HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - January 17 2024 School Capital Needs Workgroup Agenda and Minutes ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Capital Needs Work Group
January 17, 2024
Meeting— 8:30-10am
The Capital Needs Work Group is conducting a Virtual Meeting on January 17, 2024. Members
of the Group will participate in the meeting remotely.
Panelists: Jean Hamilton, Bonnie Hauser, Rhonda Rath, Jessica Goodell, Al Ciarochi, Alan
Dorman, Greg Wilder, Andre Stewart, Dwayne Foster, Patrick Florence, Rani Dasi, Steven
Arndt, Travis Myren, Kirk Vaughn, Christy Dodson, Cy Stober, Jim Merrill, Jonathan Scott,
Riza Jenkins, Dr. Danielle Jones, Carrie Doyle
1. Welcome—Commissioner Jean Hamilton, Chair of Work Group
2. County Staff Update: Presentation of OREd Enrollment Projections and
Woolpert Capacity Calculations
Kirk:
Operations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd) is an organization
through NC State that completes land use reports for many jurisdictions. They
are also the primary entity for school enrollment projections for most districts
near triangle. They take historic enrollment and add it to the projected growth
factors that they identify based on future land use.
They meet with Municipality and County staff to get information on factors that
might impact future development and consider those factors that might affect
enrollment. They create an inventory of new developments that they use to help
project additions to enrollment to specific schools/districts based on timing of
the development.
Capacity tables were displayed that show current enrollment plus forecasted
change based on SAPFO capacity and Woolpert capacity projections. Separate
tables were presented for Chapel Hill school district capacities and Woolpert
capacities.
As part of Wolpert's Long-Range Optimization Plan,they created an inventory
of every room(size, condition,equipment). With that information,they created
a standardized capacity level based on that inventory. Each type of space has a
standard capacity allocation(example: lower capacity in EC classrooms space)
based on DPI standards.
We can use this information at the classroom level to make changes such as
excluding Pre-K as reserved by each district. This is based on the rooms the
school staff has identified as reserved for Pre-K and not the enrollment of Pre-
K. There may be additional space based on actual Pre-K enrollment. This
requires a change in BoCC capacity policy to remove Pre-K.
Woolpert's total capacity of the building is not the educational capacity based
on purpose of rooms/course diversity. This is prorated to reduce the building
capacity by a standard rate for Elementary (95%), Middle (85%), and High
School(75%)with the assumption that higher level of education requires more
diverse classrooms.
Those assumptions lead to a different Woolpert capacity compared to the
current SAPFO capacity however the overall difference is negligible. There are
large distinctions between school districts at elementary, middle, and high and
at specific schools. Woolpert has high school capacity decreasing significantly.
Considering Woolpert's capacity model, at current capacity the CHCCS High
Schools are above 100% capacity but not at the 110% which is the CAPS
threshold. Neither district will reach 100% capacity levels for elementary or
middle schools within the current or next the next 10 years. Orange County
Schools are at a lower capacity figure than CHCCS however ORED is
projecting a higher level of growth over the next 10 years. By the end of the 10
years, there will be a similar capacity profile between the two districts.
Analysis on bond planning aligns with Woolpert's recommendations. This
includes opportunities for consolidation and swing space at elementary and
middle school levels, growth near Mebane recommends new location rather
than renovating existing site, and possible need for reserve for high school.
Since high school capacity drops so much, we might need to revisit bond
funding for high schools in case of expansion growth which requires the flexing
of some dollars for the high school level if required.
Jean: Ask School staff for their thoughts on this information for planning
purposes.
Al: For CHCCS, efforts of Ored and Woolpert tell the same story. Since there
are school choices (Ex: charter), some students come back into the district in
later years. Need to monitor the High School enrollment annually. In years 6-
7, if we see changes to these projections, suggest that we have Ored come back
to reevaluate biannually. Suggest creating placeholder for last project approved
by BOCC in this time frame as something that could pivot purposes based on
enrollment changes to avoid investing in something where needs have changed.
Sees variance between facility and programing needs and feels Woolpert
considered those differences in their capacity. Need a balance between
Woolpert and OREd. Woolpert is not needed each year—maybe 4 years.
Jean: Introduction of Dr.Danielle Jones,new Superintendent of Orange County
Schools.
Dwayne: Woolpert recommendation is in alignment with what is needed by the
Orange County School District of what is needed and what is projected for
future in terms of new and renovation standpoint.
