HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05-07-24; 7-a - Discussion on Statutes and Policies Regarding Project-Based School Capital Funding ORANGE COUNTY 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 7, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-a
SUBJECT: Discussion on Statutes and Policies Regarding Project-Based School Capital
Funding
DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office, County Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. April 23, 2024 County Attorney Kirk Vaughn, (919) 245-2153
Memorandum on School Capital John Roberts, (919) 245-2318
Funding by Project
2. Policy on Planning and Funding
School Capital Projects 2008
3. School Standards Policy 2007
PURPOSE: To review statutes and policies surrounding school capital funding and discuss
implications for the funding associated with the proposed November 2024 bond referendum.
BACKGROUND: At a prior meeting, BOCC Chair Jamezetta Bedford petitioned staff to prepare
a review of the statutory and policy roles that the Board of County Commissioners (the Board)
can play regarding the funding of school capital. Based on that request, staff will present
information on the Board's statutory powers related to school capital funding, the current practice
of the County, and the policies enacted by prior Boards of Commissioners. Staff will also share
information regarding how those powers and policies could be used to direct a project-based bond
funding policy.
This presentation constitutes the first in a series on proposed school bond projects. At the May
21, 2024 Board Business meeting, the County and the two districts will present their respective
bond project plans. At the June 4, 2024 Board Business meeting, staff will request direction on
the Board's preferred bond plan, and also request direction for staff, the school districts and the
bond education committee.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the discussion on school
capital funding.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There are no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impacts associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the presentations
from staff and consider implications for implementation for the proposed November 2024 bond
referendum.
2
Attachment 1
ORANGE COUNTY
rA
P.O. BOX 8181
Office of the County 1000 CORPORATE DRIVE <<
Attorney SUITE 400
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Sally Greene, Vice Chair
Amy Fowler
Jean Hamilton
Earl McKee
Phyllis Portie-Ascott
Anna Richards
FROM: John Roberts, County Attorney
DATE: April 23, 2024
RE: School Capital Funding by Project
The following is offered in response to a request for additional information on this topic
and includes input from Bob Jessup, the County's bond counsel. All referenced statutes
may be reviewed at the bottom of this memorandum.
Generally, counties are responsible for funding school capital needs of the school units
within each counties' jurisdiction.
In counties having multiple school systems, appropriations to the local current expense
fund must be allocated, pursuant to §115C-430, according to membership. Unlike local
current expense fund allocations, capital funding may be allocated as determined by the
board of county commissioners of a given county. There is no statute requiring
allocation according to membership among multiple systems, only the general
requirement that appropriations be "sufficient to support a system of free public
schools."
The preceding paragraph only applies to traditional school systems. There is no
requirement that counties fund the capital needs of charter schools or charter school
systems. A prior amendment to state law authorized counties to engage in capital
funding for charter schools but did not mandate such funding. (See §153A-149(c)(38))
When determining how to allocate capital funds the board of commissioners of a county
may allocate some or all of the appropriated capital funding by purpose, function, or
3
Page 2 of 4
project. (See §115C-429(b)) Orange County has traditionally allocated capital funds by
purpose, but not by project. Budgeting such funds by project, however, is not unusual
across the state and is done regularly in other counties. When budgeting by project,
each School Board would develop its priority list of projects for review and discussion
with the BOCC. After those discussions, the County and the School Boards would begin
to construct and fund the projects in the priority order as funds and staff capacity would
allow. In this way the highest priority projects are done first, giving the community the
maximum impact of the available resources.
After the priorities have been settled, there are several additional choices as to how the
County and the School Boards go about carrying out the design and construction
process.
1). The school boards could be responsible for contracting out the
design/construction/renovation work and the amount budgeted to a project by the
BOCC would be the maximum amount that could be expended on a project. This
is more or less the way the County has handled school construction and
renovation projects in the past. The schools could not make substantial
amendments to the allocated amounts without written approval of the BOCC.
(See §115C-433(b) and §115C-433(d)); or
2) The County could enter an intergovernmental agreement with the school
boards and directly hire a project manager (or contract for a consultant) to be the
project manager. This approach would move the project management obligation
from the school board staffs onto a dedicated, central resource that may be
better positioned to carry out construction management and oversight, especially
in light of the tremendous scope of projects facing the County over the next
several years; or
3) The County could enter an intergovernmental agreement with the school
boards for the project manager to take the lead on projects all the way from
design through construction, with programming and timing input from the
schools.
The purpose of considering options 2 and 3 is to consider different approaches given
the scope of the upcoming construction program. More resources will undoubtedly be
necessary to carry out the vastly increased scope of projects in an efficient and timely
manner. Considering an increase in project management capacity under the County's
umbrella would reduce the burden on the schools and allow for more, and more
specialized, resources to handle the load.
Orange County is currently the registered owner of multiple schools in the two school
systems. In financing situations, the county will usually take ownership of school
properties used for collateral and immediately leases the property back to the school
4
Page 3 of 4
board. This transfer of ownership is a paper transfer and is generally done for sales
tax-related purposes. Once the financing is complete the facility is usually transferred
back to the school board pursuant to lease and financing document language.
This memorandum is intended to provide a general overview of the BOCC's authority to
allocate school capital funding by project. The County's regular bond counsel, Bob
Jessup, is available and willing to discuss logistical details of capital appropriation by
project with the BOCC. Bob has direct experience working with other counties that have
chosen to appropriate capital funding by project and as noted above contributed to this
memorandum.
5
Page 4 of 4
APPLICABLE or REFERENCED STATUTES
§115C-430 Apportionment of county appropriations among local school administrative
units. If there is more than one local school administrative unit in a county, all appropriations by
the county to the local current expense funds of the units, except appropriations funded by
supplemental taxes levied less than countywide pursuant to a local act of G.S. 115C-501 to
115C-511, must be apportioned according to the membership of each unit. County
appropriations are properly apportioned when the dollar amount obtained by dividing the
amount so appropriated to each unit by the total membership of the unit is the same for each
unit. The total membership of the local school administrative unit is the unit's average daily
membership for the budget year to be determined by and certified to the unit and the board of
county commissioners by the State Board of Education.
§153A-149(c) "Each county may levy property taxes for one or more of the purposes listed in
this subsection up to a combined rate of one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) on the one hundred
dollars ($100.00) appraised value of property subject to taxation. Authorized purposes subject to
the rate limitation are:
(38) Charter Schools. — To provide capital funds for charter schools as authorized by G.S.
153A-461."
§153A-461 "Charter schools. Each county is authorized to appropriate funds and lease
real property to schools chartered under Article 14A of Chapter 115C of the General
Statutes."
§115C-429(b) "The board of county commissioners may, in its discretion, allocate part or all of
its appropriation by purpose, function, or project as defined in the uniform budget format."
§115C-429(c) "The board of county commissioners shall have full authority to call for, and the
board of education shall have the duty to make available to the board of county commissioners,
upon request, all books, records, audit reports, and other information bearing on the financial
operation of the local school administrative unit."
§115C-433(b) "If the board of county commissioners allocates part or all of its appropriations
pursuant to G.S. 115C-429(b), the board of education must obtain the approval of the board of
county commissioners for an amendment to the budget that (i) increases or decreases
expenditures from the capital outlay fund for projects listed in G.S. 115C-426(f)(1) or (2) (these
two provisions provide for property acquisition, facility construction, expansion, etc.), or (ii)
increases or decreases the amount of county appropriation allocated to a purpose or function by
twenty-five percent (25%) or more from the amount contained in the budget ordinance adopted
by the board of county commissioners: Provided, that at its discretion, the board may in its
budget ordinance specify a lesser percentage, so long as such percentage is not less than ten
percent (10%)."
§115C-433(d) "The board of education may amend the budget to transfer money to or from the
capital outlay fund to or from any other fund, with the approval of the board of county
commissioners, to meet emergencies unforeseen and unforeseeable at the time the budget
resolution was adopted. When such an emergency arises, the board of education may adopt a
resolution requesting approval from the board of commissioners for the transfer of a specified
amount of money to or from the capital outlay fund to or from some other fund."
6
Revised April 2008
ORANGE COUNTY
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
(This document is intended to clarify the expectations of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in
collaborating with the Boards of Education in planning for and implementing school capital projects)
1. Background
The County's ten year capital investment plan is a planning document that is updated annually.
Before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Board of County Commissioners approves the
funding plan in concept. However, funding of individual projects is contingent upon the scope
of work required to complete the project.
• Level 1 Projects: Level one projects are those projects that have a relatively small scope
of work and can be accomplished using a single prime contractor, in-house staff or entail
purchasing equipment and vehicles. Specific examples of Level 1 projects include
roofing projects,parking lot paving and re-wiring of existing buildings. The Board
approves the entire project ordinance at one time.
• Level 2 Projects: Level two projects are major projects that require several phases to
complete. For these projects, the Board of County Commissioners approves a four-phase
appropriation process to include:
• Concept/Pre-Planning Phase (includes preliminary programming and design work
that would result in conceptual drawings and preliminary cost estimates.
• Planning Phase (including siting& infrastructure)
• Design and Construction Approval Phase (including final design, equipment,
furnishings, non-recurring start up,technology, contingency)
■ Schools have the latitude to shift funds between major components without
prior BOCC approval, providing that the actual cost of the project does not
exceed budget.
■ Superintendents will provide the County Manager with written project
updates at their regular monthly meetings. In turn, the County Manager will
provide the Board of County Commissioners with written progress reports
related to the project.
• Final Accounting Phase
■ Upon completion of the project, School and County staff will reconcile actual
project expenditures with approved budget and provide the BOCC with a
"final accounting" of project.
Page 1 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
7
Revised April 2008
2. Site Standards
In accordance with North Carolina State Statutes, a local board of education cannot execute a
contract nor expend funds to purchase a facility site without the consent of the local board of
county commissioners. As each school system in Orange County plans for future school-related
facilities, it is important that they adhere to the following guidelines related to the potential
acquisition, either by purchase or donation, of a site, in addition to any siting criteria they may
have established internally:
Potential Sites - The Board of Education is to notify the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, in writing, whenever they have tentatively identified a potential
school site for purchase, or if a potential donor indicates interest in donating a site to
the system. The written correspondence should provide the following information for
Commissioner consideration:
• Location, including tax map numbers, of the potential site;
• Opportunities for additional facilities to be co-located as a park site, as
outlined in the "Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site
and Facility Planning";
• The availability of public utilities within the urban services boundaries of the
County;
• If a donated site:
• Any knowledge of a donor's plans for adjacent development;
• Special considerations or expectations the donor may have referenced in
initial discussions pertaining to the donation;
Upon receipt of the Board of Education's notification, the Commissioners will
appoint,by a majority vote of the Board, a representative to work directly with the
Board of Education. As a partner with the school system, the Commissioner
representative will receive information and provide input regarding talks and
negotiations related to the potential site. The Commissioner representative will share
information regarding the progress of talks and negotiations of the potential site with
other members of the Board of Commissioners.
Environmental Factors—A school system is to pay particular attention to the physical
environment surrounding the site and new facility.
• In order to avoid future flood hazards, a facility should not be located in close
proximity to wetlands, stream buffers, or in a flood plain. Facility siting should
also avoid other physical factors that create either additional construction or
longer-term maintenance problems, or other unfavorable environmental impacts.
