At CHCCS over 70 per-
cent of the exceptional children's classrooms and over 50 percent of core classrooms
are undersized based on today's standards.At OCS,approximately 70 percent of the
exceptional children's classrooms,over 20 percent of the core classrooms at the ele-
mentary and middle schools,and over 50 percent at the high schools are undersized.
These findings are understandable,given the average age of the facilities.
Figure 2-6:CHCCS and OCS: Present but Undersized Spaces
Academic Support h
Admin Spaces
Core Academics
Career Technical Education
PreK
Gym/PE/Fitness
Kitchen/Cafeteria —
Library Media Center —
THIS MEANS ALL EXCEP-
ExceptionalChildren TIONALCHILDREN'SSPACES
AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS ARE
UNDERSIZED
STEM
Visual&Performing Arts
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
HS MS ■ES
9
36
UTILIZATION
The utilization of a school is determined by dividing the current enrollment by the
calculated capacity of a facility.The utilization of individual schools varies across the
districts and by school type. Industry best practices suggest an ideal school utiliza-
tion between 80 and 100 percent.At CHCCS, the average utilization for elementary
schools is 82 percent, middle schools are 96 percent utilized, and high schools are
103 percent utilized.At OCS,the average utilization for elementary schools is 80 per-
cent,middle schools are 70 percent utilized,and high schools are 90 percent utilized.
While the average utilization generally falls within the ideal range, individual school
utilization falls outside that range.
Figure 2-7:Capacity vs. Enrollment at CHCCS
c
a�
0
a�
Z
ES MS HS
■Capacity Enrollment
Figure 2-8:Capacity vs. Enrollment at OCS
Ln
c
a�
0
L
E
Z
ES MS HS
■Capacity Enrollment
10
37
Comparing options to determine the best path
forward .
03CHCCS OPTIONS _j
ANNEENESEL— -Aid
OPTION A - COMFORTABLE AND OPTION B - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE,
SAFE PLUS 10-YEAR FACILITY NEEDS
5-YEAR INVESTMENT: $139.7M @ $27.9M/YEAR 10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $675.1M @ $67.5M/YEAR
W Option A provides for high priority repairs Option B addresses all building needs identified
and system replacements that address build- W in the facility condition assessment. This option
W ing systems that keep students and occupants brings the facility conditions to a like new state.
c warm,cool,safe,and dry. However; there is no change to the educational
C= spaces or adequacy of the schools.
z Option A addresses only near term facility z Option B addresses anticipated facility needs of
Wrequirements.This option should be executed J the next ten years.This option should be executed
over the next 5 years,which is approximately W over the next 10ears, which is approximately
$27.9 million per year. 10y
pp y
P $67.5 million per year.
Coll) Smallest investment option cn
a Addresses 20 percent of facility needs a Addresses all facility needs
• No improvement to educational
CIO) environment y No improvement to educational environment
No improvement to capacity z No improvement to capacity
c p p y o No new or renovated schools
c� • No new or renovated schools c2
• Many facility needs not addressed Largest investment option
CHCCS OPTIONS SUMMARY
INVESTMENTi
OPTION A $139.7 M 5 YEARS $27.9 M
OPTION B $675.1 M 10 YEARS $67.5 M
OPTION C $325.2 M 10 YEARS $32.5 M
OPTION 0 $546.9 M 15 YEARS $36.5 M
11
38
OPTION C - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, OPTION D - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE,
PLUS UPGRADED LEARNING TOOLS PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION
10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $325.2M @ $32.5M/YEAR 15-YEAR INVESTMENT: $546.9M @$36.5M/YEAR
Option C addresses the high priority facility Option D takes a strategic approach to address-
W needs and improves the educational learn- ing the district's portfolio needs through repairs,
ing environment through school renovations, W renovations, and replacements. Option D pro-
replacements, and educational adequacy vides for a long-term plan that moves CHCCS out
c improvements. W of its current aged and educationally insufficient
Option C addresses high priority facility needs, o portfolio and into facilities that meet current and
future educational and programmatic needs of
Z adequacy improvements, and school renova- p g
W tions and replacements.This option should be the district.
executed over 10 years at approximately$32.5 W Option D is a significant investment in the future
~ million investment annually. Z of CHCCS. In order to complete this option, it is
• Improves the learning environment by W recommended to implement over the next 15
providing students and teachers modern
years with an annual investment of approximately
classrooms and tools at the schools in the $36.5 million.
