Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-23-2024; 3 - Discussion of Bond Referendum Projects 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 23, 2024 Action Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Discussion of Bond Referendum Projects DEPARTMENT: County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Woolpert Optimization Plan Excerpt Kirk Vaughn, (919) 245-2153 and Woolpert Major Replacement- Renovation Recommendation Profiles B. Orange County Schools Bond Plan C. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Bond Plan PURPOSE: To review and discuss the Woolpert, Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) planned major projects for the 2024 Bond Referendum. BACKGROUND: At its January 2024 retreat, the Board of County Commissioners signaled its preferences for a proposed school bond. The Board set on a $300 million Bond Referendum which, with existing resources and $100 million in Pay-Go funding, would be sufficient to fund Option C of the Woolpert Long Range School Optimization Plan. The Board also signaled a preference for a project-based allocation of capital funding to ensure that the Woolpert priorities were met. Since then, County and school staff have worked with Woolpert to align the long-term plan with the current capital spending plans. At the Board's May 7, 2024 Business meeting, County staff presented the statutes and policies that dictate school capital funding. At the May 21, 2024 Business meeting, the Board received presentations from both the County and the two Districts on their preferred spending plans on the bond. This work session offers the Board an opportunity to review and discuss the respective plans, as well as well as the Board's preferred role for the County in directing and managing the upcoming Bond Referendum. The Board will be expected to formally vote on its decision at the Board's June 4, 2024 Business Meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the discussion of the relative Bond Plans. The tax impact of the bond has already been estimated at 8.88 cents in FY 2025-26. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There are no Orange County Social Justice Goal impacts associated with this item. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There are no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impacts associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board review and discuss the respective bond plans. Supporting the mission of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools to build an inclusive school community that engages,empowers,and inspires students and provides an educa- tion that addresses the social,emotional,intellectual,and physical needs of every student. LONG= RANGE FACILITIES OPTIMIZATION PLAN 4 - MAM .N l •snow ILr �1�A YI• •V � �{' s � ; F� _ A ' i 0 0 L P e P T November2023 4 Comparing options to . forward . 03 CHCCS OPTIONS Ark OPTION A - COMFORTABLE AND OPTION B - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, SAFE PLUS 10 YEAR FACILITY NEEDS 5-YEAR INVESTMENT: $139.7M @$27.9M/YEAR 10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $675.1M @ $67.5M/YEAR W Option A provides for high priority repairs Option B addresses all building needs identified and system replacements that address build- W in the facility condition assessment. This option W ing systems that keep students and occupants brings the facility conditions to a like new state. c warm,cool,safe,and dry. However; there is no change to the educational c spaces or adequacy of the schools. z Option A addresses only near term facility z Option B addresses anticipated facility needs of =i requirements.This option should be executed J the next ten years.This option should be executed over the next 5 years,which is approximately W over the next 10 ears which is approximately $27.9 million per year. y pp y P $67.5 million per year. c • Smallest investment option y a • Addresses 20 percent of facility needs a Addresses all facility needs • No improvement to educational No improvement to educational Coll) environment y c • No improvement to capacity o • No improvement to capacity c3 • No new or renovated schools c� No new or renovated schools • Many facility needs not addressed • Largest investment option CHCCS OPTIONS SUMMARY INVESTMENT COST/YEAR OPTION A $139.7 M 5 YEARS $27.9 M OPTION B $675.1 M 10 YEARS $67.5 M OPTION C $325.2 M 10 YEARS $32.5 M OPTION D $546.9 M 15 YEARS $36.5 M 11 5 OPTION C - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, OPTION D - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, PLUS UPGRADED LEARNING TOOLS PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION 10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $325.2M @ $32.5M/YEAR 15-YEAR INVESTMENT: $546.9M @ $36.5M/YEAR Option C addresses the high priority facility Option D takes a strategic approach to address- needs and improves the educational learn- ing the district's portfolio needs through repairs, ing environment through school renovations, W renovations, and replacements. Option D pro- LLJ replacements, and educational adequacy vides for a long-term plan that moves CHCCS out c improvements. W of its current aged and educationally insufficient Option C addresses high priority facility needs, o portfolio and into facilities that meet current and W future educational and programmatic needs of z adequacy improvements, and school renova- p g W tions and replacements.This option should be the district. executed over 10 years at approximately$32.5 W Option D is a significant investment in the future ~ million investment annually. Z of CHCCS. In order to complete this option, it is • Improves the learning environment by recommended to implement over the next 15 providing students and teachers modern years with an annual investment of approximately classrooms and tools at the schools in the $36.5 million. most need Improves the learning environment by pro- • School replacements address capac- viding students and teachers with modern c ity needs by building facilities that meet classrooms and tools. a the current and future enrollment projec- School replacements address capacity needs tions,the district will improve operational y and improve the learning environment for efficiencies. the students of CHCCS. Replacement schools • Mid-range cost option only slightly higher a were identified based on their condition,edu- than Option A that addresses only the cational adequacy,and utilization. basic facility needs. Consolidating schools reduces the overall • Only the schools with the greatest need size of the CHCCS portfolio, which improves y will gain new modern learning spaces and operational efficiencies. c tools. Some older schools may reach the y • Significant long-term investment cD end of their useful life before the construc- Zo Short term disruptions from swing space nec- tion program is complete. c2 essary to complete construction. " I I Smallest Investment No improvement to educational environment or portfolio Addresses all facility needs No change to educational environment,Largest Investment Improved learning environment,modern classrooms,addresses Only schools with greatest need gain new modern learning capacity issues,Similar investment as Option A which only spaces and tools addresses basic facility needs Improves learning environment with modern classrooms and Significant long term investment;short term disruptions due to tools,address capacity issues,reduces portfolio size which construction improves operational efficiencies 12 6 CHCCS OPTIONS DETAILS OPTION OPTION COMFORTABLE COMFORTABLE AND i i i i � i ► i SCHOOL CARRBORO ES $0.0 M $22.0 M Replacement School EPHESUS ES $8.5 M $28.2 M High Priority Needs ESTES HILLS ES $3.4 M $29.5 M Replacement School FRANK PORTER GRAHAM ES $5.4 M $30.9 M Consolidate GLENWOOD ES $1.0 M $16.3 M High Priority Needs MORRIS GROVE ES $4.5 M $24.6 M High Priority Needs NORTHSIDE ES $0.0 M $13.3 M High Priority Needs RASHKIS ES $6.4 M $29.7 M High Priority Needs SCROGGS ES $4.4 M $29.9 M High Priority Needs SEAWELL ES $0.5 M $23.1 M High Priority Needs MCDOUGLE ES $15.3 M $60.8 M High Priority Needs CARRBORO HS $9.2 M $67.1 M High Priority Needs CHAPEL HILL HS $10.9 M $29.6 M High Priority Needs E. CHAPEL HILL HS $23.2 M $75.6 M High Priority Needs PHOENIX ACADEMY $1.5 M $2.8 M Renovation MCDOUGLE MS $15.3 M $60.8 M High Priority Needs CULBRETH MS $8.9 M $44.6 M Replacement School PHILLIPS MS $3.6 M $29.0 M High Priority Needs SMITH MS $12.5 M $42.2 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) LINCOLN CENTER $5.2 M $15.0 M - i W MIDDLE SCHOOL ii - - - i 13 7 [PTION C OPTION I PLUS UPGRADED ► ' IILS COMFORTABLE ► I SAFE, $49.5 M Replacement School $49.5 M $8.5 M Renovation $28.9 M $49.5 M Consolidate $1.3 M $1.4 M Consolidate $1.4 M $1.0 M Renovation $26.3 M $4.5 M Renovation $11.8 M $0.0 M Renovation $14.2 M $6.4 M Renovation $15.1 M $4.4 M Renovation $12.2 M $0.5 M Renovation $25.9 M $15.3 M Renovation $34.3 M $37.7 M High Priority Needs $37.7 M $10.9 M High Priority Needs $10.9 M $23.2 M Renovation $23.2 M $5.7 M Renovation $5.7 M $15.3 M Adequacy (Learning Tools) $17.9 M $71.5 M Replacement School $71.5 M $3.6 M Replacement School $71.5 M $16.3 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) $16.3 M New School (Replacing capacity $71.5 M from McDougle ES/MS) 14 8 Comparing options todetermine best path forward for OCS 04 OCS OPTIONS M11h MA OPTION A - COMFORTABLE OPTION B - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, AND SAFE PLUS 10-YEAR FACILITY NEEDS 5-YEAR INVESTMENT: $80.1M @ $16.OM/YEAR 10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $421.7M @ $42.2M/YEAR WOption A provides for high priority repairs and Option B addresses all building needs identified system replacements that address building sys- W in the facility condition assessment. This option W tems that keep students and occupants warm, brings the facility conditions to a like new state. c cool,safe,and dry. O However; there is no change to the educational spaces or adequacy of the schools. z Option A addresses only near term facility z Option B addresses anticipated facility