HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-21-2003-10aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 21, 2003
Action Agenda
Item No. o - A
SUBJECT: School Capital Issues Update
DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Budget
ATTACHMENT(S):
School Capital Reference Information
Draft Collaboration Initiative MOU
10/17/02 CHCCS Resolution on New
Facilities
11 /20/02 Chair Letter to CHCCS
Policy on Planning and Funding School
Capital Issues
High School Planning Task Force Minutes
School Facilities Task Force Minutes
CHATPEC Meeting Summaries
(under separate cover)
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300
Donna Dean, ext 2151
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive and discuss updates from staff and Commissioners serving on
various task forces or work groups.
BACKGROUND: The Commissioners and staff, often working with school boards and staff
and other interested organizations and members of the community, made substantial progress
during 2002 on a wide range of initiatives intended to enhance public education in Orange
County. Staff will make brief presentations regarding major points and current status of
planning efforts in the areas outlined below. Commissioners serving on the various work
groups may wish to provide updates in addition to, or instead of, a particular staff presentation:
High School Planning Task Force
This task force, comprised of the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the BOCC and both school boards,
met five times between May and November 2002. Discussion moved from general review of
past examples and continuing opportunities for sharing on high school programming and
facilities to a more specific focus in the later meetings on relevant issues and possible locations
for a proposed third high school in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system. The general feeling of the
Task Force at the conclusion of its most recent meeting on November 22, 2002 was that the
group had essentially accomplished all that it could.
School Facilities Task Force
This task force, comprised of two or three members from each governing board, has met six
times thus far, beginning in May 2002. The meetings to date have focused largely on clarifying
issues and developing recommendations to the BOCC related to adoption of the Schools
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Memorandum of Understanding. The second phase
of the Task Force's work, which should get underway in the next few weeks, will likely focus on
review of and recommended modifications to the BOCC's adopted school construction
standards for elementary, middle, and high schools.
School Collaboration Initiative
An offshoot of the High School Planning Task Force has been a set of discussions this past fall
between the Chairs of the Board of Commissioners and the two Boards of Education regarding
opportunities for collaboration on programs and facilities between the two school systems.
Those discussions, which have included faculty from the Institute of Government (IOG), were a
follow up to preliminary work done a year ago by a committee of school board members at the
urging of the BOCC. Dr. Phil Boyle of the IOG has drafted a proposed agreement between the
County and the IOG under which he would lead an assessment of collaboration efforts and
opportunities between the school systems. Participation in that undertaking is expected to be
considered by the three governing boards in the next month or two, with the study (at a cost of
$20,000, to be borne by the County) likely to get underway in March 2003 if the Boards agree to
participate.
Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus (CHATPEC)
The CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group has thus far met on three occasions. It has taken a
tour of campus and park facilities, received a report on opportunities and constraints of the site,
and has begun discussion of those factors. A subset of the group is planning a visit to a similar
park and campus in Wilmington on January 23. The next Work Group meeting is scheduled for
February 13. There will be continued discussion of: analysis of opportunities and constraints; a
menu of activities for the site; and subcommittees that will develop concept plans for both the
school campus and the park.
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) and Memorandum of
Understanding NOW
Work.among the County, Towns, and school systems on SAPFO has been ongoing for several
years. Substantial progress has been made in recent months, with that progress culminating in
the BOCC's approval of the MOU in December 2002. A public hearing regarding future
adoption of the ordinance itself is scheduled elsewhere on this January 21 agenda.
CHCCS New Facilities - Possible Next Steps
The Chapel Hill-Canrboro Board of Education adopted a resolution on October 17, 2002
outlining their position on several issues related to planning for new capital facilities. The Chair
sent a response on behalf of the Board in a letter dated November 20, 2002. The Board may
wish to discuss those documents and lay out some proposed next steps to pursue in an effort to
bring resolution to issues related to a possible new high school.