most need Improves the learning environment by pro-
• School replacements address capac- viding students and teachers with modern
C102 ity needs by building facilities that meet classrooms and tools.
a the current and future enrollment projec- School replacements address capacity needs
tions,the district will improve operational y and improve the learning environment for
efficiencies. the students of CHCCS. Replacement schools
• Mid-range cost option only slightly higher a were identified based on their condition,edu-
than Option A that addresses only the cational adequacy,and utilization.
basic facility needs. Consolidating schools reduces the overall
• Only the schools with the greatest need size of the CHCCS portfolio, which improves
C002 will gain new modern learning spaces and operational efficiencies.
c tools. Some older schools may reach the y • Significant long-term investment
c� end of their useful life before the construc- zo • Short term disruptions from swing space nec-
tion program is complete. essary to complete construction.
" I I
Smallest Investment No improvement to educational environment or portfolio
Addresses all facility needs No change to educational environment,Largest Investment
Improved learning environment,modern classrooms,addresses Only schools with greatest need gain new modern learning
capacity issues,Similar investment as Option A which only spaces and tools
addresses basic facility needs
Improves learning environment with modern classrooms and Significant longterm investment;short term disruptions due to
tools,address capacity issues,reduces portfolio size which construction
improves operational efficiencies
12
39
CHCCS OPTIONS DETAILS
OPTION OPTION
COMFORTABLE COMFORTABLE AND SAFE,
AND SAFE PLUS � '
COMFORTABLE I
I
SCHOOLI : I '
CARRBORO ES $0.0 M $22.0 M Replacement School
EPHESUS ES $8.5 M $28.2 M High Priority Needs
ESTES HILLS ES $3.4 M $29.5 M Replacement School
FRANK PORTER GRAHAM ES $5.4 M $30.9 M Consolidate
GLENWOOD ES $1.0 M $16.3 M High Priority Needs
MORRIS GROVE ES $4.5 M $24.6 M High Priority Needs
NORTHSIDE ES $0.0 M $13.3 M High Priority Needs
RASHKIS ES $6.4 M $29.7 M High Priority Needs
SCROGGS ES $4.4 M $29.9 M High Priority Needs
SEAWELL ES $0.5 M $23.1 M High Priority Needs
MCDOUGLE ES $15.3 M $60.8 M High Priority Needs
CARRBORO HS $9.2 M $67.1 M High Priority Needs
CHAPEL HILL HS $10.9 M $29.6 M High Priority Needs
E. CHAPEL HILL HS $23.2 M $75.6 M High Priority Needs
PHOENIX ACADEMY $1.5 M $2.8 M Renovation
MCDOUGLE MS $15.3 M $60.8 M High Priority Needs
CULBRETH MS $8.9 M $44.6 M Replacement School
PHILLIPS MS $3.6 M $29.0 M High Priority Needs
SMITH MS $12.5 M $42.2 M Adequacy(Learning Tools)
LINCOLN CENTER $5.2 M $15.0 M
NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL - - -
IA
13
40
[PTION OPTION I
PLUS UPGRADED LEARNING TOOLSI I ' ►B ► I SAFE,
BUDGET ' ►
$49.5 M Replacement School $49.5 M
$8.5 M Renovation $28.9 M
$49.5 M Consolidate $1.3 M
$1.4 M Consolidate $1.4 M
$1.0 M Renovation $26.3 M
$4.5 M Renovation $11.8 M
$0.0 M Renovation $14.2 M
$6.4 M Renovation $15.1 M
$4.4 M Renovation $12.2 M
$0.5 M Renovation $25.9 M
$15.3 M Renovation $34.3 M
$37.7 M High Priority Needs $37.7 M
$10.9 M High Priority Needs $10.9 M
$23.2 M Renovation $23.2 M
$5.7 M Renovation $5.7 M
$15.3 M Adequacy (Learning Tools) $17.9 M
$71.5 M Replacement School $71.5 M
$3.6 M Replacement School $71.5 M
$16.3 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) $16.3 M
New School (Replacing capacity $71.5 M
from McDougle ES/MS)
14
41
Compp forward.ns . .
etermine the
best ath
04 OCS OPTIONS
OPTION A - COMFORTABLE OPTION B - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE,
AND SAFE PLUS 10-YEAR FACILITY NEEDS
5-YEAR INVESTMENT: $80.1M @ $16.OM/YEAR 10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $421.7M @ $42.2M/YEAR
WOption A provides for high priority repairs and Option B addresses all building needs identified
system replacements that address building sys W in the facility condition assessment. This option
oc brings the facility conditions to a like new state.