needs of W requirements. This option should be executed J the next ten years.This option should be executed over the next 5 years, which is approximately W over the next 10 which is approximately $16 million per year. years, pp y � $42.2 million per year. c • Smallest investment option y a • Addresses 20 percent of facility needs a Addresses all facility needs • No change to educational environment No change to educational environment z • No adjustments to capacity z No adjustments to capacity c • No new or renovated schools C.Z No new or renovated schools cD • Many facility needs not addressed Largest investment option OCS OPTIONS SUMMARY OPTION INVESTMENT TIMELINE COST/YEAR OPTION A $80.1 M 5 YEARS $16.0 M OPTION B $421.7 M 10 YEARS $42.2 M OPTION C $216.0 M 10 YEARS $21.6 M OPTION D $463.9 M 15 YEARS $30.9 M 15 9 OPTION C - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, OPTION D - COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, PLUS UPGRADED LEARNING TOOLS PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION 10-YEAR INVESTMENT: $216.OM @ $21.6M/YEAR 15-YEAR INVESTMENT: $463.9M @$30.9M/YEAR WOption C addresses the high priority facility needs Option D takes a strategic approach to addressing and improves the educational learning environ- the districts portfolio needs through repairs, ren- cc W ovations, and replacements. Option D provides W ment through school renovations,replacements, and educational ade uac im rovements. E:' for a long-term plan that moves OCS out of its cur- o q y p rent portfolio and into facilities that meet current W Option C addresses high priority facility needs, o and future educational and programmatic needs z adequacy improvements, and school renova- of the district. W tions and replacements. This option should be z Option D is a significant investment in the future executed over 10 years at approximately $21.6 � J of OCS. In order to complete this option, it is rec- million invested annually. M ommended to occur over 15 years with an annual • Improves the learning environment by pro- P investment of approximately$30.9 million. viding students and teachers modern class- . Improves the learning environment by pro- rooms and tools at the schools in the most viding students and teachers with modern need classrooms and tools • School replacements address capac- . School replacements and renovations ity needs, by building facilities that meet address over capacity at the middle and high the current and future enrollment projec- school grade levels and improve the learn- s tions, the district will improve operational y ing environment for the students of OCS. o efficiencies. o 0 o Replacement schools were identified based Q.. • New school alleviates over capacity at the a on their condition, educational adequacy, elementary grade level. Additionally, the and utilization. location is planned in the northwestern area New school alleviates over capacity at the of the district where growth is occurring and elementary grade level. Additionally, the anticipated to continue. location is planned in the northwestern area • Mid-range cost option only slightly higher of the district where growth is occurring and than Option A that addresses only the basic anticipated to continue. facility needs. • Only the schools with the greatest need will z Significant long-term investment y gain new modern learning spaces and tools. o Short term disruptions from swing space nec- c Some older schools may reach the end of c� essary to complete construction. c3 their useful life before the construction pro- gram is complete. PRO CON Smallest Investment No improvement to educational environment or portfolio Addresses all facility needs No change to educational environment,Largest Investment Improved learning environment,modern classrooms,addresses Only schools with greatest need gain new modern learning capacity issues,Similar investment as Option A which only spaces and tools addresses basic facility needs Improves learning environment with modern classrooms and Significant long term investment;short term disputations due to tools,address capacity issues,reduces portfolio size which construction improves operational efficiencies 16 10 OCS OPTIONS DETAILS OPTION A OPTION B COMFORTABLE COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, AND SAFE PLUS 10-YEAR FACILITY NEEDS SCHOOL NAME BUDGET BUDGET STRATEGY CENTRAL ES (Partial Rebuild) $6.1 M $18.1 M Replacement School EFLAND-CHEEKS ES $1.3 M $16.6 M High Priority Needs GRADY BROWN ES $4.8 M $15.8 M High Priority Needs HILLSBOROUGH ES $2.8 M $21.3 M Consolidate with Central ES NEW HOPE ES $3.0 M $46.6 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) PATHWAYS ES $4.7 M $15.6 M High Priority Needs RIVER PARK ES $3.0 M $28.1 M High Priority Needs NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - - New Elementary School CEDAR RIDGE HS $6.3 M $24.2 M High Priority Needs ORANGE HS $5.8 M $75.8 M High Priority Needs PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY $0.1 M $0.8 M High Priority Needs A.L. STANBACK MS $18.5 M $52.9 