Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 01-16-24; 7-b - Discussion on School and County Capital Planning and Financing Scenarios
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 16, 2024 Action Agenda Item No. 7-b 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 NOTE: Discussion on this item was delayed at the December 12, 2023 Business meeting due to time constraints. 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 in March 2022 to review the state of County facilities from both a facility condition and space planning context over a ten-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 2 million to $1.1 billion. Woolpert is recommending an option that would require $1 billion in capital investment over the next 15 years. 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. 3 • 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. 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. Supported:� County Existing and Planned Tax County Projects Approved Projects Not Financed $10 million County Projects—Ten Year CIP $192 million Total Existing and Planned $202 million . . n=- 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 4 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, all models assume an upfront tax increase in FY 2026, after a potential bond referendum in November 2024. Scenario— New County New SchoolOne Time Tax Peak Title Funding • • Rate Impactto Revenue 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 ay-go D $130 million $630 million 11.22 cents 126.6% Middle $75 million $200 million bond + 5.49 cents 17.2% $50 million ay-go L_ 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 FY2023-24 CIP o When combined with existing and planned resources, provides $219 M 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 M in the first 5 years to meet Woolpert's Option A and an additional $59 million over the 10 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. 5 • 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. • 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. • Middle Scenario o Due to the large difference in funding levels between Scenario A ($130 million for school projects) and Scenario C ($400 million for school projects), staff are also presenting a scenario between A and C. 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 Adds a $200 million school bond and $50 million in pay-as-you go (cash) o Woolpert will engage with the School Districts and the County to prioritize projects to fit this budget, if chosen. 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 6 representing 58.2% of the total Phase I 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. • 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. 7 Agenda Item 7-b ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA School and County Capital Planning and Financing Scenarios Board of Commissioners Business Meeting January 16, 2024 8 Purpose • Discuss financing scenarios related to implementing the County Facility Plan and the Long Range School Optimization Plan and provide direction to staff on alternative scenarios • Goal of developing preferred plan of finance by the end of January 2024 ORANGE COUNTY 2 r*-;ORT H CAnOLI14A 9 2025 SR1 Renovate Link Building $9,943,231 Renovate the wings of Cedar Grove Cor nrnunity Center Building for Storage and Emergen CountyFacilities SR2 cy storage needs fear Hurnan Serviecs $4'324'040 Deconstruct Old Jail Building Move Sheriff Evidence Storage to Cedar Groves.Build a 2421 SR3 $2,02S,534 surface Parking lot Plan LU SR4 Deconstruct Court Street Annex-Move Adult Probation&Juvenile Justice into Link Build- $551,250 L7 ing. Build a surface parking lot � 2427 SRS Devonstrucl District Attorney Building-Move N,&Irirt Attorney into t ink Building.Build a $324,531 surface parking lot SR6 Build EMS Facility Building at Motor Pool Site.,Move Emergency Service out of Emergency $25,559,57Q • Fifteen (15) year plan o Service Building 2028 SR7 Convert original Emergency Services Building for AMS&'County-wide Stotage Facility 55.518.287 • Costs estimated for the SRB Move paper Storage out of Old EAC Building into Gedai Grove 0 first ten years 20�G SR9 Build Central Recreation at Motor Pool Site or Fairview Park $17,340,851 • Option A - $130 million SR10 Build Transporiatiron Building Addition to Motor pool€lirildirrg- 54,266.249 2030 • Option B - $137 million MR1 Develop EAC Property(or Affordable Housing 0 MR2 Deconstruct Central Pecreation at'Whitted&create open space&Staf€Amenity Space $996,197 First five years (Short X031 • MR3 Build Addition to Southern Health Building in Chapel€lilt $16,486,72b Range) - $70 million Lei MR4 Deconstruct Transportation Building-Move into Motorprool Building Addition. $122,907 z � 2032 MR5 Build Sheriff office at Motor Pool Site.Move Sheriff out of Justice Center to Matorpocl Site $22,556,272 Renovate ground floor of existing Justice center. Move Clerk of Gourts to old Sheriff Office MR6 Space $2,7417,762 2033 MR7 Ile-construct portion of surface harking lot at old Jail site.Build a parking garage $14,831,155 MR8 Move CJRD out of Justice Center ground floor into Link Building. Renovate old CJRD $228,018 Space for District Court Support Space 2034 3 MR4 Renovate 3 District Courtrooms in Justice Center $1,940,155 (1 courtroom on the 2nd floor,2 courtrooms on the 1 st floor) 10 School Long Range Optimization Plan OPTIONS RETURN ON INVESTMENT COST PER YEAR X TIMELINE = TOTAL INVESTMENT COMFORTABLE © &SAFE Addresses No changes No changes No additional _$44 million -$219 million 20% to classroom to student or renovated 5 years of facility needs spaces capacity schools COMFORTABLE &SAFE, 0 W PLUS 10-YEAR Addresses No changes No changes No additional FACILITY NEEDS ALL to classroom to student or renovated 10 years facility needs spaces capacity schools COMFORTABLE .