Jean: Was CHCCS Board Member in early 2000s in time of growth. Sees a lot
of growth in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. We may generate more students with
apartment complexes so wanted to make sure that OREd has considered that
growth.
Rani: Understands that OREd does not want to share inner workings of their
model but as a School Board Member would like to see the primary inputs such
as how the model operates, which Partner Groups they are getting data from,
and updates on timing so that the Board can have confidence in the information
use it to inform their communities. Also, important to have projections on cost
for updating the model for planning purposes. With each renovation, the
district will keep in mind how they impact capacity and if there are
opportunities to expand even if not building new schools.
Kirk: Every few years there is a slight increase in OREd cost for land use
projections. Currently it is $35,000 for land use projections for both school
districts. They update the enrollment data in the between years at approximately
$5,000.
Bonnie: There are currently multiple sets of numbers running and it would be
nice to reconcile those. OCS is currently in the process of redistricting. They
have different SAPFO numbers and adjustments for Pre-K, Inclusion EC, and
Specials. Need to come to agreement on how to define school capacity.
Rani: Thought that those school spaces were already calculated as part of the
SAPFO update.
Kirk: OCS modified SAPFO for those capacity adjustments. The Woolpert
capacity figures have those built in.
Bonnie: Woolpert has SAPFO and adjustment for Pre-K. OCS adjusts for Pre-
K and Inclusion EC and Specials. That took our capacity down about 10%.
Would like to agree on one set of numbers to use in model.
Jean: There is a lot of detail in these models. Models to be able to track over
time and use for planning purposes. May always have more than one set of
numbers but need to understand what is calculated in each set of numbers.
Woolpert is a way to identify needs in general so we can identify resources
needed knowing that there will be some changes over time.
Rani: Concern that there may be multiple versions of the truth. Why would
SAPFO not include the classroom spaces that we know are not sufficient for
classrooms?
Travis: The idea is to phase out SAPFO and use a different projection and
capacity model SAPFO is the legacy model but will run in parallel this year.
Once that happens, we will abandon the SAPFO model and replace with the
Woolpert model and ORED projections.
3. County Staff Update: Presentation of Bond Scenarios
Travis: Last night we went through detail discussion of school and county
capital needs and how they might be financed in the future. Chose to
consider the county and facility plans together to have the full picture of
county wide capital needs and how they get addressed in the future. County
Master Plan is 15 years. Modeled $130 million for the first 10 years. The
county also has the option to spread the first 5 years over 10 years and added
some inflation cost, totaling $75 million.
Woolpert long range optimization plan has options ranging from $219
million to $1 billion. Woolpert was recommending option D - $1 billion.
Walk through chart on page 4 of slides to compare the scenarios showing
new county funding,new school funding,one-time tax rate impact,and debt
service to revenue. Debt service to revenue metric shows how much of
General Fund revenue on an annual basis is dedicated to debt service
payments. Debt Service is our first legal obligation, so it is paid before
anything else. Current policy is 15% debt service to rev ratio. We have
modestly been over that in the past with no negative consequences. The
rating agencies are more interested that we are tracking and managing that
metric. The minimum 10-year payout ratio is the amount of principal that
is paid out over 10 years.
Paygo is generation of cash. It increases tax rate, gives more flexibility,
allows for future bond capacity,debt service to revenue does not go as high.
Woolpert's recommendation is D. There was a gap between scenarios A
and C, so there was a middle option that was modeled as well.
Two additional scenarios were modeled at the request of some BoCC
members. (Models H and B). Model B has some existing CIP projects that
would be reduced under scenario B. Most of these are Parks projects. Two
additional scenarios based on requests from last night. H+B and F. Under
development. Ready for board retreat Friday, January 19th.
Table was shown for the tax impact of these scenarios on a$500,000 home.
These impacts range from $200 to $561.
Review of timeline:
• Scenarios will be discussed again at retreat on January 191h,
• Staff discussion with Local Government Commission in late
January/February,
• School Boards adopt a resolution supporting the referendum in
February,
• Timing to adjust the plan in March if conditions change.
• Final decision on bond purpose and not to exceed amount in
early April.
• BoCC appoints bond education committee in April,
• BoCC introduces bond order and has public meetings in April,
• Final approval in June before the Board goes on break.