Page 2 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
8
Revised April 2008
• Once a system acquires a site and before grading begins, each school system
receives State approval of its erosion control plan and additional County review to
ensure that unnecessary cutting of trees or clearing of land does not occur.
Adequate natural buffers are to be left intact with existing trees, or replanted if the
areas are disturbed during construction. Special attention should be paid to
"specimen"trees as outlined in the County land development code.
Road and Utility Requirements—Major elements for a system to consider in siting a
new facility relate to infrastructure requirements by a Town or other public utility. In
some recent instances, the systems have been required to provide costly infrastructure
such as sidewalks and road improvements. These elements greatly inflate
construction costs of new facilities. As a system begins initial planning, there should
be a joint meeting between elected Town, County and Education officials to discuss
particular requirements that all parties expect of other project partners.
3. Building Design Standards
As a school system selects a particular facility design, it is important that the most cost-effective
design alternative be pursued. Historically in Orange County, new school buildings have been
designed uniquely for each particular project. The Board of Commissioners encourages systems
to pursue non-traditional, or prototype, designs that can be replicated for use on more than one
project. Should a system choose a unique design, it is to provide a detailed cost comparison
analysis and justification in writing of why that particular approach was chosen over a prototype
design.
4. Construction Standards
Over the past few years, the County has given special attention to defining construction
standards for each school level—elementary, middle and high schools. The standards provide a
minimum and maximum square footage and student capacity for each level. As a system
undertakes construction of a new facility, it is critical that the system adheres to the most recent
school construction standards (estimated project cost should include a reasonable allowance for
inflation).
The Commissioners agree to provide funding for new school facilities that are designed within
the adopted standards. They do not agree to fund projects that go beyond the adopted standards
unless there is sufficient justification provided in writing by the Board of Education. One
justification for going beyond the standards relates to co-location of facilities, in particular
recreational facilities. In this case, the system must provide detailed explanations outlining the
benefits to be offered to the community and citizens, in the context of the intergovernmental
"Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning" and the
"Orange County Parklands Acquisition and Evaluation Criteria" adopted by the Board of
Commissioners on December 7, 1999.
Page 3 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
9
Revised April 2008
5. Project Approval
A project's inclusion in the ten-year plan does not give the Schools or the County legal authority
to expend funds. The legal authority to expend funds lies in County Commissioner approved
capital project ordinances. Therefore, the schools should not incur any expenses for any capital
project until the Board of County Commissioners approves the capital project ordinance.
In order to provide timely flow of the approval process and ensure that all elements are
addressed, the following steps should be followed:
• Details included in each system's ten-year Capital Investment Plans regarding the scope and
timing of various phases of individual capital projects is limited. To that end, as individual
Boards of Education begin discussions related to new capital projects (new construction, site
acquisitions, major renovations, etc), they will be expected, in writing, to notify the Board of
County Commissioners of the substance of those discussions. The memorandum from the
School Board will:
• Provide the Commissioners with an overview of the project concept along with other
project specifics that the Board of Education has defined to that point;
• Justify the need based on current school capacities and projected student enrollments
consistent with the School Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (if the Ordinance is in
effect at this time);
• Provide a preliminary cost projection of the project based upon the adopted school
construction standards and provisions of the Cost Effective Facilities Initiative (CEFI),
which has derived from earlier discussions about "value engineering" (if this policy is in
effect at this time);
• Request that the Board of Commissioners approve a capital project ordinance to provide
funding for the initial planning phase of the project;
• Instruct the Superintendent to update the County Manager, in writing, of the project's
progress at his/her monthly meetings with the County Manager.
• Upon receipt of the memorandum from the Board of Education, the Board of
Commissioners will:
• Act upon the project concept by either approving it or asking the Board of Education to
amend the concept plan;
• Instruct County staff to confirm the project's cost estimate and student capacity in
accordance with the County's adopted School Construction Standards Reports along
with student enrollment projections;
Page 4 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
10
Revised April 2008
• If the Board of Commissioners approves the project concept, the County Budget Director
will prepare an agenda abstract and related capital project ordinance that provides
funding for the concept and pre-planning phase of the project;
• Appoint,by majority vote of the Board, either a Commissioner representative (preferably
the same representative that participated in the siting phase of the project) and one staff
representative, or two staff representatives, to partner with the school system as the plans
develop;
• Instruct the County Manager to update the Commissioners on a regular basis regarding
the written information shared by the School Superintendent.
6. Expenditure of Project Funds
Funding for Project Planning- School systems will not expend or encumber for planning of
any project until the Board of County Commissioners has approved the plan concept.
Background- For several years, the Board of Commissioners has approved a capital project
ordinance entitled Planning for Future Projects for each school system. The creation of
these ordinances enabled a system to expend a portion of their pay-as-you-go funds for
planning during a project's conceptual stages. Once a project grew beyond the concept
stages, systems requested the Commissioners to approve a"project specific" capital project
ordinance allocating all funds anticipated to carry out the planned project. In turn, each
district expended their monies up-front for planning, design, architect, construction,
furniture and equipment. In return, the County reimbursed each District with all of the
project-related expenditures up to the total project budget.
With the changes implemented by the County Commissioners in June 1999, this process
has changed. It is important to note that unless a County approved capital project ordinance
is in place (i.e. adopted by the County Commissioners), that the County is not legally or
otherwise obligated to reimburse the school system for their expenditures. If the Board of
County Commissioners approve the project concept and capital project ordinance as
outlined in Item 5 above, the following steps occur:
• Following Board of Commissioner approval of final plans for the project, the school
system advertises for construction bids;
• Once the system receives the bids, the School Superintendent notifies the County
Manager, in writing, of the result of all bids received.
• The County Manager informs the Board of Commissioners, in writing, of the
construction bid results.
7. Submission Timelines
• While the Board of Education may receive the bids, it should not execute any contract
until the Board of County Commissioners receives bid information and approves a
capital project ordinance for the construction phase of the project;
Page 5 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
11
Revised April 2008
• Generally, the Board of Commissioners conducts regular meetings on the first and
third Tuesday of each month. To allow for timely preparation of the meeting agenda,
the following timelines should be followed by staff:
• Twenty-one days prior to the Board of Commissioners meeting, the School Finance
or Budget Director or the Director of Facilities provides the County Budget Director
with:
• Bid Tabulation of School Construction or Major Renovation Project (example
included as Attachment 1 of this Memorandum)
• Any other pertinent information regarding the project.
• Fourteen days prior to the meeting, the County Budget Director submits a draft
agenda abstract including the bid tabulation and capital project ordinance to the
County Manager's office for review. The Budget Director forwards (via e-mail or
fax) a copy of the abstract and attachments to the School Finance or Budget Director
and the Director of Facilities for review and comments.
• Ten days prior to the meeting, the School Finance or Budget Director and the
Director of Facilities provide abstract revisions and comments to the County Budget
Director.
• Seven days prior to the meeting the County Budget Director submits final agenda
abstract and attachments to the County Manager's Office. A copy of the abstract and
attachments are forwarded(via e-mail or fax)to the school system.
Upon adoption by the Board of Commissioners,the County Budget Director informs the School
Finance and Budget Director and the County Finance Director of the abstract approval and the
assigned account number(s). This is done via a standard memorandum that indicates purpose and
account codes.
• All requests for payment from the School Finance Directors are forwarded to the County
Finance Department for payment. The County Finance Department ensures that the
requisition for payment falls within the purposes approved by the Board of Education.
8. Change Orders
The School Superintendent submits, in writing,to the County Manager all contract change
orders for the project. Upon receipt of the information, the County Budget Director prepares an
agenda abstract and an amended capital project ordinance for approval by the Board of
Commissioners at their next scheduled meeting. If there are change orders that cause project
expenditures to be over budget, the School district must receive approval from the Board of
Commissioners prior to approving the change order.
Page 6 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
12
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Approval of Orange County's School Construction Standards
DEPARTMENT: Budget PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1. April 30, 2007 School
Construction Standards
Attachment 2. Minutes April 30, 2007 INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joint Meeting of County Donna Coffey, (919) 245-2151
Commissioners, Chapel
Hill Carrboro City Schools
Board of Education and
Orange County Schools
Board of Education
PURPOSE: To approve Orange County's School Construction Standards.
BACKGROUND: Orange County's current elementary and middle school construction
standards have been in place since 1996, and its high school standards since 1999. While these
standards have served as a model for many schools constructed in both the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City and the Orange County Schools, it has become increasingly difficult to adhere to
the standards due to economic factors such as rising construction costs as well as educational
reforms such as changes in state mandated class sizes for grades kindergarten through third. In
addition, land use regulations and environmental considerations that incorporate sustainable
building components and smart growth elements are becoming more prevalent in the
construction industry. Two separate School Facilities Task Forces, convened in 2000 and 2002,
identified a number of standards that required clarification and/or updating (e.g. baseline
estimates for per square foot cost, an appropriate inflation factor, percentage of project budget
that should be set aside for contingency, etc.). To that end, the Boards of County
Commissioners and Education recognized the need to update and refine Orange County's
current School Construction Standards, and last year requested that the School/County
Collaboration Work Group review existing School Construction Standards with the intent of
bringing them more in line with today's practices, regulations, and construction market.
At the time that Orange Commissioners adopted the County's existing School Construction
Standards, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) had Facilities
Standards in place that established minimum construction criteria for individual school districts
to adhere to when they constructed new facilities or renovated older ones. Since that time, the
13
2
State has moved away from the "standards concept" and now has "Facilities Guidelines" in
place.
During the first half of 2006, the Collaboration Work Group met four times to focus on revisions
that should be made to existing Orange County school construction standards. Those meetings
involved primarily information gathering regarding school construction practices and guidelines,
sustainability considerations, and opportunities for community use of school facilities,
particularly with regard to County and municipal recreation programming. Since September
2006, the Work Group has met three additional times to review and refine successive drafts of
updated School Construction Standards. All three governing boards received and reviewed an
early draft of the revised standards at the September 2006 joint work session. Of particular note
in the Work Group's proposal is the recognition of the need to consider "non-traditional schools"
as well as more traditional models, in furtherance of evolving educational priorities and smart
growth initiatives, and in light of the harsh realities of spiraling costs in the construction industry.
At the April 30, 2007 joint work session between Commissioners and both Boards of Education
there was concensus that the draft presented (Attachment 1 of this agenda abstract) reflected
construction standards that were fair and reflected values that were important to all parties.
While the intent of the Guidelines remains consistent with the previously enacted State
Standards -to ensure that school systems provide adequate space for instructional classes and
activities — the Guidelines now allow for flexibility and allow for more consideration of local
situations such as availability of land or other limitations that school districts may face.
Both Chapel Hill Carrboro City and Orange County Schools Boards of Education have adopted
the Standards.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no immediate financial impacts associated with approval of this
version of the Standards since, based on the November 15, 2006 certified student membership
projections for both school districts, the need for new school construction falls beyond fiscal year
2007-08. In accordance with the draft Standards a School Capital Review Team consisting of
County staff and representatives from each school district, would meet annually, in November,
to review construction and land related costs for actual school projects that have occurred within
the past year. Based on actual expenditures related to school construction, the Review Team
would recommend updated school construction standard costs, which include all of the project
components, for the respective School Boards to review and for the Board of County
Commissioners to approve. In addition to school construction costs, the Review Team would
also review the ten year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process and pay-as-you-go funding
allocations for the upcoming long-range capital plan. The Review Team would take the
Construction Price Index (CPI) and benchmarks set by national education facilities planners into
consideration in recommending updated construction standards.