Various background documents, such as selected task force minutes and reports, are provided
under separate cover as refresher information prior to the January 21 meeting. Staff have also
included and can briefly review major provisions of the Board's November 2000 adopted "Policy
on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects" as a reminder of upcoming steps in the
process of planning and building a new OCS middle school and a new CHCCS high school.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated directly with discussion of this
agenda item. However, future decisions the Board will make regarding many of the topics to be
discussed (e.g. new school construction) will have multi-million dollar implications for future
capital and operating budgets.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive and discuss the
updates, and provide any necessary direction to staff regarding next steps.
4
SCHOOL CAPITAL REFERENCE INFORMATION
• Actual student membership and certified school capacity, by school system and level
(elementary, middle, high), as of 11/15/02 (see Table 1)
• Amount of capital funding identified as available (assuming reallocation of November 2001
bonds) for a possible third high school for CHCCS (see Table 2)
September 2002 BOCC confirmed schedule for planned sales of November 2001 school
bonds and for projects, amounts, and tentative dates for issuing alternative financing for
various school capital projects (see Table 3)
01/16/2003 6
Table 1
Student Membership and Capacity - November 15, 2002
As Certified by Schooi Superintendents
Chapel Hill Carrboro City
Schools
100%
Membership Capacity
LW=mbersh
Elementary 4,551 4,302 2,901
Middle School 2,608 2,840 1,631
High School 3,162 3,035 1,828
Total 10,321 10,177 6,360
Schools To tal
100% 100%
Capacity Membership Capacity
3,820 7,452 8,122
1,466 4,239 4,306
2,518 4,990 5,553
7,804 16,681 17,981
01/16/2003 (O
Table 2
Funding Possibilities for CHCCS New Schools and Facilities
High School Space
2001 Bond Funds $12,800,000
School Construction Impact Fees (as
identified in the approved 2002-12 CIP) $11,349,000
Alternative Financing (as identified in the
approved 2002-12 CIP) $3,700,000
Total Available Revenue for New High
School Space $27,849,000
Projected cost range of 1000 student high
school (in accordance with BOCC Adopted
School Construction Standards) $24,600,000 to $29,900,000
Projected Cost of Elementary #10
Projected cost of new elemenatary school (in
accordance with Elementary School
Construction Standards; equates to amount
included on November 2001 voter approved
bond referendum)
Projected debt service payments on new
elementary school (assuming alternative
financing)
Possible Revenues for Elementary #10
County-Wide Ad Valorem Tax
CHCCS District Tax
1 /2 Cent Sales Tax
School Construction Impact Fees
Some Combination of the Above Revenues
$12,800
$1,100,000
I
Table 3
r NM a 1n ? D ?. 0 C D O
N N N 8 ^ $ 0 O
8 07 8
l+!
N N N
0
0
0 p
N
N p
M
?? 8 8
? ? ? O
m O
N Q?
N
N N
N
p
N p
N N 8
GO N N N N 8
O
8 J ? ??"
N
LL
N p
N
a
s
s
8
o
N
N
N
N pp
8
C
"f O? IO
Q N ?
p
N p
N p
N pp
N pp
N p
N p
N p
N p
N
LL
a s "
N
N
N
N
N
N
Z
tp
Q
om
N p
N
8 po
N p
a p
a pp
~ ppQ
C pp
~ 8
O
LL 9 ?
m
p N r
N
a
DRAFT
Orange County Collaboration Initiative
2002 - 2003
Memorandum of Understanding
Purpose
This memorandum of understanding is between Orange County and the Institute of
Government, UNC - Chapel Hill. Its purpose is to secure the professional services of Dr.
Phillip Boyle, Associate Professor of Public Management and Government. Dr. Boyle
works closely with the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, the N.C. Carolina
School Boards Association, the N.C. League of Municipalities, and with county, school, and
municipal governing boards in public problem solving and decision making, including
collaborative problem solving involving multiple jurisdictions.
Background
Representatives from Orange County, Orange County Schools, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Schools met on September 18th and October 31St to discuss collaboration between their
respective governing boards. These meetings grew out of earlier discussions about
possible areas of collaboration, as outlined in a February 1St memorandum from the County
Board Chair. The three governing bodies have agreed to work together with the assistance
of the Institute of Government.