M High Priority Needs GRAVELLY HILL MS $13.9 M $33.1 M Renovation ORANGE MS $6.9 M $48.9 M High Priority Needs ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX - $1.8 M - ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX II _ $0.5 M - [TRANSP DISPATCH] CENTRAL OFFICE $0.0 M $1.2 M High Priority Needs MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT $0.4 M $2.5 M High Priority Needs TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT $1.7 M $7.9 M High Priority Needs WELCOME CENTER $0.7 M $10.2 M High Priority Needs TOTAL $80.1 M $421.7 M 17 11 OPTION C OPTION D PLUS UPGRADED LEARNING TOOLS COMFORTABLE AND SAFE, PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION BUDGET STRATEGY BUDGET $49.5 M Replacement School $34.5 M $1.3 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) $3.4 M $4.8 M High Priority Needs $4.8 M $1.3 M Consolidate with Central ES $1.3 M $13.0 M Adequacy(Learning Tools) $13.0 M $4.7 M High Priority Needs $4.7 M $3.0 M High Priority Needs $6.7 M $49.5 M New School $49.5 M $6.3 M High Priority Needs $6.3 M $5.8 M Replacement School $153.9 M $0.1 M Replacement School $9.4 M $18.5 M Renovation $54.0 M $48.5 M Renovation $48.5 M $6.9 M Replacement School $71.5 M $0.0 M - - $0.4 M - - $1.7 M High Priority Needs $1.7 M $0.7 M High Priority Needs $0.7 M $216.0 M $463.9 M 18 12 strategicallyThe best recommendation to Vn in facilities to . .environment at CHCCS . . 05 CIOMMENDATIOkA I MAE& Ad Woolpert recommends Orange County consider Option D BENEFITS as a path forward to strategically invest in school facilities and improve the learning environment. The recommenda- mentsEnhanced teaching and learning n- tion considers the facility condition,educational adequacy,uti- ppor advance educational outcommeses and o lization, enrollment projections, industry best practices, and opportunities goals of each district. The recommendation provides CHCCS Improved school utilization provides students and OCS with a fiscally responsible plan that sustains the dis- the flexible spaces necessary for multiple learn- tricts'facilities forthe long-term and improves the teaching and ing styles learning environment. Updated classroom spaces and learning tools to The recommendation calls for $1 billion investment over 15 meet today's education standards years.The 15-year time frame is driven by the large investment Right-sized portfolio creates operational and number of projects that need to be completed. It is sug- efficiencies gested that the plan be achieved through three construction Investing in the community attracts and retains phases prioritized by District leadership and designed to min- residents by providing competitive schools imize student disruption and costs during construction. RECOMMENDED OPTION-COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 15 YEARS $269.3M $215.3M r ■CHCCS OCS $192.5M 102.5M $71.5M $48.6M $49.5M $16.3M $16.4M $24.9M - , $2.7M $1.3M m . 0 ADEQUACY CONSOLIDATE HIGH PRIORITY NEW SCHOOL RENOVATION REPLACEMENT NEEDS SCHOOL ammil A 00 19 13 PHASE 1 [YEARS 1-51 Phase i addresses the capacity needs of both districts and the facilities in the poorest condition. Phase 1 builds the only new capacity school recommended in the plan. Phase 1 plans for the con- struction of a new elementary school for OCS to accommodate West-side growth along with priority replacement schools for OCS. Phase 1 also includes replacement schools in the worst condition for CHCCS and closing Frank Porter Graham Elementary school which will be used as swing space during construction. PHASE 1 -COSTS PER STRATEGY OVER 5 YEARS $121.OM $115.4M ■CHCCS ■OCS $71.5M $49.5M $37.7 M $16.3M $13.OM $2.7M $1.3M ADEQUACY CONSOLIDATE HIGH PRIORITY NEW SCHOOL REPLACEMENT NEEDS SCHOOL o0 00 o0 00 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Facility Strategy Budget Carrboro ES Replacement School $49.5M New MS New School $71.5M Estes Hills ES Consolidate $1.3M Frank Porter Graham ES Consolidate $1.4M Carrboro High High Priority Needs $37.7M Culbreth MS Replacement School $71.5M Smith MS Adequacy $16.3M Total $249.2M ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS Facility Strategy no Budget Central ES(Partial Rebuild) Replacement School $34.5M New ES New School $49.5M Hillsborough ES Consolidate $1.3M Orange MS Replacement School $71.5M New Hope ES Adequacy $13.OM Partnership Academy Replacement School $9.4M Total $179.2M 20 14 Woolpert Major Replacement/Renovation Recommendation Profiles Space Types> Space . A a Im.4 min Re q u i re:m7e —Plan Action 1pr Comments Older school,High Utilization but missing near 7Chap,lHillboro City $$/ half of space types.Plan to build slightly larger to Carrboro ES 1957 46/° 98/° 61 52% ° accommodate ES consolidation.Provides modern Replace educational space. Old,High FCI,half spaces too small.In 10 plus Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Estes Hills ES 1958 80% 0 Schools 68/0 67% % 88/o years site provides options to address replacing Consolidate Phillips. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Frank Porter ° o Old,High FCI,half spaces too small,Use as swing 1960 76/0 94/0 87% 54 0E88% Schools Graham ES school for construction.Site can be used in future Consolidate to accommodate capacity needs at that time Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Culbreth MS 1969 61% 87% =81% DS % 88% Old,High FCI,High utilization,half the spaces too Schools Replace small Chapel Hill-Carrboro City New Middle Provides for repurposing McDougle campus as Schools School Dual Language Program and consolidation of two ES.Improves overall portfolio age. Old,High FCI,half spaces small,under utilized, Orange County Schools Central ES 1957 51% 76% 5166 $7% partial rebuild will provide for a more educationally adequate facility that is better Partial Rebuild utilzed by consolidating with Hillsborogh Orange County Schools Hillsborough ES 1952 55% 79% 51% 93%75% Old,High FCI,Half spaces small,close proximity Consolidate to Central ES Orange County Schools Orange MS 1968 64% 65% 82% 55'/0 E52% Old,High FCI,Half spaces small,only has half the Replace required materials in the rooms Orange County Schools New ElementarySchool Address growth in the western portion of the county Definitions FCI Estimated 10 year capital need to repair the building divided by the cost to replace the building.Values over 50%are considered poor and over 65%are critical replacements Utilization Current Enrollment against Total Capacity,utilizing the Woolpert capacity(excluding Pre-K classrooms)and November actual enrollment at each school. All the required spaces that are needed at that level of education.Ex.Classrooms,science rooms,band,libraries.Percentage figure represents percent of room types that are in the building Space Types against the recommended amount for each type. Space Types>Min The percentage of spaces of all types that meet the size requirements for modern education.Spaces are marked as undersized if they are less than 90%of the recommended size for that type of room. The percentage of required educational materials that are present in each room in the building.These materials could represent whiteboards,adjustable lighting,science lab fume hoods, Space Requirements band storage rooms,bathrooms,etc.depending on the type of room. ENGAGE. CHALLENGE. INSPIRE. 2024 Bond Referendum ■ Capital Project Options ENGAGE. CHALLENGE. INSPIRE. 3.18.2024 16 OCS RECOMMENDATION 104 New Elementary School FACILITY TOTAL WITH BUILDING WOOLPERT OPTION C NEW ELEMENTARY • Construct New 600 Student Elementary School Central ES $5.6M $49.5M • Location & Programming to be determined Efland-Cheeks ES $4.1M $1.3M • Replacement of one of our oldest elementary facilities with the Grady Brown ES $19.3M $4.8M greatest list of needs Hillsborough ES $1.3M $1.3M New Elementary School Budget-$49,500,000.00 New Hope ES $9.8M $13.OM Pathways ES $4.5M $4.7M Recommendation for New Elementary School River Park ES $11.1M $3.OM New School $49.5M $49.5M • Elementary level has the greatest need - enrollment A.L.Stanback Middle $19.7M $18.5M projections show growth at the elementary level. At the middle school level - OCS has sufficient space for the Gravelly Hill Middle $12.5M $ foreseeable future. orange Middle $17.8M $6.9M M .9 • Financially - a new elementary School at the 49.5 million - Cedar Ridge High $6.9M $6.3M ensures funding to address the High Priority Needs and Orange High $15.1M $5.8M Educational Adequacy at the other OCS schools and Partnership Academy $15.5M $0.1M facilities Central Office $0.5M $O.OM • Replacing one of our oldest elementary facilities with the Maintenance $0.1M $0.4M greatest list of needs, provides an opportunity to ensure Department Educational Adequacy needs are met. Transportation $1.9M $1.7M • A K-8 would require a larger site, more expensive Department construction - essentially impacting the funding needed to Welcome Center $O.OM $0.7M address the needs at other schools and facilities Administrative Annex $0.6M $O.OM Administrative Annex II $O.OM $O.OM Total $195.7M $216.OM 17 2024 OCS BOND ANCHOR PROJECTS • New Elementary School • Partnership Academy Kitchen and Cafeteria • Grady A. Brown Elementary Interior Pod Renovation • River Park Elementary Handicap Restroom Addition • Orange High School Ag Connector/Cosmetic Renovations • CTE/EC Upgrades for all Schools • District Wide Fire Alarm/Intercom Upgrades 18 CTE/EC/ART UPGRADES0 10 • Kilns for every Elementary & Middle School • EC Classroom Interior Finish Upgrades • New Greenhouses with Hydroponics (CRHS & OHS) • Dust Collection System at Orange High School • Ag Building Renovation at Orange High School • EC Sidewalk and Canopy Access to Bus Dropoff (OHS) • Wood Shop Spray Booth at Cedar Ridge High School • Sound Booth Upgrades 19 2024 OCS BOND PROJECTS New Elementary School $49,500,000.00 Partnership Academy Kitchen and Cafeteria $10,000,000.00 Grady A. Brown Elementary Interior Pod Renovation $16,762,978.00 River Park Elementary Handicap Restroom Addition $7,252,081.00 Orange High School Ag Connector/Cosmetic Renovations $6,250,000.00 CTE/EC Upgrades for all Schools $6,150,000.00 New Hope Elementary Interior Renovations $4,000,000.00 District Wide Fire Alarm/Intercom Upgrades $5,672,518.00 Food Service Upgrades/Life Cycle $3,850,000.00 Transportation Center Renovations $1,930,000.00 Districtwide Fencing $1,839,399.00 Districtwide Canopies $1,224,304.00 Gravelly Hill HVAC Lifecycle $3,863,090.00 Cedar Ridge High Lifecycle Flooring $1,705,630.00 Total $120,000,000.00 20 CIP PROJECT 04 mar Ow" Central Elementary Interior Finish Upgrades, ADA Compliant Hardware, Cooling Tower Replacement, Asphalt $4,497,551.00 Replacement/Sealing, New Playground Efland-Cheeks Elementary Interior Finish Upgrades, ADA Compliant Hardware, Electrical Upgrades, Life Cycle Mechanical $3,250,000.00 Grady A. Brown Elementary ADA Compliant Hardware, Life Cycle Plumbing, Life Cycle Electrical $1,650,415.00 Hillsborough Elementary Life Cycle as required $1,300,000.00 New Hope Elementary ADA Compliant Hardware, Life Cycle Plumbing, Life Cycle Mechanical, New Generator, New $4,379,220.00 Playground, Asphalt Repair & Replacement Pathways Elementary Carpet Replacement, Painting, Life Cycle Plumbing, Life Cycle Mechanical, New Generator, Lighting $3,173,928.00 Upgrades, New Playground, New Playground River Park Elementary Painting, Flooring, ADA Compliant Hardware, Asphalt Repair, Roofing $2,872,445.00 21 CIP PROJECTInaa . . SM" A.L. Stanback Middle Carpet Replacement, Painting, New Elevator, Life Cycle Plumbing, Life Cycle Mechanical, Asphalt $17,623,780.00 Repair & Replacement Gravelly Hill Middle Interior Finish Upgrades, Life Cycle Plumbing, Interior and Exterior Lighting Upgrades, Solar $7,341,697.00 Lighting Allowance at Gravel Parking Lot Orange Middle Interior Finish Upgrades, Exterior Life Cycle Upgrades, ADA Compliant Hardware, Mechanical $16,718,337.00 Upgrades at Auditorium, New Boilers, New Generator, Major Electrical Upgrades, Cedar Ridge High Life Cycle Mechanical, Life Cycle Plumbing, Lighting Upgrades, New Greenhouse $2,384,130.00 Orange High ADA Compliant Hardware, Switchgear Replacement, Paint Lockers, Life Cycle Roofing, New $5,650,439.00 Greenhouse, Paving Repair/Replace Partnership Academy Reroof Main Building, Life Cycle Mechanical, Additional Parking $3,693,560.00 22 �04 CIP PROJEC PROJECTI-i 109 FUNDING J—j Central Office Life Cycle Mechanical $500,000.00 Maintenance Department Main Building Roof Replacement, Exterior Wall Painting, Interior Paint, Life Cycle Mechanical, New $135,000.00 Shop Ventilation Transportation Department $0.00 Administration Annex Siding Repair/Replacement, Roof Replacement, Life Cycle Interior Finishes, Life Cycle Mechanical, $462,029.00 Life Cycle Plumbing, Interior Lighting Upgrades, Asphalt Resurface Administration Annex II Life Cycle Mechanical $35,000.00 Total CIP Projects $75,667,531.00 23 OCS FUNDING SUMMARY FUNDING SOURCES 2024 $300M Bond $120M (40%) Future County Reoccurring CIP $100M $40M (40%) Future OCS Reoccurring CIP $20M Existing Bond/CIP $4.6M Supplemental Deferred $11.1m Total $195.7M 24 + Weicames pr. H21T aef L � - do iI Orange County Bond Proposal 2024 HAPEL HILL ODf--)In Collaboration with Oran e Count and Wool ert Facilit Master Plan [t J Y p Y CITY SOH00LS 25 The Process CHCCS Approach Agenda CHCCS/Woolpert Findings The Plan Long-Term Strategic Plan CHCCS The Process CHCCS 27 Background • ... • Capital Working Group: Hired Woolpert: Overarching Goals: • Formed September 2021 1. Facility condition • Develop a cohesive plan with • Collaboration between Orange assessment Orange County and Orange County, OCS, and CHCCS 2. Educational County Schools • Goal: "To address additional adequacy assessment • Prioritize spending capital funding." 3. Facility Master Plan • Make best-informed decisions 4 C 1 CCS 28 OCS/CHCCS Facilities Assessment Planning Approach FACILITY CAPACITY PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS 00 � Qp IX CHCCS FACILITY 1�-YEAR CONDITION STATE Of LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FACILITIES ' LaNG-RANGE � FACILITIES °o OPTIMIZATION PLAN DEFICIENCY EDUCATIONAL COSTS ADEQUACY 0 29 Where We've Been Feb. 15, 2024 CHCCS BOE adopts bond resolution for BOCC in support Jan. 19, 2024 2024 BOCC agreed an a bond funding level: April 2' $300M bond 1 $100M pay-go BDCC adopts resolution for November 2024 bond April 16, 2024 March 23, 2023 Dec. 12, 2023 BOCC establishes 2024 BOCC selected facility Woolpert findings Bond Education Committee assessment consultant with cost estimates for OCS & CHCCS presented to BOCC May 16, 2024 CHCCS BOE approves District Bond Plan 2023 2024 I WE ARE HERE CHCCS CHCCS Approach CHCCS Our Vision Equipping students to navigate the Our Mission world and make a positive impact CHCCS believes every individual's unique throughout their life's journey. background and culture enhance our schools. By providing students with a safe and Key Priorities joyful learning environment, we collaborate with families to create a community where all Creating a Culture of Safety students, families, and staff members feel and Wellness affirmed and respected to develop their fullest potential. Instructional Excellence- Preparing Students for Life