RECOMMENDATION (S): The Manager recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached School Construction Standards.
14 ,3
School Construction Standards
April 2007 Update
As Proposed by the School/County
Collaboration Work Group
a
I
15
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
School and County Collaboration Work Group Proposal
Traditional and Non-Traditional Models 4
Class Size and School Capacity 5
Square Footage 6
School Site and Minimum Acreage 6
Interior Building Space Allocations
Non-Specialized Classrooms 7
Specialized Classrooms 8
Site Considerations 11
Best Management Practices and.Development Standards 12
Cost Considerations 15
Other Considerations 17
Appendices
Appendix 1. Elementary School Space Profile and Square Footage
Standards
Appendix 2. Middle School Space Profile and Square Footage Standards
Appendix 3. High School Space Profile and Square Footage Standards
(1,000 Student Capacity)
Appendix 4. High School Space Profile and Square Footage Standards
(1,500 Student Capacity)
Appendix 5. School Project Cost Calculation Template
2
16 5
Appendix 6. School Construction Project Components
3
17
School Construction Standards
County/School Collaboration Work Group April 2007 Update
Orange County's current elementary and middle school construction standards have
been in place since 1996, and its high school standards since 1999. While these
standards have served as a model for many schools constructed in both the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City and the Orange County Schools, it has become increasingly difficult to
adhere to the standards due to economic factors such as rising construction costs as
well as educational reforms such as changes in state mandated class sizes for grades
kindergarten through third. In addition, land use regulations and environmental
considerations that incorporate sustainable building components and smart growth
elements are becoming more prevalent in the construction industry. Two separate
School Facilities Task Forces, convened in 2000 and 2002, identified a number of
standards that required clarification and/or updating (e.g. baseline estimates for per
square foot cost, an appropriate inflation factor, percentage of project budget that
should be set aside for contingency, etc.). To that end, the Boards of County
Commissioners and Education recognized the need to update and refine Orange
County's current School Construction Standards, and last year requested that the
School/County Collaboration Work Group review existing School Construction
Standards with the intent of bringing them more in line with today's practices,
regulations, and construction market.
At the time that Orange Commissioners adopted the County's existing School
Construction Standards, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)
had Facilities Standards in place that established minimum construction criteria for
individual school districts to adhere to when they constructed new facilities or renovated
older ones. Since that time, the State has moved away from the "standards concept"
and now has "Facilities Guidelines" in place.
While the intent of the Guidelines remains consistent with the previously enacted State
Standards — to ensure that school systems provide adequate space for instructional
classes and activities — the Guidelines now allow for flexibility and allow for more
consideration of local situations such as availability of land or other limitations that
school districts may face.
The report that follows offers the Work Group's proposal.
4
18
School/County Collaboration Work Group Proposal
Traditional and Non-Traditional Models
The Collaboration Work Group recommends that the Standards make a distinction at all
levels - elementary, middle and high - between "traditional" school models and "non-
traditional" ones.
• Traditional Model —The planning model for a traditional school is set out
in these standards. Capacity of a traditional school would be 585 for
elementary schools, 700 for middle schools and would range from 1,000
to 1,500 for high schools. For the most part, a traditional model would
consist of a site that would have sufficient acreage to allow for future
building expansion, outdoor play areas, full complement of athletic
facilities and on-site parking for faculty, students and buses.
■ Non-Traditional Model — A non-traditional model would be one that
deviates in some way from the traditional model and would be defined on
a project-by-project basis. This model would offer flexibility and
accommodate various local conditions, including the availability, or lack
thereof, of land in addition to a school district's needs.
This report, outlines the Traditional Model at all levels and provides examples of Non-
Traditional Models. The Work Group foresees the need for Non-Traditional Models
becoming more prevalent in the future. Furthermore, the Work Group encourages
School Boards and County Commissioners to consider non-traditional models as they
plan new schools.
5
19
Space Considerations
1) Class Size and School Capacity
The Collaboration Work Group recommends that traditional school capacity be in
accordance with State class size/teaching station requirements as outlined in
North Carolina General Statute 115C-301.
Elementary School - For school year 2006-07, elementary class size/teaching
station requirements are:
• Average of 21 students per class in grades kindergarten through three
• Average of 26 students per class in grades four and five
• 10 students per class in special needs classrooms
Based on the average class sizes outlined above the capacity of a traditional
elementary school totals 585 students — a reduction of 15 students from the
previous County standards of 600 students.
Middle School — Middle school includes grades six through eight. For school
year 2006-07, middle school State class size requirements are:
• Average of 26 students per class in grades six through eight
• 10 students per class in special needs classrooms
Based on the average class sizes outlined above, for school year 2006-07, the
capacity of a traditional middle school averages 700 students.
High School — High school includes grades nine through twelve. For school
year 2006-07, high school class sizes allow for:
• Regular classrooms with a minimum capacity 20. students per
class/teaching station
• Vocational Education class rooms with a capacity ranging from 15 to 20
students per class/teaching station
• All other classrooms range from 15 to 25 students per class/teaching
station
o For example a theater arts class room may have upper range
capacity while exceptional education class rooms would be on the
lower end of the spectrum
For school year 2006-07, the capacity of a traditional high school ranges
between 1,000 and 1,500 students.
The Work Group further recommends that should the General Assembly amend
class sizes at any level, the County's School Construction Standards should be
amended within some reasonable timeframe that would allow for consideration of
6
20
funding and adequate timing of new schools. While the Collaboration Group
does not recommend going above the state mandated class size at any level,
there might be examples in the future where total school capacity may vary from
the Standards. For example, a smaller than traditional school site may create the
need to construct a smaller school or a multi-story one. Other examples include
a non-traditional school that may allow for smaller than mandated class sizes or
may include additional classroom space for pre-kindergarten students.
The chart below compares existing standards with those proposed by the
Collaboration Work Group:
Capacity - Traditional Model
SchoolLevelExisting Standards April 2007 Proposal from School
Collaboration Work Group
Elementary 600 585
Middle 700 700
,High School(Ran e 1 000 1,500 1,000 1 �15 0 0
2) Square Footage
In calculating total square footage of new schools, the Collaboration Work Group
concluded that the prior standards for square footage per student are sufficient.
Given the Work Group's proposed change in elementary class size and total
elementary capacity, as outlined earlier in this report, the proposed elementary
square footage is reduced from the previous standards of 95,235 square feet to
92,840. Statutory class sizes for middle and high school levels remain
unchanged from the previous Standards; therefore, the Work Group
recommends no changes in existing standards for total square footage of middle
and high schools. The chart below compares existing standards with those
proposed by the Collaboration Work Group:
Square Footage -Traditional Model
SchoolLevelExisting Standards April 2007 Proposal from School
Collaboration Work Group
Elementary 95,235 92,840
Middle 132,192 132,192
F High School (Range) 151,0491 251,3451 151,049 251,3451
Square footage of a non-traditional school may be higher or lower than those
outlined by the School Collaboration Work Group. Examples of factors
7
21
considered as non-traditional include community recreational facilities such as a
gymnasium or smaller schools constructed on smaller than traditional sites.
3) Interior Building Space Allocations
a) Non-Specialized Capacity Generating Classrooms/Teaching Stations
Elementary — A traditional elementary school contains 25 non-specialized
classrooms. As stated earlier in this report, the Work Group recommends that
non-specialized classroom sizes for a traditional elementary school be in
accordance with State class size requirements as outlined in North Carolina
General Statute 115C-301. The Statute currently states that kindergarten
through third grade classrooms have capacity for 21 students per class with third
through fifth grade teaching stations having capacity for 26 students per class.
Appendix 1 of this report outlines, by grade level, the capacity and square
footage guidelines for a traditional elementary school.
Middle —A traditional middle school contains 21 regular classrooms with an
individual class size of 26 students plus 6 science classrooms. As outlined in
Appendix 2 square footage for regular traditional middle school classrooms plus
storage total 1,014 square feet and science classrooms including lab storage
space, total 1,200 square feet.
High —A traditional 1,000-student high school contains 24 academic classrooms
allowing for a minimum of 20 students per class in grades nine through twelve. A
traditional 1,500-student high school contains 40 regular classrooms allowing for
26 students per class in grade nine and 29 students per class in grades ten
through twelve.
Square footage for traditional academic high school classrooms allows for in-
room student use computers and ranges from 850 to 950 square feet per
classroom and square footage for science classrooms, including lab storage
space, range from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet.
Appendix 3 of this report outlines capacity and square footage guidelines for
a traditional 1,000 student high school and Appendix 4 provides similar
information for a traditional 1,500 student high school.
b) Specialized Classrooms
Specific functions of each specialized classroom determine the total square
footage needed for each. The narratives below provide overviews of the function
of each specialized classroom while Appendices 1 through 4 provide detailed
space profiles including square footage information for each specialized area.
The Work Group recommends that the existing standards for specialized rooms
remain unchanged for traditional model schools.
8
22
i) Pre-School Area (Elementary Level)
NC Public Schools Facilities Guidelines recommend 1,200 to 1,400 square
feet for pre-kindergarten classrooms. Orange County Standards allow for
one classroom for pre-kindergarten children ages three and four at 1,700
square feet.
ii) Special Needs Classrooms (All Levels)
Programs for exceptional children vary greatly, depending on age of children
and local factors. Additional support spaces may be necessary for
exceptional education purposes depending on the program. Specialized
spaces, such as cooking areas, toilets, bath/shower rooms, laundries,
observation rooms, and special equipment to accommodate certain
disabilities may be required.
iii) Remediation and Resource Labs (All Levels) — School plans should
include one or more small group classrooms for remediation, conferences,
guidance and testing for groups. Smaller group activities may require
additional smaller rooms.
iv) Instrumental and Vocal Classrooms (High School Level) — Student
participation for these programs is often high — it is not unusual for the
number of students in these classrooms to range between 40 and 80.
Orange County Standards provide for a range of 2,800 to 6,600 square feet
for these two classrooms (not including storage).
v) Dance Classroom (High School Level) — Dressing rooms and access to
showers for dance students are desirable in high schools. If located adjacent
to the gymnasium locker rooms, this space can be combined. Orange County
Standards for this function range from 1,800 to 2,000 square feet.
vi) Workforce Development (Middle and High School Levels) — Facilities for
high school, workforce development programs are often large, extensively
equipped and more expensive than regular classrooms because of their
similarity to industry. Square footage included in Appendices 1B and 1C
parallels the State Guidelines. In accordance with State statutes, a basic high
school vocational education program must offer at least three of the workforce
development programs. Many high schools offer all seven programs
including agricultural, health occupations, business, family and consumer
sciences, marketing, technology, and trade and industrial. The number and
types of laboratories depend on local factors. More than one laboratory for a
program such as family and consumer sciences education may be necessary
in larger schools. Another factor to consider is the co-use of the darkroom of
a school. A larger-than-standard darkroom with additional storage could
serve art and science programs as well as workforce development programs.