LU tems that keep students and occupants warm,
c cool,safe,and dry. o However; there is no change to the educational
spaces or adequacy of the schools.
Lu Option A addresses only near term facility Z Option B addresses anticipated facility needs of
Wrequirements. This option should be executed J the next ten years.This option should be executed
over the next 5 years, which is approximately u.i over the next 10ears which is approximately
F— $16 million per year. 10y
pp y
� $42.2 million per year.
p Smallest investment option y
CL. • Addresses 20 percent of facility needs a Addresses all facility needs
• No change to educational environment • No change to educational environment
Z • No adjustments to capacity z No adjustments to capacity
c • No new or renovated schools No new or renovated schools
C-2
• Many facility needs not addressed • Largest investment option
OCS OPTIONS SUMMARY
OPTION INVESTMENT TIMELINE COST/YEAR
OPTION A $80.1 M 5 YEARS $16.0 M
OPTION B $421.7 M 10 YEARS $42.2 M
OPTION C $216.0 M 10 YEARS $21.6 M
OPTION 0 $463.9 M 15 YEARS $30.9 M
15
42
OPTION C - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, OPTION D - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE,
PLUS UPGRADED LEARNING TOOLS PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION
10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $216.OM @ $21.6M/YEAR 15-YEAR INVESTMENT: $463.9M @ $30.9M/YEAR
WOption C addresses the high priority facility needs Option D takes a strategic approach to addressing
and improves the educational learning environ- the districts portfolio needs through repairs, ren-
W ment through school renovations,replacements,
al ovations and replacements. Option D provides
and educational adequacy cur-
improvements. oc for a long-term plan that moves OCS out of its� rent portfolio and into facilities that meet current
W Option C addresses high priority facility needs, o and future educational and programmatic needs
z adequacy improvements, and school renova- of the district.
W tions and replacements. This option should be z Option D is a significant investment in the future
executed over 10 years at approximately $21.6
of OCS. In order to complete this option, it is rec-
million invested annually. ommended to occur over 15 years with an annual
• Improves the learning environment by pro- P investment of approximately$30.9 million.
viding students and teachers modern class- . Improves the learning environment by pro-
rooms and tools at the schools in the most viding students and teachers with modern
need classrooms and tools
• School replacements address capac- . School replacements and renovations
ity needs, by building facilities that meet address over capacity at the middle and high
the current and future enrollment projec- school grade levels and improve the learn-
tions, the district will improve operational y ing environment for the students of OCS.
o efficiencies. o
Ca.. New school alleviates over capacity at the a Replacement schools were identified based
on their condition, educational adequacy,
elementary grade level. Additionally, the and utilization.
location is planned in the northwestern area New school alleviates over capacity at the
of the district where growth is occurring and elementary grade level. Additionally, the
anticipated to continue. location is planned in the northwestern area
• Mid-range cost option only slightly higher of the district where growth is occurring and
than Option A that addresses only the basic anticipated to continue.
facility needs.
• Only the schools with the greatest need will z Significant long-term investment
y gain new modern learning spaces and tools. o Short term disruptions from swing space nec-
c Some older schools may reach the end of C-2 essary to complete construction.
c� their useful life before the construction pro-
gram is complete.