� [PDA&SAFE, 1 A�� PLUS UPGRADED 2 Upgraded 4 -$54millionyears $541.2 million 1Q LEARNING TOOLS Renovations learning tools, Replacement New no space changes schools school COMFORTABLE 030 &SAFE, V PLUS NEW 12 Upgraded 7 2 $67 million " learning tools Renovations Replacement Nem, 15 years CONSTRUCTION and right-size schools classroom spaces schools (New MS replacing capacity from Mcaougle ESJMS) 11 Debt Metrics • Why measure debt? — Credit rating — Orange County is one of 13 North Carolina counties with highest rating (Aaa) — Impacts the cost of borrowing ==* Higher credits get lowest interest rates — Impacts annual budget ==* Debt service is the first legally binding budget obligation • If not managed, debt service could crowd out spending on non-mandated services • And/or require a tax rate increase to pay debt plus mandated services ORANGE COUNTY 5 r*-;C)RT H CARC}LINA 12 Debt Metrics • Ten Year Payout Ratio — Measures the proportion of total outstanding principal will be paid off in the next ten (10) years — Prevents backloading principal payments — Positive adjustment if 10 year payout ratio is 65% or more — Current ratio is 67.1% ORANGE COUNTY 6 T'.TC)RT H CARC}LINA 13 Debt Metrics • Debt to Assessed Value Ratio — Measures total tax supported debt as a percentage of total assessed value — One measure of ability to pay debt service — As assessed value increases, the same tax rate generates more revenue — County policy to keep total outstanding debt service at or below 3% of total assessed value — Current ratio is 1 .28% — All of the financing scenarios maintain a debt to assessed value ratio of 3% or less • Debt Service to General Fund Revenue Ratio — Measures the amount of debt service due annually to projected general fund revenues — Another measure of ability to pay debt service except on an annual basis — Debt service is the first obligation in budgeting — If debt service is growing faster than general fund revenue, less funding is available for everything else — County policy establishes a target of 15% of general fund revenues dedicated to debt service annually — Current ratio is 13.6% ORANGE COUNTY 7 T'.TC)RT H CARC}LINA 14 Debt Metric Summary Target/PolicyCurrent 710Year Payout 65% 67.1 % Principal satisfied in next ten years Debt to Assessed Value 3% 1 .28% Total tax supported debt at or below 3% of total assessed value Debt Service to General Fund 15% 13.6% Revenue Annual debt service at or below 15% of general fund revenue ORANGE COUNTY 8 r*-;C)RT H CARC}LINA 15 Debt Model Assumptions • Projected Assessed Value Growth — Measure of ability to pay Natural Growth — 2% annually ($470 million from FY2024 to FY2025) — 2024 Revaluation — 50% projected growth with Sales Ratio of 64.8% Projected Assessed Value Growth Illustration of Potential Impact of Revaluation on in billions Revenue Neutral Tax Rate 560.000 • Given the new assessed value, what would the new tax ;50.000 rate need to be to produce the same amount of property tax revenue as the year prior to the revaluation after $40.000 accounting for natural growth <30 000 szo.000 '510.000 Prior to $23.23 billion 0.8353 $194.01 million Reval 5 0.5661 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 J035 After Reval $35.04 billion Effective $198.33 million FY2025-26 ORANGE COUNTY 9 NC)RTH CAROLPNA 16 Debt Model Assumptions • Total General Fund Revenue — Measure of ability to pay — Integral in Debt Service to General Fund Revenue metric • Operating budget growth — 3% annually requires general fund revenue growth • Sales tax growth — 4% annually ORANGE COUNTY 10 T'.TC)RT I-I CAR0LI14A 17 Debt Model Assumptions • Existing and Planned Resources — Not starting from zero investment • Facility analysis took a snapshot of facility conditions in summer of 2023 • Investment options include any deficiencies at that point in time • Any planned spending can be used to achieve investment targets — Projects have been approved but not financed = available spending — Capital Investment Plan LSchool Districts Existing and Planned Tax Supported Borrowing County Existing and Planned Tax Supported Borrowing Remaining 2016 Bond Funds $15 million County Projects Approved Projects Not Financed $10 million Remaining Deferred Maintenance Funds $38 million County Projects—Ten Year CIP $192 million* School Projects—Ten Year C I P $95 million Total Existing and Planned $202 million Total Existing and Planned $148 million *$52 million dedicated to facility related projects ORANGE COUNTY 11 r*-;C)RT 17I CARC)LINA 18 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 2.0 cents Existing County CIP $ 192.0 million years with additional inflationadded ($5 million). County Facility Plan 0.22 cents Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million Additional School Needs 1.78 cents • $130 million bond assumed in otal Tax Impact 4.00 Cents County Facility Plan $ 75.0 million FY2023-24 CIP Total Capital Funding-County $ 277.0 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 l0% 8. 