Existing County high school standards allow for offering all seven programs
9
23 OQ
with allocated space for each program ranging from 10,750 to 16,100 square
feet.
c) Media Center Standards (All Levels) - The capacity for the media center of the
school should be ten percent of the average daily membership of the school.
State guidelines recommend that the media center be located on the ground
floor, be single story and convenient to all learning areas of the school. Minimum
support areas include offices, work/production rooms, conference rooms,
periodical storage, audiovisual equipment storage, and spaces for professional
collections.
State guidelines recommend that the media centers location should not preclude
future expansion of the facility.
When appropriate, school media centers allow for joint use and public access.
Additional technology and security measures are required in order to allow for
public access. During facility planning, the respective School Board, along with
the Board of County Commissioners, would invite local municipalities to
participate, financially and programmatically, in possible joint use opportunities.
d) Physical Education and Gymnasium Standards (All Levels) - The State
square footage guidelines for physical education facilities vary by school level.
Gymnasiums for traditional middle and high school levels should include dressing
and shower areas large enough to accommodate physical education and athletic
programs, offices and storage. Orange County Standards for a traditional middle
school includes locker rooms and weight rooms. Both elementary and middle
school levels allow additional space that would allow after school use including a
multipurpose room. In addition, Orange County Standards for a traditional high
school provide for an auxiliary gym at the 1,000-student profile compared to the
current standards of allowing for an auxiliary gym at the 1,500-student profile.
During initial facility planning and programming states, the respective School
Board, along with the: Board of County Commissioners, would invite local
municipalities to contribute to funding a community use gymnasium or other
athletic facilities such as soccer fields.
e) Administration Standards —The size of the Central Office will vary according to
school level and staffing at each school. Partition construction should allow for
flexibility of space.
Student Support Area Standards - This general area includes counseling
rooms, guidance rooms and health services, social workers, psychologists or
other health professionals.
g) Staff Support Areas Standards - In accordance with State Guidelines, Orange
County Standards allow for shared office and workspace areas for teachers. In
10
24 Is
addition, the existing standards provide work areas for instructional, lab and
teacher assistants along with at least one centralized workroom for copy
machines and other specialized equipment and supplies that are not typically
located in teacher offices/workspaces.
h) Child Nutrition (Cafeteria/Food Service) Standards — Existing Orange County
Standards for all levels provides for a full service kitchen and seating to
accommodate the entire student body in no fewer than three shifts.
i) Dining areas allow for 12 to 14 square feet per pupil dining. The formula for
calculating dining area size is capacity / number of seatings x square foot per
pupil.
ii) State Guidelines calculate kitchen area square footage based on the number
of meals served per day. The chart below outlines the State's Guidelines for
kitchen areas:
Lunches Square
Served Footage
100 856
250 1,261
500 1,518
750 1,938
1,000 2,208
1,250 2,566
1,500 2,880
A non-traditional model may provide a smaller dining area if the district allows for
open lunch (i.e. traveling away from school for the lunch period).
i) Commons/Circulation/Entries/Building Support Standards — This area
includes miscellaneous space such as corridors, stairs, additional storage, book
storage, entries, mechanical areas, and commons areas. In addition, this areas
includes additional restroom facilities, academic house centrums and activities
areas.
25 it
Site Considerations
1) School Site and Minimum Acreage
Traditionally, minimum acreage refers to usable, or developable, acreage.
"Usable" or "developable" acreage refers to those portions of the site where a
school district can construct something – examples include parking, playfields,
buildings, retention ponds, and septic systems. Examples of areas that are not
"usable" or "developable" might include mandated buffers, setbacks, slopes too
steep to be effectively developed, rock outcroppings, wetlands or environmentally
sensitive areas.
School site sizes for non-traditional schools may be higher or lower than those
outlined in the State Guidelines - for example, acreage may deviate from State
Guidelines in order to :
• Accommodate community use of the facility and multiuse recreational
facilities such as soccer and softball fields.
• Account for areas that cannot be built upon, such as steep slopes,
wetlands, rights-of-way, easements, setbacks, buffers or poor soils
• Meet requirement imposed by local ordinances – i.e. restrictions governing
the ratio of land that can be disturbed within a development and the
permitted amount of impervious service will affect the ultimate size of the
site
• Allow for on-site or off-site parking for staff, students, buses and visitors
• Accommodate the expanding number of middle and high school athletic
teams either on-site or off-site — i.e. an additional ten acres or more of
land may be necessary to allow for an athletic stadium and associated
spectator parking.
However, other areas to consider in siting a new school include areas of
population density, public transportation availability and walkability, natural
geographic enhancements or barriers, road patterns, and existing or non-existing
infrastructure such as water, sewer and roadways. School systems should
actively pursue partnering agreements with the Towns and County Parks and
Recreation Departments, private developers, and businesses in an effort to
maximize joint use of facilities. Future projects should also include:
■ Xeriscaping and regulatory buffers
■ Use of synthetic turf for athletic fields or installation of irrigation
systems.
12
26
The chart below compares existing standards with those proposed by the
Collaboration Work Group:
School Site Acreage - Existing Standards - Traditional Model
September 2006 Proposal from
School Level Existing Standards School Collaboration Work
Group
Elementary (10 developable
acres plus one developable 16.0 16.0
acre for each 100 students
Middle (15 developable acres
plus 1 additional developable 22.0 22.0
acre for every 100 students)
High School (Range) (30 40 to 50 for a 45 to 60 for a 40 to 50 for a 45 to 60 for a
developable acres plus 1 1,000 student 1,500 student 1,000 student 1,500 student
additional developable acre for high school high school high school high school
levery 100 students
The Work Group recommends that the acreage standard for a traditional school
model remain unchanged.
With all of the above-mentioned factors considered, the availability of suitable
land and adequate infrastructure may create the need to construct a non-
traditional school on a smaller site.
As the availability of land becomes less and less due to development and land-
use regulations, the Work Group also recommends that the County, both school
districts, Towns, and possibly the University of North Carolina, partner to identify
suitable, available future school sites throughout the County. The partners would
meet periodically to update the database and report the findings to elected
officials on an annual basis.
Best Management Practices and Development Standards
The Board of County Commissioners and both Boards of Education want to be good
fiscal stewards of taxpayer monies. In order to meet this objective, the Work Group
recommends utilizing tools and best management practices that allow for improved
contract negotiations thereby resulting in the best pricing and outcomes possible.
With this objective in mind, the Collaboration Work Group recommends that the
following best management practices serve as guidelines during facility planning.
a) Innovative Development Tools
In North Carolina, school districts have a variety of options for constructing
schools:
13
27
1(0
■ General Statute 143-128 (al) includes (1) Separate Prime Bidding,
(2) Single Prime Bidding, and (3) Dual Bidding
■ General Statute 143-64.31 provides for Construction Management
at Risk
■ General Statute 143-135.26(9) provides for alternative contracting
methods
® Senate Bill 2009 (Senate Law 2006-232) provides for capital leases
of school buildings and school facilities
Both the Construction Manager at Risk and the capital lease options allow
school districts flexibility in setting actual project cost. Examples of
potential benefits associated with these options include:
■ Contract Negotiation - School Boards and staffs become integral
partners within the design build teams that includes the architect
and the contractor. This team develops a maximum project cost, in
a transparent manner, throughout all areas of the design and
development process thereby controlling these costs within the
design phase.
■ Flexibility - While school systems had the statutory authority to
lease facilities in the past, with the ratification of Senate Bill 2009 in
2006, through public-private partnerships between Boards of
Education and contractors, school districts now have opportunities
for to enter into "build-to-suit" contracts. School districts have
opportunities to identify where the district needs schools, and to
provide design, programming and construction specifications to the
developer.
■ Future Maintenance of Facility — In accordance with Senate Bill
2009, as part of contract negotiation, responsibility for future facility
maintenance/repairs and energy usage guarantees can be
assigned to the developer and not the school system.
■ Ownership — Per Senate Bill 2009, transfer of ownership of the
leased property may occur at the end of the lease term or
ownership may stay with the developer.
■ Time Savings — Contract negotiations offered through public-private
partnerships can potentially be conducted more quickly than more
traditional public methods. While entities may not realize major
cost savings in building costs, there may be savings attributed to
beating inflation.
14
28
Based on County staff discussions with Local Government Commission
(LGC) staff over the last few months, it is important to note, that the LGC
considers capital leases as outstanding debt for County governments.
b) "Large Developer' Status
For the most part, local communities view school systems and
governmental agencies as "large developers". While this situation offers
purchasing advantages on some fronts, it is also a situation that staffs
must manage effectively. Being viewed as a "large developer" often sets
"higher than normal" pricing standards in the construction market. As an
example, past practice has been that local governments and school
districts make construction project budgets known before the bid process
beginning. An unintended consequence of this practice has been that
development and construction markets tend to "re-adjust" their standards
upwardly, and bids more than likely come in at the "pre approved" level or
higher rather than coming in at less than the "pre-approved" level.
c) Value Transference to Stakeholders
"Value Transference" is defined as the value that an external entity or
stakeholder receives when schools and governmental entities such as
counties or towns invest in particular communities. Individuals,
businesses, and other public as well private entities benefit from school
and other governmental capital investments into a community. The impact
of such investments should be recognized in development practices and
principles relative to the potential revenues from the private sector that this
value transference creates. For example, schools and co-located
recreational facilities inure to the retail value of residential building lots and
existing homes. This value transference to the owner and/or developer of
this real estate may be recouped in the form of impact fees, transfer taxes
or other reasonable proffers.
d) Financial Strength
Strong financial conditions of Orange County and both the Chapel Hill
Carrboro and Orange County school districts should allow for negotiating
positions and purchasing power within land use design, development and
operations.
All of the practices outlined above offer guidelines to consider as each district
proposes new school construction projects.
15
29
Cost Considerations
As a starting point for this update, in setting the budget for future school construction
it is important that the building cost per square foot reflect historical costs of
constructing new schools (both locally and statewide) as well as consider the current
construction market. A School Capital Review Team consisting of County staff and
representatives from each school district, would meet annually, in November, to
review construction and land related costs for actual school projects that have
occurred within the past year. Based on actual expenditures related to school
construction, the Review Team would recommend updated school construction
standard costs, which include all of the project components, for the respective
School Boards to review and for the Board of County Commissioners to approve. In
addition to school construction costs, the Review Team would also review the ten-
year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process and pay-as-you-go funding allocations
for the upcoming long-range capital plan. The Review Team would take the
Construction Price Index (CPI) and benchmarks set by national education facilities
planners into consideration in recommending updated construction standards.
With historical practices, construction project budgets were established and
broadcast at the onset of project planning thereby "pre-setting" the budget for the
market to react to with the ultimate result of the construction community matching or
exceeding the budget. However, with future projects, the approach would vary
somewhat by not "pre-setting" the budget ahead of the bidding process. A more
conservative approach would be for the School Capital Review Team to create a tool
that analyzes historical costs of like projects (elementary to elementary, middle to
middle, etc.) across all project components. Appendix 5 offers an example of the
template that would serve as an analytical tool for developing construction 'project
,budgets. Note to'read6rs,—,Appendix.5 is pending finalization byCo 'ty and School
, un
staffs to rn I ost recent ,school construction costs,, related, t6., Chapel Hill
Carrboro City Schools: Elementary:.41.0. 'as ap proved bV; Board CouQtV
............ ..................... ........... ...................... Board. ...... County
.....