PRO CON
Smallest Investment No improvement to educational environment or portfolio
Addresses all facility needs No change to educational environment,Largest Investment
Improved learning environment,modern classrooms,addresses Only schools with greatest need gain new modern learning
capacity issues,Similar investment as Option A which only spaces and tools
addresses basic facility needs
Improves learning environment with modern classrooms and Significant longterm investment;short term disputations due to
tools,address capacity issues,reduces portfolio size which construction
improves operational efficiencies
16
43
OCS OPTIONS DETAILS
OPTION A OPTION B
COMFORTABLE COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, COMFORTABLE AND SAFE,
AND SAFE PLUS 10-YEAR FACILITY NEEDS
SCHOOL NAME BUDGET BUDGET STRATEGY
CENTRAL ES (Partial Rebuild) $6.1 M $18.1 M Replacement School
EFLAND-CHEEKS ES $1.3 M $16.6 M High Priority Needs
BRADY BROWN ES $4.8 M $15.8 M High Priority Needs
HILLSBOROUGH ES $2.8 M $21.3 M Consolidate with Central ES
NEW HOPE ES $3.0 M $46.6 M Adequacy(Learning Tools)
PATHWAYS ES $4.7 M $15.6 M High Priority Needs
RIVER PARK ES $3.0 M $28.1 M High Priority Needs
NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - - New Elementary School
CEDAR RIDGE HS $6.3 M $24.2 M High Priority Needs
ORANGE HS $5.8 M $75.8 M High Priority Needs
PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY $0.1 M $0.8 M High Priority Needs
A.L. STANBACK MS $18.5 M $52.9 M High Priority Needs
GRAVELLY HILL MS $13.9 M $33.1 M Renovation
ORANGE MS $6.9 M $48.9 M High Priority Needs
ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX - $1.8 M -
ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX II _ $0.5 M -
(TRANSP DISPATCH)
CENTRAL OFFICE $0.0 M $1.2 M High Priority Needs
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT $0.4 M $2.5 M High Priority Needs
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT $1.7 M $7.9 M High Priority Needs
WELCOME CENTER $0.7 M $10.2 M High Priority Needs
TOTAL $80.1 M $421.7 M
17
44
OPTION C OPTION D
PLUS UPGRADED LEARNING TOOLS COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION
BUDGET STRATEGY BUDGET
$49.5 M Replacement School $34.5 M
$1.3 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) $3.4 M
$4.8 M High Priority Needs $4.8 M
$1.3 M Consolidate with Central ES $1.3 M
$13.0 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) $13.0 M
$4.7 M High Priority Needs $4.7 M
$3.0 M High Priority Needs $6.7 M
$49.5 M New School $49.5 M
$6.3 M High Priority Needs $6.3 M
$5.8 M Replacement School $153.9 M
$0.1 M Replacement School $9.4 M
$18.5 M Renovation $54.0 M
$48.5 M Renovation $48.5 M
$6.9 M Replacement School $71.5 M
$0.0 M - -
$0.4 M - -
$1.7 M High Priority Needs $1.7 M
$0.7 M High Priority Needs $0.7 M
$216.0 M $463.9 M
18
45
recommendationThe best 0
improvein facilities to
environment at CHCCS d OCS. �(
05RECOMMENDATIO AMM
IMENIMM -0- w M w 2
Woolpert recommends Orange County consider Option D BENEFITS
as a path forward to strategically invest in school facilities
and improve the learning environment. The recommenda- mentsEnhanced teaching and learning environ-
tion considers the facility condition,educational adequacy,uti- ppor advance educational outcomes and
o
lization, enrollment projections, industry best practices, and opportunities
goals of each district. The recommendation provides CHCCS Improved school utilization provides students
and OCS with a fiscally responsible plan that sustains the dis- the flexible spaces necessary for multiple learn-
tricts'facilities forthe long-term and improves the teaching and ing styles
learning environment. Updated classroom spaces and learning tools to
The recommendation calls for $1 billion investment over 15 meet today's education standards
years.The 15-year time frame is driven by the large investment Right-sized portfolio creates operational
and number of projects that need to be completed. It is sug- efficiencies
gested that the plan be achieved through three construction Investing in the community attracts and retains
phases prioritized by District leadership and designed to min- residents by providing competitive schools
imize student disruption and costs during construction.
RECOMMENDED OPTION-COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 15 YEARS $269.3M
$215.3 M
■CHCCS OCs $192.5M
102.5M
$71.5M
$48.6M $49.5M
$16.3M $16.4M $24.9M
- $2.7M $1.3M
0
ADEQUACY CONSOLIDATE HIGH PRIORITY NEW SCHOOL RENOVATION REPLACEMENT
NEEDS SCHOOL
LEM
4� o0 00
19
46
PHASE 1 [YEARS 1-51
Phase 1 addresses the capacity needs of both districts and the facilities in the poorest condition.
Phase 1 builds the only new capacity school recommended in the plan. Phase 1 plans for the con-
struction of a new elementary school for OCS to accommodate West-side growth along with priority
replacement schools for OCS. Phase 1 also includes replacement schools in the worst condition for
CHCCS and closing Frank Porter Graham Elementary school which will be used as swing space during
construction.