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 12 r*-;0RT H CARf3LI114A 19 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 13 r*-;0RT H CARf3LI114A 20 Existing Annual Debt Service • County tax rate impact is lower 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 $20,000,000 $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 ORANGE COUNTY 14 NORTH CAROLIN.A 21 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 M each over a seven 15.0% 13 ° Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million year 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 15 NORTH CARC)LINA 22 $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 16 r*-;0RT H CAF,0LI14A 23 Pay-Go Scenario • Option C2 converts $100 million of bond financing into $10 million annual cash (pay-go) for annual maintenance • Trades a higher upfront tax impact and delayed distribution of funding for the following — Provides a stable funding source for school maintenance between bond issuances — Maintains more debt capacity for later major bond issuances — Provides more flexibility to future Boards to adapt to financial instability, no flexibility in debt service — No interest payments ORANGE C(DUNTY 17 T'.TC)RT I-I CAR0LII4A 24 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% 16.9%17.7%19.1%182%18.5%19'4%18.9% you-go funds(not borrowed) ° o-41 4.6%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 0.0%° fl seven year period � �, � o ,1 1 h 1b'� rx� h V �� o 11 tin �� 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 18 r*-;0RT H CARf3LI114A 25 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" 19 NORTH CARC)LIN.A 26 Middle Scenario - $200 million bond + $50 million School Pay-Go + $75 million County Plan Financing Amounts Middle Scenario-Tax Rate Existing CIP 2.Ocents Total County Funding County Facility Plan over ten County Facility Plan 0.28cents years-$75 million Existing County CIP $ 192.0 million Additional School Needs - Borrowed 1.78 cents $5 million in annual pay-as-you- Additional School Needs- Pay-Go 1.43 cents Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million go(cash, not borrowed) Total Tax Impact 5.49 cents County Facility Plan $ 75.0 million Three tranches of school Total Capital Funding-County $ 277.0 million borrowing $66.6 each over Middle Scenario - Debt Service to Revenue Policy seven year period 20.0% 18.0% 16.2% 17.2% 16.3% 16.3% 16.7% 16.2% Total School Funding When combined with existing 16.0% 1s.1% 14.s% 1s.7% and planned resources,yields 13AW :Z01 * $398 million in total school 14.0% Existing School CIP $ 95.0 million 12.0% resources to address school 10.0% Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million priority needs 80% Additional School Needs - 6.0% 4.0% Borrowing $ 200.0 million 2.0% 0.0% Additional School Needs- Pay-Go $ 50.0 million ti� til tip" Total Capital Funding $ 398.0 million F(" ,tio F� �� F� <1 *Does not include$33 million in recurring capital or$33 Option Ratios Policy million in projected Article 46 revenue for technology ORANGE COUNTY 20 T'.TC)RT H CARC)LINA 27 Comparingthe Scenarios Scenario NewCounty • • One Tax Peak Debt Minimum 10 Title Funding Funding Rate Impact Revenue Ratio Al $75 million $130 million 4.00 cents 17.4% 60.4% A2 + $130 million $130 million 4.57 cents 18.0% 59.9% C1 $130 million $400 million 7.89 cents 22.0% 57.0% C2 $130 million $300 million bond 8.66 cents 19.4% 58.1 % $100 million pay-go D $130 million $630 million 11 .22 cents 26.6% 55.0% Middle $75 million $200 million bond 5.49 cents 17.2% 60.3% $50 million pay-go ORANGE COUNTY 21 r*-;0RT H CARf3LI1'-4A 28 Other Options SchoolScenario New County New One Time Tax Peak Debt Minimum 10 Title Funding Funding Rate Impact RatioRevenue H $75 million $300 million bond 8.06 cents 18.55% 59.0% $100 million pay-go $130 million B Push $17.9 million $300 million bond 8.47 cents 19.18% 58.2% in existing projects $100 million pay-go outside of the ten year plan ORANGE COUNTY 22 r*-;C)RT H CARC}LINA 29 Bond Funding Practice • Bond funds have been allocated between the two school districts on the basis of the average daily membership (ADM) in place at the time the bond was approved — Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools — 58.44% — Orange County Schools — 41 .56% • Could move to a project based allocation — Need based allocation — Project costs estimated in Woolpert Study — Woolpert Option D — Phase I • Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools — 58.2% of total Phase I project costs • Orange County Schools — 41.8% of total Phase I project costs ORANGE COUNTY 23 r*-;ORTH CARf3LINA 30 Recommendation • Discuss financing scenarios related to implementing the County