Empowering, Equipping and Investing in Our People Equitable and Transparent Fiscal Stewardship and ! Operations � Strengthening Family and THINK (AND ACTS Community Engagement STRA;EGiC PLAN DIFFERENTLY 2022-2027 32 The Core of the Plan r FCI assessment •Capacity From short-term (reactive) to long-term (proactive) Facility age Tenets Operational/instructional perational/instructional � of the Plan inefficiencies 'Educational adequacy Limitation of available land � � for replacements � � I What investments are best for students 9 and best in the long term? CHCCS CHCCS / Woolpert Findings CHCCS 34 Current School Utilization Number of students 0 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 5K UTILIZATION ESii . . ii UTILIZATION s • CAPACITY ENROLLMENTM S UTILIZATION HSi � � • ENROLLMENT 3,974 11 CHCCS 35 What is Facility Condition Index (FCI) • General indicator of a facility's health. FCI RATING SCALE • Metric to compare dissimilar facilities. BEST 1<10% • The higher the FCI, the greater the need. GOOD 10-20% • Financial modeling suggests FCIS of 65% or greater are candidates AVERAGE 21-30% for replacement. • FCI is only one indicator and is not the only factor to consider BELOW 31M-50% when identifying renovation, replacement, or closure candidates. AVERAGE Building age, educational adequacy, site layout, etc., contribute to decision-making. POOR 51-65% 1 o YEAR FCI 49 REPLACEMENT Greater (a) O�"_ CANDIDATE than 65% COMBINED TOTAL 1O-YEAR 10-YEAR REPLACEMENT FCI NEED COST 12 CHCCS 36 Current Facility Condition Index (FCI) Number of schools by Facility Condition Average FCI Index(M) is Poor TOTAL SCHOOLS: 19 7 - 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 M 0 M 0 Replacement Poor Below Average Good Best Candidate Average Greater 51-65% 31-50% 21-30% 10-20% <10% than 65% FCI S C O RE 13 CHCCS 37 Limitation of Available Land Examples: • r Frank Porter uraham (FPG) ES Ephesus ES School district property line Elevation contours 11170 Glenwood ES Source: Town of Carrboro Planning and Zoning GIS data, USGS elevation contours CH CCS The Plan THINK (AND ACT) DIFFERENTLY CHCCS 39 Two- Prong Approach Focus on "priority" maintenance projects identified by Woolpert and District. Address operational efficiencies through replacement/consolidation of existing schools. 16 CH CCS 40 The Plan: 10,000- Foot View Relocate/expansion of ES Spanish Dual Language & Newcomer Programs, presently at Frank Porter Graham and Carrboro ES, and Northside ES. NEW • Build a new middle school (adjacent to Morris Grove ES). 3JEW Replace Carrboro ES (use Frank Porter Graham as a potential Elm It school). ffl Replace Culbreth MS (use Frank Porter Graham as a potential "swing" school). Iaim Take Frank Porter Graham and Estes Hills ES off line. 17 C H C C S 41 The Major Maintenance Projects ©© a ©a 0 n ROOF FIRE/LIFE SAFETY MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL Carrboro ES (1957) Replace school Carrboro HS(2007) Chapel Hill HS (B&D Bldg.) (1960) Culbreth MS (1969) Replace school East Chapel Hill HS(1996) Ephesus ES (1972) Estes Hill ES (1958) Close school (future school site) Frank Porter Graham ES (1960) Relocate and close school (future school site) Glenwood ES(1952) Lincoln Center(1950) McDougle ES/MS (1994/1996) Morris Grove ES(2008) Northside ES (2013) Phillips MS (1962) Phoenix Academy(2009) Rashkis ES (2003) Scroggs ES(1999) Seawell ES (1969) Smith MS (2001) Districtwide: Parking lot repairs, transportation, security enhancements 18 CH CCS 42 How It Could Be Done. . . . .* Move Unify all Replace McDougle ES dual-language Culbreth MS, MS students Spanish programs Replace students on-site to new MS to McDougle campus Carrboro ES or at FPG HEW NEW Move Build McDougle ES FPG (all dual-language) Students Move Addressing new MS students to now at McDougle, return Estes Hills ES FPG, Estes Hills maintenance NEW other ES schools so Carrboro ES students to all-new students no longer or replacement �= with capacity swing into empty FPG Carrboro ES to newer schools needed at remaining schools 0 W NEXT REFERENDUM 19 *Order of events subject to change. CHCCS 43 Benefits of School Consolidation/Program Relocation Spanish Dual Language School Consolidation Relocation (ES) Operational Efficiencies MMIM Relocation/expansion Reduce duplicative Eliminate utility Lower maintenance of ES Spanish Dual roles costs in oldest costs due to reduced Language program facilities portfolio age • Allows student to receive greater • Non-instructional • Electricity Reduction in facility exposure to target language support • Gas repairs with aging • Consistency with language • Instructional • Water equipment allocation, assessments, consolidation • Broadband curricula, etc. • Staffing optimization 20 CH CCS 44 Morris Grove �1 Current Elementary Seawefl �' E h Feeder Districts Ephesus �. o P Estes Hills 0 McDougleo lf� 54 a Q Carrboro O Northslde o Rashkis O o Glenwood Frank Porter Graham b F r 0 21 CH CCS 45 Example - Getting More by Building Up New two-story Carrboro Elementary ak , At right: 100,000-square-foot footprint on existing site • Moving