PHASE 1 -COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 5 YEARS $121.OM $115.4M
■CHCCS ■OCS
$71.5M
$
49.5M
$37.7M
$16.3M $13.OM
- $2.7M $1.3M
ADEQUACY CONSOLIDATE HIGH PRIORITY NEW SCHOOL REPLACEMENT
NEEDS SCHOOL
ZY 00 00
o0 00
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Facility Strategy Budget
Carrboro ES Replacement School $49.5M
New MS New School $71.5M
Estes Hills ES Consolidate $1.3M
Frank Porter Graham ES Consolidate $1.4M
Carrboro High High Priority Needs $37.7M
Culbreth MS Replacement School $71.5M
Smith MS Adequacy $16.3M
Total $249.2M
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Facility Strategy Budget
Central ES(Partial Rebuild) Replacement School $34.5M
New ES New School $49.5M
Hillsborough ES Consolidate $1.3M
Orange MS Replacement School $71.5M
New Hope ES Adequacy $13.OM
Partnership Academy Replacement School $9.4M
Total $179.2M
20
47
PHASE 2 (YEARS 6-101
Phase 2 focuses on improving educational adequacy and condition of schools in years five through ten
of the plan.School renovations include updating space sizes to meet modern educational standards.
PHASE 2-COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 5 YEARS
$153.9M
■CHCCS OCs
$84.6M
$71.5M
$24.2M
$3.4M $1
0.91 0
ADEQUACY HIGH PRIORITY RENOVATION REPLACEMENT
NEEDS SCHOOL
('u
U14)
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Facility Strategy Budget
Phoenix Academy Renovation $5.7M
Chapel Hill High High Priority Needs $10.9M
Ephesus ES Renovation $28.9M
Morris Grove ES Renovation $11.8M
Rashkis ES Renovation $15.1M
E.Chapel Hill HS Renovation $23.2M
Phillips MS Replacement School $71.5M
Total $167.OM
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Facility Strategy Budget
Efland-Cheeks ES Adequacy $3.4M
Grady Brown ES High Priority Needs $4.8M
Pathways ES High Priority Needs $4.7M
River Park ES High Priority Needs $6.7M
Cedar Ridge HS High Priority Needs $6.3M
Maintenance Department High Priority Needs $O.OM
Orange HS Replacement School $153.9M
Transportation Department High Priority Needs $1.7M
Total $181.5M
21
48
PHASE 3 (YEARS 11-15]
Phase 3 focuses on completing the renovations and replacement schools in years 10 through 15, as
well as some high priority facility needs at administrative facilities.The renovations and replacement
schools will update classrooms to modern standards.
PHASE 3-COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 5 YEARS
$130.7M
$102.5M
■CHCCS OCs
$0.7M
HIGH PRIORITY RENOVATION
NEEDS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Facility Strategy Budget
McDougle ES-MS Renovation $52.1M
Glenwood ES Renovation $26.3M
Northside ES Renovation $14.2M
Scroggs ES Renovation $12.2M
Seawell ES Renovation $25.9M
Total $130.7M
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Facility Strategy Budget
Welcome Center High Priority Needs $0.7M
A.L.Stanback MS Renovation $54.OM
Gravelly Hill MS Renovation $48.5M
Total $103.2M
22
49
RECOMMENDED PHASES
FACILITY STRATEGY BUDGET 2025 2026 2027 2028
Carrboro ES Replacement School $49.5M
New MS New School $71.5M
Estes Hills ES Consolidate $1.3M
Frank Porter Graham ES Consolidate $1.4M
Carrboro HS High Priority Needs $37.7M 7
T1- Culbreth MS Replacement School $71.5M
LU Smith MS Adequacy $16.3M
= Central ES(Partial Rebuild) Replacement School $34.5M
a New ES New School $49.5M
Hillsborough ES Consolidate $1.3M
Orange MS Replacement School $71.5M
New Hope ES Adequacy $13.OM
Partnership Academy Replacement School $9.4M
TOTAL $428.4M $51.3M $86.81VI $99.9M $95.7M
Phoenix Academy Renovation $5.7M
Chapel Hill HS High Priority Needs $10.9M
Ephesus ES Renovation $28.9M
Morris Grove ES Renovation $11.8M
Rashkis ES Renovation $15.1M
E.Chapel Hill HS Renovation $23.2M
N Phillips MS Replacement School $71.5M
y Efland-Cheeks ES Adequacy $3.4M
= Grady Brown ES High Priority Needs $4.8M
Pathways ES High Priority Needs $4.7M
River Park ES High Priority Needs $6.7M
Cedar Ridge HS High Priority Needs $6.3M
Maintenance Department High Priority Needs $O.OM
Orange HS Replacement School $153.9M
Transportation Department High Priority Needs $1.7M
TOTAL $348.5M $7.7M
McDougle ES-MS Renovation $52.1M
Glenwood ES Renovation $26.3M
Northside ES Renovation $14.2M
M Scroggs ES Renovation $12.2M
W
Q Seawell ES Renovation $25.9M