Commissioners on,March .11 2007.. This tool allows for a comparable cost analysis
without establishing any advantages or expectations to the marketplace.
The following section defines individual construction project components, and
Appendix 6 provides the information in a chart format. Staff plans to develop
construction project budgets and track actual expenditures in accordance with the
project components outlined in the chart. At the end of the project, staff will prepare
a final reconciliation and budget variance analysis for Commissioners and School
Boards to review.
a) Site Acquisition
Site acquisition costs include costs associated with acquiring a site. Examples of
these costs include the actual purchase price of the property along with costs of
property survey, appraisals and deed recordings, testing to include soils, cultural,
16
30
archeological, environmental, suitability, and legal fees associated with purchase
and recording the property.
For purposes of this update, it is recommended that the per acre price be
consistent with the fair market value of land at the time of purchase. The School
Capital Review Team would review market value of land each year during the
process outlined earlier in this report.
b) Site Development
Site development should be broken out into two sub-categories:
i) Hard Construction —Site &Vertical Tasks
Costs included in this category cover the "usual" costs of all construction
activities associated with preparing a school site for construction (both
"horizontal" [dirt] and "vertical" [building] construction). Examples of items to
budget in this category include pre-grading and final grading of the site to
include playing fields and playgrounds, installation of storm water run-off
drainage, testing for soil suitability (rock), extension and/or installation of
utilities, building structure and systems (includes General Contractor and all
Sub-Contractors; satisfying municipal requirements such as storm water run-
off drainage; and landscaping to include, when feasible, xeriscaping.
ii) Hard Construction —Off-Site
This category includes construction activities for the surrounding area (costs
of "horizontal" construction). It does not include hard construction costs
associated directly with the building and direct site (see Section 2 a above).
Historically, these costs have been high in cost and are unique to individual
projects. Examples of off-site development costs include water and sewer
installations/extensions to the site, off-site road intersection improvements
including, roundabouts, turn lanes and traffic signals or other traffic control
devices, sidewalks, off-site environmental mitigation, construction of trails
and/or greenway systems and other municipal or state requirements. All
design work associated with these costs outlined in this section would be
considered "Hard Construction — Off-Site" costs.
c) Moveable Equipment
Examples of readily moveable equipment include office furniture (desks, chairs,
files, bookcases), cafeteria equipment (tables, seating, ovens, stoves,
dishwashers), conference room furniture, gymnasium bleachers and athletic field
bleachers.
d) One-Time Start up Costs
Examples of one-time start up costs may include media center collections,
classroom textbooks and & supplies, musical instruments, science lab materials,
art materials, playground equipment, cafeteria utensils and trays, athletic
17
31 '9C)
supplies and equipment (wrestling mats, basketball goals, scoreboards), athletic
and band uniforms, custodial cleaning equipment, lawn maintenance equipment,
recycling and trash containers, postage machines, specialized equipment such
as pianos, and signage.
2) Other Considerations
a) High Performance Buildings
During the planning process, school districts should give special attention to
incorporating fiscally sound energy efficiencies and sustainable green building
standards that use renewable/recyclable materials, improve the environment and
air quality, and reduce energy usage. Ways to achieve this include:
■ Choosing efficient lighting systems and energy management controls
■ Incorporating solar orientation, earth integration, and xeriscaping
(landscaping with slow-growing, drought tolerant plants to conserve water
and reduce trimmings)
■ Selecting energy efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems
■ Adopting energy alternatives and other conservation measures such as
day lighting, water reclamation and reuse systems, water free urinals,
photovoltaics, and xeriscaping
School systems should analyze life cycle costs of high performance systems to
determine their efficiency and sustainability.
b) Materials
Construction contractors and School district staff should select construction
materials based on low maintenance and high durability. The presumed life
cycle of new schools is fifty or more years.
c) Generator Ready Schools
Construction plans for all future schools should include the facility being
"generator ready" so that they can serve as emergency shelters as needed.
d) Other Considerations
Other site considerations might include:
i) Types of landscaping and buffers at all school sites
ii) Installing synthetic playing fields or equipping athletic fields with irrigation
systems
18
32
iii) Installing covered walkways at student drop-off areas, main entrances and
bus loading areas
iv) Reducing student drop-off lanes
It is also important to note that the cost of the regulatory process has historically
been high and require from 12 to 24 months before the construction project can
begin.
19
33
April 2007
Footage Per
Number of Capacity per Classroom/T
Classrooms/ Classroom/ eaching
Teaching Teaching Total K-5 Station or Total Square
Stations Station Capacity Function Footage
Capacity Generating Spaces:
Kindergarten classrooms 4 21 84 1,240 4,960
First Grade Classrooms 4 21 84 1,240 4,960
Second Grade Classrooms 4 21 84 1,240 4,960
Third Grade Classrooms 4 21 84 1,240 4,960
Fourth Grade Classrooms 4 1 26 104 1,2401 4,960
Fifth grade classrooms 4 1 26 1041 1,2401 4,960
Flex Class Room Space 1 1 21 211 1,2401 1,240
Special/Exceptional Rooms/Speech Language 7 varies 20 807 5,649
Total Capacity Generating Teaching Stationsl 32 585 36,649
Square
Footage Per
Number of Capacity per Classroom/T
Classrooms/ Classroom/ eaching
Teaching Teaching Total K-5 Station or Total Square
Stations Station Capacity Function Footage
Non-Capacity Spaces
Pre-K classrooms 1 1,700 1,700
Administration 1 1,950 1,950
Art and Music 1 2,850 2,850
Book Storage 1 800 800
Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 4,700 4,700
Custodial Storage 1 500 500
Physical Education 1 5,250 5,250
Media Center 1 4,200 4,200
Science Project Room 1 1,200 1,200
Small Group Resource Rooms 3 450 1,350
Small Project Room 2 200 400
Staff Support Area-Teacher Offices&Work
Rooms 1 4,600 4,600
Staff Support Area-Conference Rooms 2 250 500
Staff Support Area-General Conference Room 1 200 200
Staff Support Area-Speech/Language Conference
Room 2 200 400
Staff Support-Teacher Lounge&Work Area 1 1,000 1,000
Staff Support-Itinerant Support 3 100 300
Student Commons 1 1,000 1,000
Student Support Area-Health 1 300 300
Student Support Area-Counseling 1 900 900
Circulation(including Additional Toilets 1 22,091 22,091
Total ElementaEy School Square Footage Ca aci Generating and Non-CapaciW, 92,840
34 e
April 2007
Total ElementaEM Square Foot Per Student 158.7
350
April 2007
� • • - • . • • • • F-M IT, • rM. • .
Footage Per
Number of Capacity per Classroom/T
Classrooms/ Classroom/ eaching Total
Teaching Teaching Total 6-8 Station or Square
Stations Station Capacity Function Footage
Capacity Generating Spaces
Sixth-Eighth Grade Classrooms(Language Arts,
Social Studies,Math) 21 26 546 1,014 21,2941
Sixth-Eighth Grade Science Classrooms 6 26 156 1,200 7200
Total Capacity Generating Teaching Stations 27 `!702 28,494
Square
Footage Per
Number of Capacity per Classroom/T
Classrooms/ Classroom/ eaching Total
Teaching Teaching Total 6-8 Station or Square
Stations Station Capacity Function Footage
Non-Capacity Spaces
Academic House Centrums 3 -1,000 3 000
Activities Lobb 1 500 500
Administration 1 1,850 1,850
Art Education and Music(Cultural Arts) 1 10 730 10 730
Book Storage/Central Supply Storage 1 1 800 1 800
Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 5,240 5,240
Exploratories
Foreign Language Classrooms 2 1,000 2,000
Career Explorations Lab&Resource Room 1 1,000 1 000
Applied Technology Lab&Resource Room 1 3,500 3,50
Consumer Education Lab&Resource Room 1 1,500 1,50
Computer Lab& Resource Room 1 1,000 1,00
Video Production Room 1 1,000 1 000
Physical Education 1 13,700 13,70
Media Center 1 5,700 5,700
Parent/Community Room 1 400 400
Receiving Area 1 001 200
Special/Exceptional Rooms/Speech
Language/Resource Rooms 5 660 3 300
Staff Support Area-Conference Rooms(one per
rade level) 3 250 750
Staff Support-Teacher Lounge&Work Area 1 45uj 50
Staff Support-Teacher Offices&Workrooms 1 4,60011 4,601)
Student Commons 1 1,50011 1,500
Student Project Room 3 750 2 250
Student Support Area-Health 1 700 700
Student Support Area-Counseling 1 1,750 1,750
Circulation(including Additional Toilets 1 34,272 34,2
Total Middle School Square Footage(Capacity Generating and Non-Capacity) 131,178
Total Middle Square Foot Per Student 186.9
36 a
April 2007
W • •- • .• • • •• . •. 111 • -
ill
Square Footage(Range)
Number of Capacity per Per Teaching Station or
Function Total S uare Footage
Classrooms/ Classroom/
Teaching Teaching Total 9-12
Capacity Generating Spaces Stations Station Capacity From To From To
Academic Classrooms(English,Foreign Language,
Social Studies Math) 1 25 1 20 5001 850 950 21,250 23,750
Science Labs,Prep&Storage
Physical Science 2 20 40 1,200 1,200 2,400 2,400
Biology 2 20 40 1,200 1,200 2,400 2,400
Physics 2 20 40 1,200 1,200 2,400 2,400
Earth Science 1 20 20 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400
Chemistry 1 20 20 1,500 1500 1,500 1,500
Special/Exceptional Children Self-Contained 3 15 45 800 1,200 2,400 3,60
Instrumental Classroom with Lockers 1 20 20 1,800 2,100 1,800 2,100
Vocal Classroom 1 20 20 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,500
Visual Arts Classroom 1 20 20 1,200 1,500 1,200 1,500
Theater Arts Classroom 1 20 20 1,800 2,000 1,800 2,000
Dance Classroom(including Storage) 1 20 20 1,800 2,000 1 800 2,000
Workforce Development(includes Agricultural,
Business,Family&Consumer Sciences,Health depending on type of
Occupations,Marketing including a store, ranges from classroom,ranges from
Technology,Trade&Industrial) 11 15 to 20 145 850 to 3000 10,750 1610
G nasium-IAuxilia i =25 0 6 00 6,200
Gymnasium-Main 1 50 50 6 200 6 200 6 200 6,20:
Total Capacity Generating Teaching Stations 54 1,000 30,150 58,300 68,850
Square Footage(Range)
NPer Teaching Station or
Number of Capacity per
Function Total S uare Footage
Classrooms/ Classroom/
Teaching Teaching Total 9-12
Non-Capacity Spaces Stations Station Capacity From To From To
Adminstration 1 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