Issues and Interests, Expectations and Concerns
In these meetings participants identified a number of issues, interests, expectations, and
concerns that both drive and restrain efforts to collaborate. These tended to fall into three
major themes: (1) conflicting interests, values, attitudes, and beliefs; (2) commitment to
collaboration and (3) potential benefits and outcomes.
Conflicting Interests, Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs
• Visible inequities in funding and opportunities are highlighted by rising expectations
for educational opportunity and outcomes for students in both school districts. For
example, the district tax by design creates inequity in per pupil local funding
prescribed by state law for school operations budgets.
• Simultaneous needs for new facilities and better use of existing facilities.
• Reducing class size while also trying to squeeze what we can out of the capital
budget.
We need to recognize our own legitimate self-interests and those of the other parties
and then pursue common interests and common outcomes.
Values and deeply held beliefs may help or hinder collaboration based on the
degree of consonance among the participating parties.
I
DRAFT
There is a sense among the boards that they are individually responsible and
accountable for issues such as students' access to opportunities, which makes the
idea of collaboration difficult.
The school systems have obvious differences, but the differences may be perceived
as being greater than they really are.
It's old news that there are differences - let's focus on commonalities.
That this is not a prelude to merger - that's not what this group is trying to resolve.
• One participant has talked with a parent adamantly opposed to collaboration, almost
as if they'll be contaminated.
Commitment
• Collaboration is hard work - what will it take to keep people at the table long enough
to identify and act on real opportunities for collaboration?
• It is easier to tinker around the edges of collaboration than to tackle really important
issues. Achieving meaningful collaboration requires win-win outcomes for all
participants.
• Collaboration needs to be meaningful, not just something to say we're collaborating.
False collaboration could lead to mistrust of boards by constituents.
• The hope that something positive will come out of the process.
• Considerable ambivalence about jumping into the process because of doubts that
there will be a meaningful effort by all parties.
Potential Benefits and Outcomes
• We need to agree on the big picture outcomes for collaboration and to identify what
we want to accomplish (e.g., creating greater educational opportunities) before
deciding how to accomplish it (e.g., pursuing greater funding equity).
We need to establish short-term objectives and achieve some initial short-term
progress yet keep in mind that collaboration is a long-term and ongoing process.
• How do we measure success, what are the boundaries of this effort, and what are
reasonable timeframes?
• How might this effort contribute to student achievement?
• That all students in county have access to same programs.
• There should be measurable outcomes, such as student achievement, not just a
political exercise.
• Increase equitable educational opportunities that create a greater sense of
partnership among the jurisdictions and lead to more efficient, cost effective, and
better use of existing resources.
10
DRAFT
Collaboration offers opportunities to share services that may be too expensive to
replicate, while also helping officials and citizens understand why it may be
important to replicate some services.
This effort should result in real partnerships that benefit all students and jurisdictions
in terms of efficient use of resources and cost effectiveness, equitable educational
opportunities, and a sense of "being in this together."
Next Steps (March - August 2003)
1. Identify Participants and Schedule Initial Working Session
• Participants must include board chairs and executives. Key folks will need to
commit to participate. It's important that they be a part of conversations and
discussions about values, beliefs, and goals.
• We may want to consider including a second board member (e.g., vice chairs,
past chairs, or an interested member) and some assistant or associate managers
and superintendents. In addition to building a greater sense of shared purpose,
the working group will benefit from having additional perspectives.
• Timing is a factor. Board chairs and executives need to be in place.
2. Identify Interests, Barriers, Values, and Goals
• Given the issues and interests identified above, the working group's first set of
tasks should be to discuss their individual interests, define criteria for what
successful collaboration looks like, describe what has worked well or not so well
in previous collaborative efforts, and identify barriers to successful collaboration.
• The working group can then identify the key values that reflect their interests in
public education, and create shared goals for this initiative.
3. Develop Recommendations and Evaluation Criteria
• Once this has been accomplished, the working group can use its goals and
values to identify the outcomes they agree to work together to achieve. These
will most likely be broad value-based goals.