Facility Plan and the Long Range School Optimization Plan and provide direction to staff on alternative scenarios • Goal of developing preferred plan of finance by the end of January 2024 ORANGE COUNTY 24 r*-;ORT H CAnOLI14A 31 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 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 25 r*-;ORTH CAnOLI14A 32 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 26 r*-;C)RT H CARC}LINA 33 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 34 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 cuffe rf replatoer ant 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 condlhon,with little or rio Asual evidence of wear or defiaencies- 5-100 Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition- 10 30% Subjected to hard or lorKFterm weElr_tlearina tie end of its useful or serviceable life_ 3Li%and above Has reached the end of its useful 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.IS�'e75voal 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% I1J 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; $11111 39J;If39 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 ',I K-- 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"N:1:11 31$9 9.250 4811.909 00% 4s'.. 76-9 143Y% w piald=r AD-ie.Fa.Weq,.i;A7r 419$ 7,930 30,985,614 0871 241'1. 270% 463% z Ban0a:lreeks Com*unt CarrW Park Uater ik'; , $105 2.2m $231.$84 00'2 S.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 35 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 $18.'179 G -=.U'. 'A.9% W.711 1"A% Sda Mi"MON Rad I t4y'l 5700 3.610 5404.761 O.U% 12.6:5 34.0% Wa% LU Sandvgasm UValutC�a'199±., ;705 454 962,071 0.0% 54.4% 1164.474 567:7% C (�J SWgs &r.1)ay(2isee 5200 3" 5929;451 0,095 1.7`.. 4.6% 1E.9% 'A'KV/.IJ8.C10 F@9112'@rII3@.00II'1 I PL77C'7;id,pEFy 242 O'BRIEN "..I K1 NS 36 ORANGE COUNTY",NC BUREAU VERITAS PHOJE- T- 15354A.21RU0D�001.35$ i i ;S��ihirn rk Orr1 977 #1¢E 29.700 #4,p4,733 00x� 1@7"q 38146 44,29E i TvdnTsro*apelklalbiek]no5l:IJ2T1 3I'm jAm $744,374 6111* 8.4% 2&w1b 66.0% VWlomBye aailli 30L 444.31 FraMIn GIrW 7;10000} 52sa 4.000 SW,,T28 00% 4364 7..2% 122% Yd*o Cn-M.r)ffi.,E—ks,g $lm dVlm #7.a42.102 QOti IM.s mlira. 3a.S% + Whf9labHunmSarvlonCarrw{MdaAJt+eat7sDWL1?9MIN #174 77.559 &5.�24.420 61i"k14b% 17.6' 25.0% WhIOW HuAIW$OMO"Cef,*{911SI BI PS.INl Clihc $174 24.50 #5.138.355 004;. 921 1455% 920% z W Luc Z LLI z Lu a z Lu 0 ikwmua.[iureauvarlkas.corn p°r�3. a3.36f0 O BRIEN AI KI NS 243 37 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% 38 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 39 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. • 1 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 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 43 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 44 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 46 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- 48 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 49 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 50 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 110-20% lio(Figure 2-3).Afive-year FCI was calculated by combining the 11 current deficiencies and five-year needs to anticipate the over- AVLRACL 21-30% all condition of facilities. The five-year FCI at both CHCCS and 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 CH HCS 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 60 11-20% 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 - Replace '• 0 - 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 - 1 320,328 1 270,229 2 590,557 Average 21-30% 1 109,100 3 34,879 4 143,979 IN 10 YEARS, MOST Below SCHOOLS WILL MOVE , Averaa 31-50% 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 3 288,124 2 114,790 5 402,914 Total 19 2,259,452 19 1,540,912 38 3,800,364 8 51 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 52 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 53 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 54 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 55 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 56 [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 57 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 58 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 59 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 60 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 61 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 62 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 63 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 64 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 65 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 $151M ---------- $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 67 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 68 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 69 $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 70 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 71 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 M, ENTIM i3On MEN ENTIMEN i ; i $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 = • 74 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