Arts Education
Instrument Storage Room 1 400 600 400 600
Music Library 1 200 200 200 200
Instrument Repair 1 1601 150 150 150
Office 1 150 150 150 150
Uniform Storage 1 400 600 400 600
Practice Room 1 55 60 55 60
Ensemble Practice Room 1 150 200 150 200
Kiln/Clav Storage 1 40 60 40 60
Art Material Storage 1 80 150 80 150
Theater Arts Auditorium(8'per seat;capacity
ranges from 1/3 to 1/2 of total school capacity) 1 2,667 4,000 2 667 4,0001
Stage,Storage&Dressing Rooms 1 3 000 5,000 3,000 5,0001
Light,Lock Vestibui Lobby Consessions 1 800 2,000 800 2,0001
Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 8,480 11,214 8,480 11 214
Exceptional Education Resource Room 1 450 450 450 450
Media Center
Main Room 5 square feet per total school ca ac' 1 5,000 5 000 5,000 5,000
Support Areas 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Video Studio 1 400 400 400 400
Control/Editing1 260 260 2601 260
Equipment Stora e 1 801 801 801 80
37 as
April 2007
� • •- • . • • • •• . •. 111 •-
Square Footage(Range) 7
Number of Capacity per Per Teaching Station or
Classrooms/ Classroom/ Function Total S uare Footage
Teaching Teaching Total 9-12
Capacity Generating Spaces Stations Station Capacity From To From To
Physical Education
Spectator Seating(ranges from 400'to 500'per 100
seats) 1 4,000 5 000 4,000 5,000
Gymnasium Dressing,Shower Storage,Lobby 1 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Wrestling(competitive) 1 3,000 3,000 3,000 3 000
Resistive Exercise(Weight Liffin 1 2,000 3,000. 2,000 3,000
Staff Support Areas
Group Teacher Office/Planning r teacher 45 80 100 3 600 4,500
Special Assistant/Itinerant Teacher Office/Work
Space 7 80 100 560 700
Workroom 1 300 800 300 800
Lounge 1 3001 1,333 300 1,333,
Storage/Prep Rooms(Biology,Chemistry,Physics) 2 500 500 1,000 1,000
Student Support Areas
Guidance 1 300 300 300 300
Reception/Career Center 1 400 400 400 400
Counselor Office 3 150 1501 450 450
Other Student Services 1 200 200 200 200
Health Room 1 200 200 200 200
Circulation/Commons/Entries/Building Support(45%) 1 46,877 56,703 46,777 55,503
Total High School Square Footage(Capacity Generating and Non-Ca ac' 151,049 162,710
Total High Square Foot Per Student 151.0 182.7
38 0
April 2007
Square Footage(Range)
NPer Teaching Station or
Number of Capacity per
Function Total S uare Footage
Classrooms/ Classroom/
Teaching Teaching Total 9.12
Capacity Generating Spaces Stations Station Capacity From I To From To
Academic Classrooms(English,Foreign Language,
Social Studies Math) 40 20 800 850 950 34,000 38,000
Science Labs,Prep&Storage
Physical Science 3 20 60 1,200 1,200 3,600 3,600
Biology 4 20 80 1,200 1,200 4,800 4,800
Physics 2 20 40 1,200 1,200 2,400 2,400
Earth Science 2 20 40 1,400 1,400 2,800 2,800
Chemistry 3 20 60 1,500 1,500 4,500 4,500
Special/Exceptional Children Self-Contained 3 15 45 800 1 200 2,400 3.600
Instrumental Classroom with Lockers 1 20 20 1,800. 2,100 1,800 2,100
Vocal Classroom 1 20 20 1 000 1,505 1,000 1,500
Visual Arts Classroom 2 20 40 1,200 1,500 2,400 3,000
Theater Arts Classroom 1 20 20 1 800 2,000 11,80D 2 000
Dance Classroom(including Storage) 2 20 40 1,800 2,000 3,600 4,000
Workforce Development(includes Agricultural,
Business,Family&Consumer Sciences,Health depending on type of
Occupations,Marketing including a store, ranges from classroom,ranges from
Technology,Trade&Industrial) 13 15 to 20 160 850 to 3000 10,750 16,100
Gymnasium-Auxiliary1 25 25 6.200 6,200 10,750 16100
Gymnasium-Main 1 50 50 6 200 6 200 6,200 6 200
Total Capacity Generating Te ching Stations 79 1,500 30,150 92,800 110,700
Square Footage(Range)
Number of Capacity per Per Teaching Station or
Function Total S uare Footage
Classrooms/ Classroom/
Teaching Teaching Total 9-12
Non-Capacity Spaces Stations Station Capacity From To From To
Adminstration 1 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,90
Arts Education
Instrument Storage Room 1 400 600 400 600
Music Ubrary 1 200 200 200 200
Instrument Repair 1 1501 150 1501 150
Office 1 150 150 150 150
Uniform Storage 1 400 600 400 600
Practice Room 1 55 60 55 60
Ensemble Practice Room 1 150 200 150 200
Kiln/Clay Storage 1 40 60 40 60
Art Material Storage 1 80 150 80 150
Theater Arts Auditorium(8'per seat;capacity
ranges from 1/3 to 1/2 of total school capacity) 1 4,000 6 000 4,000 6,000
Stage,Storage&Dressing Rooms 1 3 000 5,000 3,000 5,000
Li ht Lock Vestibul Lobby Consessions 1 800 2,000 800 2,000
Cafeteria/Child Nutrition 1 8,4801 11,214 8 480 11,214
Exceptional Education Resource Room 1 450 4501 450 450
Media Center
Main Room 5 square feet per total school ca aci 1 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Support Areas 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Video Studio 1 400 400 400 400
Control/Editin 1 260 260 260 260
Equipment Stora e 1 80 80 80 80
39 0
Apri12007
AM •IT , • • • • • . •, ii • -
Square Footage(Range)
NPer Teaching Station or
Number of Capacity per
Function Total S ware Footage
Classrooms/ Classroom/
Teaching Teaching Total 9-12
Capacity Generating Spaces Stations Station Capacity From To From To
Physical Education
Spectator Seating(ranges from 400'to 500'per 100
seats) 1 4 000 5,000 4,000 5,000
Gymnasium Dressing,Shower Storage,Lobby 1 3,000 3,000 3,000 3 000
Wrestling(competitive) 1 3 000 3,000 3,000 3,00
Resistive Exercise(Weight Min 1 2,000 3,000 2,000 3,000
Staff Support Areas
Group Teacher Office/Planning(per teacher 45 80 100 3,600 4,500
Special Assistant/itinerant Teacher Office/Work
Space 7 80 100 560 700
Workroom 1 300 800 300 800
Lounge 1 300 1,3331 300 1,333
Storage/Prep Rooms(Biology,Chemistry,Physics) 2 500 500 1 000 1 000
Student Support Areas
Guidance 1 300 300 300 300
Reception/Career Center 1 400 400 400 400
Counselor Office 3 150 150 450 450
Other Student Services 1 200 200 200 200
Health Room 1 200 200 200 200
Circulation/Commons/Entries/Building Support(45%) 1 46,877 56,703 65,634 77,788
Total High School Square Footage(Capacity Generating and Non-Ca ac' 211,487 251,345
Total High Square Foot Per Studenti 141.0 167.6
40
Appendix 6. School Construction Project Components
• Purchase and contracted pricing of property
•
Site Acquisition—Tasks and Survey
costs associated with acquiring Deed recording
a site Appraisals
• Soils, environmental, suitability testing
• Legal fees associated with purchase and recording
• Pre-grading
• Grading to include playing fields and playgrounds
Hard Construction —Site & Installation of storm water run-off drainage
Vertical Tasks and costs of Soil suitability testing (rock)
"horizontal" and "vertical" Utility extension/installation
construction: all construction 0 Sidewalks
activities for the actual site * Turn lanes
and building 9 Building Structure and Systems (includes General
Contractor and all Sub-Contractors
• Municipal Requirements
• Landscaping
Hard Construction—Off-
Site 0 Off-site Traffic Improvements
Tasks and costs of 0 Water and Sewer Service to the Site
"horizontal" construction: all 9 Off-Site Environmental Mitigation
construction activities for the 9 Trails and Greenway System
surrounding area, not 0 Related Design
including the building and
direct site
0 Prime Construction Contracts (includes general
Construction Costs— contractor, electrical contractor, HVAC contractor,
Costs of constructing a new plumbing contractor)
facility or renovating an * Other construction related work
existing one 9 Sprinkler
9 Expanded Water Flows
41 (2D
Appendix 6. School Construction Project Components
• Architectural/Engineering/CM services (examples:
educational specifications and programming,
schematics and design development, bidding,
construction documents, construction administration,
reimbursables, furniture selection) for Site and Building
• On-site engineering control inspections
Fees—All non-construction Materials testing
costs ("soft costs") related to 0 Survey, Topographic and boundary studies
the direct site and building 9 Local government applications and permit fees
(examples: special use permits, conditional use permits,
zoning permits, building permits, NCDENR, NCDOT
fees)
0 Specialized consultants (examples:traffic engineer,
environmental specialist, project scheduler/expeditor)
• Connect fees to utilities
• Technology infrastructure (examples: wiring or fiber
optics)
Technology Computer equipment (examples: computers, printers,
scanners, servers routers, switchers, CD-ROM drives,
laser disc players)
• Fire/Security alarm systems
• Televisions, video recorders & cameras, satellite dishes
• Telephone system
• Technology consulting services
• Office furniture (examples: desks, chairs, files,
bookcases)
Moveable Equipment- Cafeteria equipment (examples: tables, seating, ovens,
Readily moveable equipment stoves, dishwashers)
• Conference room furniture
• Gymnasium bleachers
• Athletic field bleachers
• Media center collections
• Classroom textbooks & supplies (including musical
instruments, science lab materials, art materials, etc)
• Playground equipment
One-Time Start up • Cafeteria small wares (examples: utensils, trays)
Costs Athletic supplies and equipment (examples: wrestling
mats, basketball goals, scoreboards, etc.)
• Athletic and band uniforms
• Custodial cleaning equipment
• Lawn maintenance equipment
• Recycling &trash containers
• Postage machines
• Specialized equipment such as pianos
I • Specialized signage
42 30
APPROVED 612612007
MINUTES
WORK SESSION
Orange County Commissioners
Orange County Board Of Education
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education
April 30, 2007
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint session with the Chapel Hill—
Carrboro Board of Education and the Orange County Board of Education on Monday, April 30,
2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County
Manager Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker(All other staff members will be
identified appropriately below)
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Dennis
Whitling, Vice-Chair Ted Triebel, and Board Members Elizabeth Brown, Debbie Piscitelli, Anne
Medenbleck, Al Hartkopf, and Susan Hallman. Superintendent Shirley Carraway was also
present.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT:
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS
PRESENT: Chair Jamezefta Bedford, Vice Chair Pam Hemminger, and Board Members Jean
Hamilton, Lisa Stuckey, Annetta Streater, and Mike Kelley. Superintendent Neil Pedersen was
also present.
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORQ CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS
ABSENT: Elizabeth Carter
Chair Carey made reference to the handout on school collaboration efforts.
CHCCS Board Chair Jamezefta Bedford said that this is a very lengthy agenda, and she
hopes that each item will be given a time limit so that everything can be done.
Dennis Whitling said that they have some full and frank discussions at the school
collaboration meetings and he appreciated the Board of County Commissioners listening to
them.