• The next steps involve identifying, or engaging additional staff in identifying, a set
of specific recommendations that satisfy the values and goals agreed to by the
working group.
• The working group will also develop criteria or measures for evaluating the
success or outcomes of these recommendations.
4. Engage Governing Boards and Administrative Officials
The respective governing bodies should be kept informed about the efforts and
progress of the working group.
• The working group should also coordinate with school administrators who are
proceeding with the charge from their boards to move forward on collaboration.
• Using its goals, values, and criteria for successful collaboration as a guide, the
working group should jointly select specific recommendations and present these
recommendations at a joint meeting of the respective boards.
DRAFT
• Based on feedback from each governing board, the working group will identify
priority recommendations for implementation.
5. Implement and Evaluate Recommendations
• The working group will oversee existing or new task forces responsible for
implementing the final recommendations and evaluate how well implementation
satisfied the goals and values.
• The implementation task forces will engage other representatives and
stakeholders as appropriate.
Compensation for Professional Services
Dr. Boyle will work with Orange County, Orange County Schools, and Chapel-Hill Carrboro
Schools to carry out Steps 2, 3, and 4 as described above. He will work with the county
and school systems on this project for a period of six months, from March 2003 through
August 2003. Orange County agrees to pay the Institute of Government $20,000, which
includes an estimated 20 - 25 days of dedicated time and administrative expenses such as
copying, mailing, telephoning and local travel.
The Institute of Government shall submit invoices to the county outlining compensation and
reimbursement expenses pursuant to this memorandum of understanding. Contact
information for the appropriate financial official is provided below. Invoices shall be paid
within 30 days of receipt. The parties may modify, extend, or terminate this memorandum
of understanding by mutual consent.
Contact Information for County Financial Official
Name: Title:
Address:
Telephone: Email:
Authorizing Officials
For Orange County:
John M. Link, Manager
Date
For the School of Government:
Michael R. Smith, Dean Date
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2881
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent of Instructional Service
Stephen S. Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
Of Support Services
Raymond J. Reitz, Chief Technology Officer
TO: John Link
Barry Jacobs
FROM: Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
RE: Plans for New Facilities and High School Transition
DATE: October 28, 2002
Attached is the resolution adopted by the CHCCS Board of Education on October
17, 2002. Revisions made by the Board the evening of October 17 are in bold.
Attachment
I6
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
Raymond J. Reitz
Chief Technology Officer
TO: Board of Education
Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
for Instructional Services
Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Services
FROM: Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
SUBJECT: Issues Related to New Facilities
DATE: October 5, 2002
At it's October 3rd meeting, the Board of Education clarified its position on several
issues related to planning for new education facilities. The resolution below has been
written to capture the consensus of the Board. It should be clearly stated from the outset,
however, that long-range facility planning is challenging in a community such as ours. We
must continually adjust to changes in enrollment trends; therefore, although these plans
reflect our best thinking based on current enrollment projections, they are subject to
change as conditions necessitate.
RESOLUTION
Be it, therefore, resolved that the Board of Education adopts the following statements as
the official position of the Board as it moves forward with the provision of adequate
facilities for its students and staff through the year 2010-11:
1. The Board of Education, via this resolution, formally requests the Orange County
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to authorize the use of 2001 bond funds
originally associated with Elementary School No. 10 for a third high school. These
funds will be combined with funds from previously identified revenue sources to
build a comprehensive high school with a capacity as close to 1000 students as the
budget will permit. The projected budget, based on currently available funds, is
approximately $28 million. The school will be located on the southern side of the
school district. The target opening date is 2005-06 although it is recognized that
this will be a difficult deadline to meet. If possible, the site that is selected and the
design of the school should accommodate expansion of the school to 1500 students
in the event that this should become necessary.
2. The Board of Education will move as quickly as possible to acquire a site in
the southern end of the district. In the event the Board finds that the site along
the Smith Level Road is the best site for a third high school, it will request that
the appropriate governmental entities move the Urban Services Boundary line
to include three properties along Smith Level Road, north of Dogwood Acres.
If it would be helpful, the Board would support a provision that would restrict
development of these properties for school purposes. The attached map
outlines the very minor change that may be requested.