Carrboro ES students to newly ' vacated Frank Porter Graham Elementary would allow construction on top of the existing building footprint. _- • Outline shown in blue represents 100k h r ~, •' GSF, which is much larger than required r g and allows for more design flexibility. • Building a two-story school preserves •� � • ' paved surfaces, baseball field, and 71 �, green space. • Select buildings could remain for a cost 22 savings, if desired. CHCCS 46 Proposed Orange County 10-Year Financing Plan Funding Sources (to include): Bond, Pay-Go, Lottery, Annual Capital Estimated Funding: ft,$187.7M for new middle school, replacement of Carrboro ES and Culbreth MS ow$75M for ongoing major maintenance at schools �1M/year for project management (county-wide) 23 CHCCS 47 Proposed Orange County Bond Sequencing Plan Bored Schedule is the following, with Pay-Go fund providing design funding in preceding fiscal year. Fiscal CHCCS Year FY 27 NEW MS FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 Replace Carrboro ES FY 31 FY 32" Replace Culbreth MS Ti nal projects for each district included in last year of bond period, bond can be extended for 3 years. CHCCS Long -Term Strategic Plan CHCCS 49 Two - Phase Plan/Approach =Major maintenance AGE: E [5 years 0 6-15 years 16-25 years 26-45 years 46-65 years 0 66-85 years 0 85+years PLANNED ACTION NOW AGE NOW POSSIBLE ACTION IN 10 YEARS AGE IN 10 YEARS Lincoln Center Admin 74 Replacement candidate 84 Glenwood ES 72 Replacement candidate 82 Carrboro ES Replace sch•• 67 #New Estes Hill E5 Relocate students,hold for future 66 Frank Porter Graham ES Relocate students,hold for future 64 Phillips MS 62 Replacement •. - 72 Culbreth MS Replace sch•o 55 J*New Seawell ES 55 Replacement candi•. 65 Ephesus ES 52 Replacement candidate62 McDougle MS/ES 30 40 East Chapel Hill HS 28 38 Scroggs ES 25 35 Smith MS 23 33 Rashkis ES 21 31 Carrboro HS © 17 27 Morris Grove ES © 16 26 Phoenix Academy © 15 25 Northside E5 © 11 21 Chapel Hill HS 3 ©13 New Middle School Build new school I* New 26 *Major maintenance associated with Buildings B& D. CHCCS 50 Strategic Focus on Replacements Now: Allows for use Next referendum: Use of Estes " Morris Grove ES 'V— of FPG as swing Mo ro �• . - _ - - V_ -; , Hills ES site allows Phillips MS space" for Carrboro New Middle School',.'- replacement to occur while ES and Culbreth MS Chapel Hill HS occupied and allows District to Y replacements. consider replacement to be - - -Chapel Hill HS . • ,s 6-8 or K-8. •Smith MS Seawell ES Phillips MS • • Ephesus ES Estes Hills ES • McDougle ES 2 AREA OF FOCUS AREA * m OF FOCUS FOR NEXT NOW 5a_ z REFERENDUM Carrboro ES , •Northside ES RashkisES• Glenwood ES Phoenix Academy HS - • a •a Lincoln Center Admin \¢\�r� Fran Porter CarrboroHS• Graham ES .Culbreth MS Scroggs ES • 27 CH CCS 51 The Results of the Tenets r` 11� FCI assessment Students in • Addresses current facility • and capacity utilization modern learning LE • Looking beyond 10 years environments Lower portfolio Tenets ' Operational/instructional age of the Plan efficiencies ■ Consolidated language _ Considers next set of arts program r schools to be rebuilt ■ I I What investments are best for students 28 and best in the long term? CHCCS 52 Improving the Facility Condition Index (FCI) In 10 years, FCl wili improve Number of schools to Below Average by Facility Condition Index(FCI) V 10 Now, average FCI 2034 9 is Poor 8 V 7 2024 2024 TOTAL SCHOOLS b Now: 19 1 Future: 18 5 4 905 EE 3 2024 2034 2034 2034 Fir 2 2024 2034 2024 2034 1 M%/�/0 M%`l/I 2 0 10 Ile0o"a Replacement Poor Below Average Average Good Best Candidate 29 CH CCS 53 Reducing the Age of Buildings Now, average In 10 years, with replacements, Numage of schools average age of schools will be byag e erofschoals is 43 Without replacements, 7 age ■ 2034 average age would be 53. 7 - 2024 6 5 _ 2024 TOTAL SCHOOLS 4 2024 2034 Now: 19 1 Future: 18 2024 2034 2034 FAN 2034 2034 2024 2034 2024 0 12 2024 001 0 0 0 F'41' I I noSIR 85+ years 66-85 years 46-65 years 26-45 years 16-25 years 6-15 years <5 years 30 C u C C S 54 School Utilization I I Elementory schools Numoer of students o 1 K arc 3K 4K 5K 6K CURRENT UTILIZATION CAPACITY 5,664 2023-24 ENROLLMENT Growing Losing by 300 -300 seats i i FUTURE UTILIZATION Z�m ENROLLMENT 4,852— I a 31 CH CCS 55 CHCCS Next Steps � Continue to analyze enrollment, sequencing scenarios for consolidation and construction. Hiring demographer for holistic redistricting process. Continue to work with finance and instructional divisions to fine tune any savings with the plan. Participate in Bond Education Committee. 32 CHCCS 56 Overall BOCC/CHCCS Next Steps May 21, 2024 CHCCS presents District Bond Plan to BOCC Nov. 5.2024 Election Day June 4, 2024 BOCC holds public hearing on bond referendum June 18, 2024 Bond passes BOCC adopts bond order, formally sets ballot question and referendum date Three new schools Future 2024 Summer/Fall 2024 WE ARE HERE Participate in Bond Education Committee Bond fails Continue putting bandaids on aging schools 33 CHCCS Questions ? 3° CHCCS REFERENCE SLIDES 35 CHCCS