Chair Carey said that this meeting is generally not designed for decision-making, except
for talking about the next steps on a particular item.
Chair Carey said that Commissioner Gordon may be here later and Jamezefta Bedford
said that Liz Carter might be here later also.
1. County/OCS/CHCCS Matters
a. School Construction Standards Policy
Laura Blackmon said that the collaboration group is working to update these standards.
All three boards have seen an early draft in September 2006. The current draft is the 4th one,
and there have not been any changes from the initial one. She said that there are three things
that are relatively new that have to do with non-traditional schools, Smart Growth initiatives, and
trying to deal with the increasing costs of school construction. Also, there are some issues
-
43 �J\
about capital funding, and the standards will play enimportant part onhow to develop the
capital investment plan for the next ten years. There will also beonupdate onthe impact fee,
and there ioocontract inthe works with aconsultant.
Commissioner Gordon orTimed at7:44PM.
Debbie Piscitelli asked about start up costs and if a school is expanding or adding on,
would the start upcosts be incorporated.
Budget Director Donna Coffey said that they did not discuss expansion of facilities, but
more construction ofnew schools. She said that the collaboration group could discuss this otm
future meeting.
Debbie Pisciba||isaid that from the OCGstandpoint, they are looking sdbuilding new
schools versus expansion and she would like to know where the start up costs come in. Donne
Coffey said that non-personnel start up costs have always been a part of construction
standards.
Dennis\&hi1|iOgsaid that itlooks like the numbers have changed. Donna Coffey said that
appendices 1-4are the numbers from the State DPI model.
Jameszetta Bedford made reference to page 17 and said that the language has changed
about the generators. |tused tosay"might ino|ude," and now itsays, "all will ino|ude." She was
not adthe last collaboration meeting, and she does not know ifthis was adeliberate decision.
Donna Coffey said that this was a topic of discussion at the last meeting, and that is the wording
that the group decided on. She said that though they may make new schoO|GgeDe[atPF'Feady.
itwould depend onthe Red Cross aatowhich schools would be shelters.
Commissioner Gordon said that she appreciated the staff getting her adraft ofthe
information. She made reference to the traditional versus non-traditional and said that the
traditional has not changed much. She asked about the definition mfonon-traditional school.
She asked ifitwas acoos+bn-ooaobasis and all agreed.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 13 and the last bullet in the middle of the
page, "Accommodate the expanding number of middle and high school athletic teams either on-
site or off-site." She said that with Cedar Ridge and Carrboro High Schools, they were started
with core facilities and a core amount of students and then expanded to build the bigger facility.
Commissioner Gordon made reference topage 15and "Future Maintenance of
Facility.responsibility for future facility maintenance/repairs and energy usage guarantees can
be assigned tothe developer and not the school system." She asked ifthis was completely in
the bill and Donna Coffey said that it was.
Commissioner Gordon asked about page 17 and the possibility of a School Capital Review
Team consisting ofCounty staff and representatives from each school district. She asked about
the County staff. Laura Blackmon said that this is what was talked about with Jeff Thompson.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a definite improvement and the non-traditional is on
a case bvcase basis. He made one edit oDpage 12. Instead of"As the availability ofland
becomes less and Amsa'" hesuggested "deoreasea." Regarding possibilities, hawould like{o
include co-location ofelibrary every time aschool iubuilt.
Commissioner Gordon said that there is a memorandum of understanding about co-
locating facilities, and this mechanism ioalready in place.
Chair Carey said that the next step is for all is to take this document back to the boards to
adopt oapresented.
b. Landbankinq History and Goals
Laura Blackmon said that this is an outgrowth of school construction standards and siting
schools in the future.
Chair Carey said that the intent was to step up the engagement of the towns and the
County in working with the staff and the two school systems to make sure that school sites are
44 �7
identified and preserved. The collaboration work group asked that aletter bosent tothe towns
tothis effect. There has been aresponse from Carrboro only.
Dennis Whitling said that the OCS Board met with the Town of Hillsborough and discussed
this topic, and the two boards were on the oorne page. He said that[)C8 in moving forward with
the Town ofHillsborough onsome ideas.
Chair Carey asked about oproposed meeting with the Town mfMebane and Dennis
VVhUUingsaid that there are plans bJdothis.
Superintendent Pedersen asked about next steps after they get responses and contacts
and who would take the lead in this pnzoeaa.
Chair Carey said that the Board has not discussed this yet. Hgsaid that once contacts
have been identified then Orange County staff could facilitate the first meeting with all the
entities.
Commissioner Gordon made reference toahandout she distributed at the County
Commissioners' meeting onMarch 27m. She said that the general idea ofthese groups getting
together was implemented bvthe Schools and Land Use Council years ago. ThaSLUC
initiated the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. She said that she supports this
general idea ofland banking. She said that there was oschool/parks reserve fund atone time,
where the County Commissioners had set aside one cent onthe property tax for|and-bonking'
but the Commissioners eventually stopped allocating money toit. She said that ifthis group
meets, there should bediscussion about how the sites will be purchased.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that[J[:S get with the Planning Department, who did a
fiscal analysis ofthe Collins property. The developer has not committed 10any commercial
density, which may convert to more residential density and would have more of an adverse
impact oOthe school system.
Chair Carey asked the Manager and Planning Director to share this document with the
school boards.
C.
Capital Funding Policy, Including Loftery Proceeds
Laura Blackmon said that on April 24th the Board of County Commissioners approved the
capital funding policy, which included the updated position on the lottery proceeds. The Board
decided to come back in the fall and do the ten-year capital improvement plan. The Board
approved budgeting the lottery proceeds iOarrears for renovation projects VrdeLdservice.
Chair Carey said that this policy, aaitrelates tothe lottery proceeds, has been discussed
inthe school collaboration work group adleast twice.
Ted Triebel said that he did not see before now that the N.C. Department of Public
Instruction (page two) has said that the County could request lottery funds before actually
spending them oolong aGthe County anticipates making the expenditure within the fiscal year.
He said that he understands this tOsay that they are going toget funds and bank them for a
year, and then expend them. Hoasked for clarification onthis.
Donna Coffey said that by statute the lottery commission is to make four deposits into the
mcoountinmnyfonnatthattheyvvant—notnemeaaah|yeneryquartmr. She said that the County
can request as much money as it wants, but it will not get it until the money is in the account.
The funds need toboexpended within the year. She clarified that the funds dodraw interest ot
the state level.
Several school board members asked clarifying questions,which were answered by
Donna Coffey and Laura Blackmon.
Jamezetta Bedford thanked the Board of County Commissioners for giving the school
boards the flexibility onhow touse the funds. She made reference 10page seven and the
construction management function. She asked ifthere was ofairer way toallocate funds rather
than the number ofstudents. Dennis VVh|U|ngagreed.
45 33
Chair Carey said that this document has already been adopted, but the Board can amend
it later.
d. Fund Balance Policy
Laura 8|ochnlon said that since 1S86the school avotemna have maintained ofund balance.
The CHCCG has maintained 5.596 and OCS has maintained 2.7%. She said that there have
been nochanges implemented inthe policy since 138O. This ioonthe agenda for discussion to
see ifchanges need tobomade tothis.
Dennis VVhidin0said that this may be something the school collaboration group can look at
for review and/or updating.
Superintendent Pedersen said that CHCCS is using $500,000 from fund balance for
Elementary School#10 and $500,000 for startup costs for Carrboro High School. Hesaid that
there has been a struggle with the budget for Carrboro High School, and they have identified
$500,000 for one-time purchases for startup programs for the new school.
Chair Carey thanked Superintendent Pedersen for making the Board aware of this for the
first time. Hathinks that the County Commissioners would like kJthink this over.
Superintendent Pedersen said that there is a need for cash reserves to cover payroll when
the school system ianot collecting any district taxes. Hasaid that CHCCGhas looked tothe
Board of County Commissioners for assistance in the past when this has happened. He said
that he is comfortable with the 5.596 fund balance.
Commissioner Gordon said that if either school board has anything to mention about their
fund balances, then please let the County Commissioners know, such as if the targets are not
right, what bJuse itfor, etc. She said that there has been olot ofmisunderstanding about this
issue.
Dennis Whitling said that in OCS, the creation of a fund balance is a savings from year tm
year that accumulates. He said that he understands the concept Ofusing fund balance for non-
recurring itomns. He said that when their operation budget is not fully funded, then money must
bataken from the fund balance. |1imalso ajudgment that the school board has tomake about
funding programs or waiting.
Debbie PiociteUisaid that when spending occurs between now and the end ofthe fiscal
year, this can make people upset, and this should be addressed.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the larger the County's fund balance, the better the bond
rating, and they want to build back their fund balance to increase the bond rating. Hesaid that
when schools need money, the County takes itout ofits own fund balance. Hesaid that oolong
aothe County has ogood fund balance, everyone has agood fund balance.
Ted Triebel asked about a target goal for the County and Donna Coffey said that the Local
Government Commission recommends O96. The County's internal target io15Y6' but ithas not
been this large iD a long time.
Jean Hamilton asked about the County's bond rating and it was answered Triple A. Choir
Carey said that the bond rating agencies do not tell entities what they need to boost or lower the
bond rating.
Laura Blackmon said that bond natana aro looking for consistency.
Chair Carey said that the school collaboration work group will discuss this topic.
e.
Fair Funding/Equity
Taura Blackmon said that the joint boards had looked at this topic last year. Attachments
EAE-2. and E-3 were the minutes from the Fair Funding Work Group meeting inMay 2OO6.
the recommendations, and the goal statement with regards to the recommendation of the Fair
Funding Work Group.
Commissioner Gordon said that the school collaboration work group should take this topic
up.
46 �f
Dennis Whitlingsaid that, onthe capital side, OCShas done what islisted, such as the
lottery proceeds. He said that the operating side is stickier. He said that he thought hesaw o
memo about the 4D.1%target, and this iaintegral tothe recommendation.
Chair Carey said that itioimportant[okeep the issue offair funding onthe agenda. He
suggested having the school collaboration work group discuss it again.
Liz Brown said that the OC8Board has talked about this, and she thinks that with the talk
ofnotax increase,that the work onthe fair funding was pointless. She said that getting more
equity iodifferent from getting more funding for the schools. She said that itseems that this
year is a year that the County Commissioners should look at giving more money to the OCS
children.
Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners have said that they want to target the tax
increase adthe level required&ocover the debt service from all ofthe capital projects thatthe
schools and the County have. Hesaid that the Board will 0othrough the process ofadopting
the budget agalways, and will dothe best itcan for both school systems.
Liz Brown said that she differs with the subjects that are discussed in the school
collaboration work group because it seems that they have spent a lot of time discussing
buildings and tax increases for buildings,which will not be for[)CS' She said that C)C8needs
more money for programs. She would like tosee the whole County work together otdiscussing
that issue. She said that they have spent four years dancing around this issue of fair funding.
Chair Carey said that the recommendation from the work group came forth iOMay and the
Board of County Commissioners raised the tax rate six cents to try and accommodate the
needs. He does not think that the Board can raise the tax rate another six cents this year.