= Welcome Center High Priority Needs $0.7M
A.L.Stanback MS Renovation $54.OM
Gravelly Hill MS Renovation $48.5M
TOTAL $233.9M
23
1
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
$15.1 M ----------
$28.6M ----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
$28.6M ----------
$13.0 M ----------
$9.4M ----------
$5.7M ---------
-- $10.9m --------
-- $14.4 M $14.4 M -------
--- $11.8 M -------
---- $151M ------
----- $23.2M -----
--- $14.3M $28.6M $28.6M -----
$3.4M ---------
$4.8M ---------
$4.7M ---------
$6.7M ---------
$6.3M ---------
$o.oM ---------
-- $23.1M $61.6M $61.6M ------
----- $1.7M -----
------ $52.1M ---_
------- $26.3M ---
-------- $14.2M
--------
$12.2M
--------- $25.9M -
-----
$O-7M ---
----- $10.8M $21.6M $21.6M ---
-------- $9.7M $19.4M $19.4M
S94.7M $31.6M S48.4M $102.1M $105.2M S65.0M S73.7M $47.9M SHAM S45.3M $19.4M
51
Orange County should focus investment in the building
I
systems that keep students and teachers comfortable, 7 I
safe . .
06 ONGOING CAPITAL
RENEWALS
Ongoing capital renewals are building system or compo- For planning purposes,Orange County should focus invest-
nent renovations and replacements based on expected ment in the building systems that keep students and teach-
useful life estimated during the facility condition assess- ers comfortable,safe and dry.
ment. Planning for ongoing capital renewals is essential
to properly operate school facilities to support the edu- For facilities planned for major renovations or replace-
to
missions of CHCCS and OCS. Building profession- ment in the next five years,the recommendation dis-
als within the industry generally use current replacement cussed in the previous section includes only Priority 1,
safety-related components.
value (CRV) of their portfolios as a basis for budgeting. It
is generally accepted that two percent of CRV should be For facilities planned for major renovations or replace-
spent annually to support ongoing capital renewals.' ment in five-ten years, the recommendation includes
Priority 1-3 components to make certain the facilities
Our experience and industry studies find that historically, remained functional untilthattime.The analysis antic-
spending on school facilities is well below the amount ipates an average annual expenditure of$27.5 million
necessary to adequately maintain the portfolio.' Orange annually for ongoing capital renewals(Table 6-1).
County is responsible for facilities with a CRV of approxi-
mately $1.74 billion. Based on a two percent CRV, Orange
County should be investing approximately$34.9 million in
the maintenance of CHHCS and OCS facilities.
Table 6-1:Summary of Ongoing Capital Renewal Needs
I'll,
i "I
AN,',,
BUD � I 2025
$270.2M $18.OM $80.2M $0.6M $3.6M $21.1M $27.5M $14
I $142.3M $9.5M $42.6M $O.OM $2.6M $25.2M $1.3M $3
ORANGE IUNTY $412.4M I $27.5M r$122.8M $0.6M $28.8M
1.Filardo,Mary.2021 State of Our Schools:America's PK-12 Public School Facilities 2021.Washington,D.C.:21st Century School Fund.
25
52
The Facility Condition Assessment data was loaded into Brightly's Predictor soft- Figure 6-1:Overall Service Index
ware to analyze various funding scenarios. Brightly's Predictor accurately pre- Ratings
dicts and compares how various funding scenarios could impact facilities in the
future.The following scenarios were evaluated. OSI REMAINING
Unconstrained budget LIFE
$34.9 million per year budget(2%CRV) 0 100%
$27.5 million peryear budget(prioritized ongoing capital renewals) 1 83%
Brightly evaluates the condition of a portfolio using an Overall Service Index 2 67%
(OSI).The OSI rates the condition from 0(like new)to 6(end of life).The reports
produced by Brightly's Predictor software provide an estimate of how the condi- 3 50%
tion (OSI)of the portfolio will change based the value of facility investment each
year. 4 33%
5 17%
UNCONSTRAINED BUDGET 6 0%
Figure 6-2 simulates if all facility improvements necessary were completed every
year.Yearly spending averages approximately$122 million per year for ten years
and maintains an approximately 2.7 OSI, indicating that the overall condition
of the facility portfolio would improve from its current state and on average the
facility components would have more than 50%of their useful life remaining.