Bonnie: Ask Kirk to layout Woolpert's plans in terms of pay-go and annual
maintenance.
Kirk: Woolpert recommended options each have different combinations of
plans for each school from repairing high priority needs (i.e., annual
maintenance), renovation, new schools, and consolidations. Each plan has
its own plan of each of the categories. (Ex: Option A being annual
maintenance projects only. Option C has annual maintenance for high
priority needs in every building not getting major renovations.) In Plan C,
the annual maintenance budget is about $19 million each year for those
other buildings during the 10-year planning period. When that plan period
ends,we need to determine the ongoing annual maintenance. Woolpert has
provided an ongoing range of$5 million as the lowest with $27 million to
$35million in upper ends.
The Bond allows us to raise one time capital funding with debt payments
over 20 years. The funding all capital costs through the bond does not allow
for continued annual maintenance funding after the bond period is over.
That is why the county is proposing funding plans that mix bonds with Pay-
Go, which allows for options to continue annual maintenance funding after
the bond period.
4. Discussion and Group Next Steps
Introductions of others on call that had not previously spoken.
Jean: We should be thinking about the future of this group. What else for
this group. Woolpert recommended that this group continue to help monitor
and educate others about these projects and how they unfold. There is a
policy on planning and funding school capital projects which was last
revised April 2008. There is an opportunity for this committee to review
this policy and see if it still reflects how we want to do the work.
Bonnie: Should we discuss the split between the school districts in terms
of ADM. In favor of continuing this group as it is valuable to work through
the issues.
Travis: It has been discussed to go to a more project-based budgeting
approach instead of dividing the bond funds by ADM,which has been done
historically. This would be based on Woolpert recommendations and their
identified priorities.Woolpert is committed to comeback to help reprioritize
and reschedule those items if that is the approach taken. Chair Bedford had
asked if we should include Charters students in the ADM calculations as it
determines capital funding.
Jean: Ask what more information on split is needed? The numbers are not
that different.
Bonnie: Would like to understand, as the projects change, how does the
portion for school districts change (project basis vs ADM). Should the
school district be working toward a specific number?
Jean: Agrees with project based as it uses the money the most effectively
and efficiently. As we raise money through taxes, we want to ensure we
are good stewards of that spending.
Bonnie: Agrees the numbers are not that different now but worried about
consequences with project based.
Rani: Group should be thoughtful on the perception of the public. As move
away from ADM, there will be concerns from voters on the perception of
fairness. We want to make sure we layer it with the school districts needs
such as programing as we discuss this plan going forward. Also,if we show
ADM, we want to show the plan where we exclude charter students if that
is the determination.
Kirk: Over the long period of time, the districts will get proportional to
their needs of their buildings while in the short-term there may seem to be
discrepancies between districts if we move away from ADM.
Travis: Some from this group and others from the community may be a
good composition for the Bond Education Committee.
Jean: Once bond is passed, suggest coming back to Capital Needs Work
Group. If continue to meet, we can discuss how often to meet.
Many express support of the group continuing.
Jean: Need a plan but schools need to get input from other stakeholders.
Group needs to review after that process is laid out.
Bonnie: Ask about timetable of next steps and what is deadline for school
boards.
Travis: We need to set purpose and not to exceed amount in April.
Al: Ongoing maintenance is important consideration. Concern if there is
not$10 million per year for annual maintenance funding to be spent across
both districts. $5 million per year for annual maintenance to be split
between districts is not sufficient.
Kirk: The $5 million or $10 million per year is on-top of existing school
funding of $148 million per year. This would supplement that existing
amount.
Jean: It would be helpful to see a table to see numbers laid out to see how
it looks over time to clarify which category the funds are coming from.
Rani: What is the work backwards date for school boards?
Travis: We have enough information for prep meeting with LGC. During
March,we will have several opportunities to make adjustments to the model
or what we decide on.
Rani: School Boards are adopting resolution in February. Does that need
to contain a dollar amount?
Travis: Will check to see if dollar amount is needed.
Rani: What are the potential implications to operating budget amounts? If
approved, it feels like there is little capacity to come back to ask for more
operating.
Jean: Hope to develop more efficiencies with the building improvements
which will add some gains(ex: more energy efficiency). Important to track
that and report back to commissioners.
5. Next Meeting is March 2011.
Riza- Suggests we have a joint meeting with Schools and BoCC regarding the
Bond, similar to the operating budget
Adjourn