Jamezetta Bedford said that the CHCCS is presenting a budget to the Board of County
Commissioners that meets their schools' needs. This budget has been cut from the budget that
was presented tothe school board attheir February Board retreat. She said that itiemillions
more than the Board ofCounty Commissioners isplanning to cover. She asked about the
realities here.
Chair Carey said that the budget drivers included the$800,000 and that would not be at
risk.
Dennis Whitling said that what is driving OCS next year is the construction costs and debt
service. Hemade reference tothe budget public hearing onMay 31 st and said that OCGhas
offered the use Ofone nfthe school auditoriums.
Ted-Thebe|ooid{hsdthemeome serious concerns about the CJCGoperating budget and C|P.
Hasaid that they are trying tolook after their youth inthe long range.
Mike Kelly asked for onexplanation about the payment ofdebt service and said that he
would like tolook toavoid this inthe future. Hesaid that hewould like tounderstand how they
ommmtothiapoint—tonotinoreaoetaxeapaetpoyingfordebtaen/ica. Hesaid that this iea
transient problem and debt service i5supposedly going tOgOdown.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the cost increase between Gravelly Hill, Carrboro High,
and Elementary School#1Ocaused ebump of$1Omillion beyond what was anticipated. Also,
the Governor raised State teachers' salaries. He said that the County gets indirectly penalized
for this and they still raised taxes i2l6uontaover the last two years. He said that the County
Commissioners are trying bzaddress County needs. Hesaid that this was aconfluence of
circumstances that were not within the County Commissioners' control.
Liz Brown said that she does not think the fair funding discussion should be in the school
collaboration group because itioawaste ofC||CC8'atime. She would like tosee oseparate
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the OCS, without the CHCCS.
Chair Carey said that anytime you talk about funding, decisions affect all of the groups,
and hedoes not see aconflict with the school collaboration group discussing it.
Ted Triebel said that they would be discussing this in a partial vacuum if they did it
between the County and OC8only.
47
Dennis Whitling agreed with Ted Triebel that this is a global issue and all boards should
discuss this.
Chair Carey said that with these discussions, transparency is important.
Superintendent Pedersen said that this is going to be an unusual year budget wise, and
he wants the Board of County Commissioners to understand the CHCCS's concerns. He said
that the total request is$7 million, and $5 million is for salary increases, opening Carrboro High
School, and utilities. He said that he is not sure how not to do these things. He said that they
are having some serious meetings about how to reduce the budget, but they are looking at cuts
in the millions, if they take what the County Commissioners say seriously.
Superintendent Carraway said that OCS's situation is similar and half of their requests
are mandates. She said that they would be listing things that they will have to cut, and the
majority of that will be people. She said that this is the first time since she has been here that
there has not been increases in the per pupil.
Jamezetta Bedford said that CHCCS did not offer contracts to their employees as of yet,
and they are taking this very seriously.
Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners understand this and the school
systems are wise to have discussions about the various scenarios. He said that the County
Commissioners will always do the best they can for the schools. He said that he hopes that the
schools are asking their legislative liaisons to work with the legislature to pass the Medicaid
relief and Real Estate Transfer Tax for counties. This would relieve a lot of pressure.
f. School Health/Day Clinics Proposals
Chair Carey said that this is informational.
Superintendent Carraway gave some highlights of this PowerPoint presentation.
Working Together to
Improve the Health &Academic Success of
Orange County School District Students
Shirley Carraway, EdD
Superintendent, Orange County School District
Rosemary L. Summers, MPH, DrPH
Director, Orange County Health Department
Why?
• There is a direct link between students'
— physical health
— mental health
— academic success
• Compared to students experiencing physical or psychological health problems,
healthy students
— have better school attendance
— are better learners
— are more academically successful
— Have a better chance of graduating
— have a better chance of making a smooth transition to a healthy, happy, and productive
young adulthood
What are we currently doing?
School Health Advisory Council
• School Board Representative
• School Staff and Administrators
48
• Health Dept. Staff and Administrators
• Local Physician
• County Agencies
• Community Members
• Parents
CDC Coordinated School Health Program
For example, we now have....
• Nurses in every school
• Social Workers in every school
• PE teachers in every school
• School Improvement Plans for every school
• Healthy Active Children Policy for every school
• District school nutritionist
• District safety coordinator
• Health education programs
• Staff health promotion
• Family-focused after-school programs
What do we want to consider next?
What about health services?
We know our students have unmet health needs.....
From Orange County Schools' 2006-2006 School Nurses End of Year Report
Kindergarten through High School Screenings
• Dental - 1826 students screened (Of the 191 students referred for outside care only 36%
followed through.)
• Hearing —860 students reached (Of the 24 students referred for follow up care only 38% of
them completed the referral process.)
We know our students have unmet health needs.....
The Healthy Carolinians and Advocates for
Adolescents Committee Assessment on
Mental Health Needs of Adolescents in
Orange County, October 2006
❑ Children and adolescents need more education about mental illness and mental health.
❑ Children and adolescents need more knowledge of when and how to seek mental
health services.
49
We know our students have unmet health needs.....
From OCS Spring 2006 Communities That Care Survey
* 17.78% of 6t"graders (450 students surveyed), 18.63 % of 8th graders (408 students
surveyed), and 19.47% of 10th graders (457 students surveyed) reported having their first
beer before the age of 11.
0 2.44% of 6"'graders, 5.39% of 8th graders, and 5.69% of 10�' graders always threaten to hurt
people.
From Spring 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey
0 27% of OCS 8th graders seriously considered suicide in the previous year.
0 35% of OCS 8th graders reported that they had felt so sad or hopeless for 2+weeks in a row
that they stopped doing their usual activities in the last 12 months.
School-Based Health Centers?
(SBHC)
We propose a one-year exploratory process to determine whether it is desirable and feasible to
develop a School-Based Health Center(SBHC) at CW Stanford Middle School ...
as a first step in a system-wide strategy
to address unmet health needs of students in the OCSD.
Propose a Steering Committee
Leader: OCSD Superintendent
Co-Leader: OCSD Health Dept. Director
Members:
Director, OCSD Student Services
Director, OCSD Healthful Living
Director, OCSD Adolescents in Need
Director, School Exceptional Children Program
Leader, OCSD School Health Advisory Council
Steering Committee Members (Continued)
County Commissioner Chair, or designee
Health Dept Board Member
OCSD Board Member
DSS Board Member
Local Physician
Director, Piedmont Health Services
UNC Adolescent Medicine Physician
OCSD Nursing Supervisor
OPC Mental Health Consultant
Juvenile Justice representation
CW Stanford Middle School Principal
Many Questions for Steering Committee to Address...
• Is SBHC desirable?
• Is SBHC feasible?
• Which students and which services?
50
— Stmdents without medical homes?
— Urgent care so kids can stay inschool?
— Helping rnodico| home serve students with chronic cane needs?
— Synergist coordinated services around high-need students?
— Convenient, centralized, coordinated, comprehensive services?
— Safety-net services?
— Mental health/substance use services?
How WmBest Use SBHCWmImprove Important Outcomes.....
0 Better school attendance
0 Better academic achievement
0 Lower drop Out rates
0Better access tohigh quality health care
0Better health
Weare enthusiastic about moving forward!
• ASCD Health Schools Community Grant awarded!
• Would like toconvene Steering Committee summer of 2007!
She said that the next step is to convene a steering committee(including a County
Commissioner representative)to begin to discuss and evaluate the potential for such a center at
C. W. Stanford Middle School. They would like the support ofthe Board ofCounty
Commissioners before moving forward.
Commissioner Gordon asked how this fits i0the grim budget situation.
Shirley Caroawaysaid that this steering committee will look atfunding and the possible
sources. She said that they visited one in Wayne County, and some of it is funded through
reimbursable dollars and private insurance dollars.
Lisa Stuckey said that she attended aconference and the speaker from South Carolina
spoke about how this could beae|f-fundinQ.
Commissioner Foushee said that she heard this presentation and she would like to refer
this hostaff tobring back aformal proposal inconcept for Board approval.
Chair Carey said that heis familiar with school based health centers throughout the state
and they serve agreat need. Hosaid that itianeOvetothink that xmecan depend mn
reimbursements tocover the costs. Hesaid that[)C8isnot asking the Board tocommit bJ
funding, but hooconcept. Hoasked how this relates towhat iabeing done now.
Betty Compton said that this isthe next natural step in services for children. She said
that she has worked in the (]CGfor a long time. She said that they have not finished the job,
which iogetting these children the help they need when they need it.
Anne Medenbleck suggested that the steering committee tap Duke or UNC for grants.
]� Middle College High School Update
Superintendent Neil Pedersen said that this is an update and is a collaborative effort
between the two school systems and the Durham Public Schools also. This isthe second year
and there are 14students from [)CGand 1Dstudents fromCHCCG. Hesaid that the program
could have osmany ao5Ostudents each, aothey are under enrolled. Hemade reference tothe
overview inthe packet. The program iefor juniors and seniors. The Durham Tech courses are
offered free ofcharge tothe students and the credits are transferable. Hesaid that this isnot
for students who are involved in athletics or for students who are reluctant to leave their social
groups.
51
Superintendent Carraway said that as students continue to participate, they are going to
be the best advertisement for this program. There will buthree students graduating from this
program in May.
Commissioner Nelson asked the OCS about the proposed merger of Hillsborough
Elementary and Central Elementary. Hehas been getting enmai|ofrom citizens who are
concerned about this.
Dennis Whitling said that there was a mini-session in February and then it was
discussed later at another meeting, and he appointed a three-person committee of the board to
come upwith mprocess ofexploring this issue. This process was discussed mtthe last[]C8
Board meeting about aweek ago. Hesaid that they are inthe process ofscheduling ameeting
(four-hour retreat)to be facilitated by Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center to discuss
this process. The timeline has been discussed, but there have been nodecisions. Hesaid that
all meetings would beopen tothe public. There will beapublic hearing down the line and
possibly apanel discussion with some experts totalk about the socioeconomic issue. He said
that the issue is that there is a year-round school of choice with 14% having free and reduced
lunches versus another districted school a block away with 70% having free or reduced lunches.
He said that the proposal is to have 100 students to move from Central to Hillsborough
Elementary. He said that the school board is committed to exploring this.
Commissioner Nelson said that this process sounds fair and open. Hesaid that there
was group ofpeople that came tOthe Human Relations Commission meeting about this.
There were some issues raised about race and class.
Chair Carey said that A[ Hartkopf left a message that he had other commitments tonight.
Chair Carey made reference to the list of bills that the school boards are asking the
legislative member tosupport. Heasked both school boards towrite the legislative delegation
supporting Medicaid relief and the Real Estate Transfer Tax.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Real Estate Transfer Tax can generate $10 million
for Orange County ifapproved. He said that, having been through mmerger discussion, ha
would like to commend the OCS for taking on this issue of merging two schools and for the
process.
Ted 7-hebe| made reference tothe letter about the bills and said that it was also sent to
three 0rfour other legislative representatives. Hesuggested that joint letters bJthe legislative (
representatives (two school boards and the BOCC) would have much more"throw"weight.
The boards agreed hodOajoint letter.
With nofurther issues toaddress, the meeting was adjourned otB:44PM.
Moses Carey, Jr.. Chair
Donna G. Baker
Clerk tothe Board