Figure 6-2:OSI Prediction if All Facility Improvements were Completed Every Year
N $400 0
C
0
— x
$300
2
U
`0 $200 N
4
a�
$100 >
O
1
$0 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
LlIL14 L 2035 2036 2037 2038 039
r�27
.OM $31.5M $19.7M $3.7M $6.5M $O.OM $32.10M $O.OM $0.1M $29.7M
.7M $13.7M $9.9M $7.7M $3.5M $O.OM $31.7M $O.OM $O.OM $0.3M
II II II
26
53
$34.9 MILLION PER YEAR BUDGET (2% CRV)
Industry best practices suggest districts should spend 2 percent of the CRV on periodic renewals
annually,for Orange County this means investing$34.9 million annually on periodic renewals.Figure
6-3 shows the OSI degrading from a 3.21 to a 4.27 over the next ten years.This indicates that a funding
level of$34.9 million over ten years decreases the condition of the building systems, resulting in an
average remaining useful life of building systems and components less than 30 percent
Figure 6-3:OSI Prediction Following Orange County's Capital Improvement Plan
$40 0
0
x
$30
2
U
0 $20
4
$10 �
O
$0 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
$27.5 MILLION PER YEAR BUDGET (PRIORITIZED ONGOING
CAPITAL RENEWALS)
Based on the facility condition assessment and recommended long-range facilities optimization plan,
Orange County should anticipate an average annual expenditure of$27.5 million annually for ongo-
ing capital renewals. Figure 6-4 shows the OSI degrading from a 3.21 to a 4.41 over the next ten years
at this investment level.This indicates that a funding level of$27.5 million over ten years decreases
the condition of the building systems,resulting in an average remaining useful life of building systems
and components less than 30 percent.
Figure 6-4:OSI Prediction if$40M is Spent in on Facility Improvements Every Year
$40 0
c
0
— x
$30
c
2
u
0 $20 WU N
4 76
$10
O
$0 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
27
54
FUNDING SCENARIO SUMMARY
Figure 6-5 compares the three funding scenarios and the impact to the condition of the school facil-
ities.The unconstrained budget is unrealistic; however, it maintains a service level of approximately
2.8,indicating on average building systems have more than 50 percent of their useful life remaining.A
budget of$27.5 million and$34.9 million per year over the next ten years will degrade the overall con-
dition of the facilities, resulting in an OSI of 4.41 and 4.27, respectively.At either funding levels,the
County can expect building systems across the portfolio will have less than 30 percent of their remain-
ing useful life,on average.In addition,with an annual investment of$27.5 million or$34.5 million,the
trend in condition beyond 10 years will continue downwards and the overall condition of the portfo-
lio will continue to degrade.
Figure 6-5:Comparison of the Three Funding Scenarios
$400 0
0 $350
$300
$250 2 W
U $200
$150 —
4
$100
$50 `� ZMOLL 6
$0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
�27.5mil/year Unconstrained Replace 34.9 mil/year Replace
—27.5mil/year OSI —Unconstrained OSI —34.9 mil/year OSI
Failing to address projected ongoing capital renewals will continue to increase the deferred
maintenance backlog. Planning for some amount of ongoing deferred maintenance is common,
as most institutions cannot afford all the capital renewals that would ideally be accommodated
every year. However, as deferred maintenance backlogs grow, facilities reach the point where
major facility renovation or replacement becomes a better long-term investment strategy than
ongoing capital renewals and deferred maintenance. Orange County's educational facilities will
continue to require significant and strategic investments for the foreseeable future to support
the education of students in CHCCS and OCS.
Table 6-2 on the following page provides details of the ongoing capital renewals needed per
facility at CHCCS and OCS.