3. The school district's Capital Investment Plan (CIP) will include plans for the
conversion of the current Lincoln Center facility to a high school providing
alternative and/or magnet programs to serve an enrollment of up to 500 students.
This plan will include the renovation of existing space and add approximately
36,000 square feet to the building. A very preliminary estimate of the cost of this
project is $11 million. The cost of this renovation is projected to be less than
expanding the third high school to a capacity of 1500 and it would have the added
advantage of providing community resources to the Lincoln neighborhood. This
facility will open by 2010. Funding does not exist in the current CIP for this
purpose.
4. . A new central office facility will be constructed and opened no later than 2008 to
accommodate a growing staff, to provide a healthier work environment, and to
eliminate the need to rent office space in the community. At this time, plans call for
the construction of this facility adjacent to the Transportation Center and across the
street from Chapel Hill High School. Funding for this facility in the amount of $5.8
million currently exists in the CIP.
5. The Board of Education, via this resolution, requests the BOCC to work in
conjunction with the Board of Education to develop and commit to a new financing
plan that will allow for the construction of Elementary No. 10 that is projected to
open between 2006-07 and 2010-11 consistent with the Level of Service
parameters adopted in the final version of the Memorandum of Understanding for
the Schools Adequate Public Facility Ordinance and with class size reductions set
at either the state or local level. It is anticipated that this elementary school will be
constructed on the Old 86/Eubanks Road Site.
6. The Board directs the school administration to pursue plans to locate up to 15 I
additional mobile classrooms on the two high school campuses to accommodate
increased enrollments until a third high school is constructed. This total will
include mobiles relocated from other elementary campuses as well as purchased
and/or leased mobiles. The 3Board further directs the redistricting committee to
give strong consideration to plans that will balance the enrollments between the
two high schools until a third high school opens, and mobiles should be located as
necessary to meet the needs of student enrollments. As the administration moves
forward with such plans, it should consider other opportunities for reducing
overcrowding in the high schools, especially collaboration agreements with local
community colleges and the Orange County Schools and continue our current
practice of approving transfer out requests as the first formal step to enable
students residing in this district to transfer to another school district of their
choice. The administration also will take into account the need for additional
resources in overcrowded schools and the need to create smaller learning
communities in our high schools as it plans for the transition and prepares for
future high school reforms.
7. The Board of Education believes that a fifth middle school will need to open by
2007- 08 and is receptive to this school being located on the Old 86/Eubanks Road
site. At this time there are no provisions for funding this project in the CIP. The
Board requests that the BOCC begin planning now for how this facility will be
financed.
8. The Board of Education anticipates locating at least three comprehensive schools
on the Old 86/Eubanks Road site and looks forward to participating as an active
partner in the master planning process for this piece of property.
9. The Board of Education will seek to identify and reserve additional sites for
schools within the next year.
Revised and Adopted by the Board on 10/17/02.
io
November 20, 2002
Ms. Valerie Foushee, Chair
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Dear Ms. Foushee:
I write on behalf of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in response to
correspondence we received in late October from the Board of Education on the subject
of new school facilities. As you well recognize through repeated public
acknowledgements by your Board members, the County Commissioners remain firmly
committed to meeting the operational and capital needs of both school systems and
their students. That commitment is well-documented through Orange County's long-
standing ranking at the top of the list of county per pupil appropriations, and through
capital improvements funding of several hundred million dollars since we undertook the
1988 bond referendum. A recent audit of County finances indicates that 50 percent of
our budget is devoted to education.
We appreciate the collaborative spirit with which we and the two school boards have
worked in recent years. As I said at a recent meeting, although we do not always
communicate perfectly, the commitment to communicate remains strong. In that regard,
we believe it is important for the BOCC to lay out in this letter certain considerations and
constraints that will affect what can and what cannot realistically be achieved in
pursuing the direction established in your Board's resolution of October 17, 2002. Our
observations are founded in our unanimous and collective judgment that the best way to
sustain the community's support for education is to continue to demonstrate proactive
planning in a fiscally prudent manner. It is our intention to maintain our commitment to
excellent schools while balancing those needs with the numerous other County
obligations to provide high quality human services, public safety, and other vital County
services.