28
Table 6-2:Ongoing Capital Renewal Needs per Facility 55
FACILITY BUDGET 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Carrboro ES $O.OM
Carrboro HS $16.3M
Chapel Hill HS $53.7M
Culbreth MS(Priority 1 Needs) $O.OM
East Chapel Hill HS $51.6M
Ephesus ES $7.7M
Estes Hill ES(Priority 1 Needs) $0.4M
Frank Porter Graham ES(Priority 1 Needs) $0.9M
Glenwood ES $10.5M
Lincoln Center $8.7M
McDougle ES-MS $31.6M
Morris Grove ES $8.7M
Northside ES $6.5M
Phillips MS $6.2M
Phoenix Academy $2.OM
Rashkis ES $19.5M
Scroggs ES $24.6M
Seawell ES $11.3M
Smith MS $10.1M
CHCCS TOTAL $270.2M $80.2M $0.6M $3.6M $21.1M $27.51VI
A.L.Stanback MS 304 $31.1M
Administrative Annex $0.8M
Administrative Annex II(Transp Dispatch) $0.1M
Cedar Ridge HS 310 $1.2M
Central ES 312 $2.9M
Central Office $0.3M
Efland Cheeks ES 324 $7.5M
Grady A.Brown ES 328 $14.5M
Gravelly Hill MS 327 $25.OM
Hillsborough ES 329(Priority 1 Needs) $0.4M
Maintenance Department $0.9M
New Hope ES 330 $5.2M
Orange HS 332 $18.1M
Orange MS 316 $O.OM
Partnership Academy(Priority 1 Needs) $0.2M
Pathways ES 336 $12.2M
River Park ES 308 $13.9M
Transportation Department $3.3M AN
Welcome Center $4.7M
OCS TOTAL $142.3M $42.6M $O.OM $2.6M $25.2M $1.3M
29
ME mil ME M, ENTIM I , On MEN I . ENTIMEN MI .,
I '
----------
----------
----------
----------
----------
owl ®®®� Imu II �®
----------
----------
----------
®® 9.9 ® II ® TI MU IIBTI
$17.7M $45.2M $29.5M $11.4M $10.OM $O.OM $63.8M $O.OM $O.1M $30.1M
Strategically investing available funds will O
improve the condition of school facilities in
Orange County's 39 campuses
CONCLUSION
i I
Y
r
aR =
•
58
This Long-Range Facilities Optimization Plan provides in learning environments that do not have the equipment
Orange County, CHCCS, and OCS the information neces- to support a comprehensive education.
sary to make informed decisions for future investment
in school facilities. Because school facilities have a direct Industry standard modeling and the Woolpert Facility Con-
impact on student learning, student and staff health, and dition Assessment both suggest the County should plan
community vitality, it is crucial to properly invest in the on investing significantly more in ongoing facility needs
learning environment. than they have historically. While
School facilities funding the recommendation
The Woolpert recommendation may not be immediately achiev-
calls for $1 billion investment able, it should be considered as
over the next 15 years in school have a direct the guide for the future of CHCCS
facilities. This recommendationand OCS facilities. The Woolpert
considers the facility condition, impact on student recommendation assumes that
educational adequacy, utiliza- funding facility improvements will
tion, and enrollment projections, learning, student continue. It is recommended that
industry best practices, and goals the plan be revisited and updated
of the districts to determine a and staff health., every five years to make certain
path forward for both CHCCS and the planned projects are in line
OCS. The goal of the recommen- and community with enrollment projections, con-
dation is to strategically invest in dition,and district mission.
facilities to improve the teaching v/ to l i ty.
and learning environment, while Leveraging the recommendation,
being fiscally responsible. Orange County, CHCCS, and OCS
have the opportunity to engage the
The Facility Condition Assessment identified over a dozen community going forward to fund the renovation and new
facilities that have reached the point where major reno- construction projects that will enhance the teaching and
vations or replacement is a better long-term investment learning environments for all students of Orange County.
than attempting to catch up with deferred maintenance. In Through commitment and collaboration between County
addition,even if deferred maintenance was not a challenge and District leadership,the state of the current school facil-
for these schools, the Educational Adequacy Assessment ities can be addressed to promote safe, supportive, and
identified that continuing to invest in inadequate facilities modern learning environments for all students.
would keep students constrained in undersized facilities or
RECOMMENDED OPTION-COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 15 YEARS $269.3M
$215.3M
■CHCCS I ; OCS $192.5M
$102.5M
$71.5M
$48.6M $49.5M
$16.3M $16.4M $24.9M
- $2.7M $1.3M E 0 1
ADEQUACY CONSOLIDATE HIGH PRIORITY NEW SCHOOL RENOVATION REPLACEMENT
NEEDS SCHOOL
rt'.C�5
44' o 0 0 0
32
• •
or
•
ilk, •
q
r
i