The County has achieved an enviably strong financial position and top-level bond
ratings through sound fiscal management and creation of and adherence to a rational
debt management policy. This has occurred while demonstrating a willingness to raise
revenue necessary to carry out a well-conceived long-range capital investment plan for
essential school and County facilities.
Within that context, this letter will touch upon the numbered paragraphs in your
resolution.
The BOCC anticipates recommendations coming from the High School Planning
Task Force by the end of the calendar year on the scope of the proposed third
high school in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system. Based on our construction
standards and identified funding in the CIP, $27.8 million is the total expected to
17
be available for additional high school space through the 2007-08 planning
period for the issuance of bonds and alternative financing. This total will need to
accommodate any site acquisition, construction, or ancillary expenditures (e.g.
mobile classrooms) for high school space that are not covered by CHCCS pay-
as-you-go capital funding. We acknowledge the extremely tight timeframe
involved in a proposed opening of a third high school for the 2005-06 academic
year, and that such a target will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
2. We recognize that CHCCS did not submit a formal request that the Chapel Hill
Urban Services Boundary be moved. Therefore we decided not to take a formal
position on such a request at our November 6 meeting. We did attempt to
communicate the pitfalls of such an action and the delays that would result. We
also commended the issue of water/sewer and urban service boundaries to the
School Facilities Task Force for incorporation into school construction/siting
standards.
3. We do not anticipate that there will be additional capital funds available to deal
with a potential Lincoln Center remodeling/expansion before 2007-08. However,
assuming the construction of a new 1000 student high school in CHCCS before
then, there should be time for our two boards to consider possible timing and
sources of additional capital funds beyond that point.
4. The BOCC will work with the school board to develop plans for a new central
office facility consistent with the procedures laid out in the November 2000
"Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects".
5. The BOCC agrees that the reallocation of 2001 bond funds from Elementary #10
to High School #3 requires the commitment of the BOCC to approve alternative
financing for Elementary #10 in a manner that allows for timely construction of
that facility at the Old 86/Eubanks Road site. That timing will be determined
based on the working of student projection models that will be updated and
monitored annually through the SAPFO process. In the interest of keeping faith
with voters who understood that the November 2001 bond referendum included
funding for two new elementary schools, any formal action to reallocate 2001
bond proceeds to High School #3 should come after a public hearing is
conducted on the matter. Possible sources to pay the debt service on
Elementary #10 include impact fees, CHCCS PAYG funds, CHCCS district tax
proceeds, Countywide ad valorem tax proceeds, or some combination of these
mechanisms. County Commissioners must be fully engaged in any discussions
that may ensue about class size reduction (whether generated locally or at the
State level), as we will bear the financial responsibility for the capital facility
implications that would be forthcoming from any such reductions.
18
6. The school board's direction to proceed with the acquisition of up to 15 mobile
classrooms should be carried out with the recognition that it must be
accomplished within the constraint of the $27.8 million available for high school
space, or from other CHCCS pay-as-you-go funding.
7. Funding for a fifth middle school is not included in the County's 10 year CIP. The
possible need for such a facility should prove an appropriate test for the jointly
adopted Schools Adequate Public Facilities system and the associated student
projection methodologies.
8. The BOCC concurs with the school board that the community will be well served
by plans to pursue three distinct school facilities at the CHATPEC site.
g. We look forward to working with CHCCS on the identification of possible
additional school sites, and pledge the assistance of the County's GIS system to
expand our mutual capabilities to identify and analyze the pool of potentially
available and suitable sites.
On behalf of the BOCC, we welcome the opportunity to work with your board in planning
and providing timely and highly functional school facilities to serve our students and the
wider community for many decades to come.
Sincerely,
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Approved 11/21/00 10,
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 I 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
a0
Approved 11/21/00
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
?i
Approved 11/21/00
10 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
?a
Approved 11/21/00
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
?3
Approved 11/21/00
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
Approved 11/21/00
• 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