The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 09-23-2002 - 1 c 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 23, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: County/OCS/CHCCS Discussion/Policy Issues DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: As listed in "Background" John Link or Rod Visser, 245-2300; Donna Dean, 245-2151 Craig Benedict, 245-2592 Tara Fikes, 245-2492 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732.8181 Chapel Hill 968-1501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane, 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss various issues with policy and/or financial implications that are of current interest to the Orange County Commissioners, Orange County Board of Education, and/or Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. BACKGROUND: a.. Task Force Progress Reports 1) High School Planning Task Force 2) School Facilities Task Force 3) Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus Work Group Task force representatives and/or support staff from each of these groups will briefly recap major points of discussion at meetings these groups have had thus far, as well as outline significant topics to be addressed at upcoming meetings of the respective groups. As requested by the High School Planning Task Force, County staff will report on available funding for additional CHCCS high school space, and provide analysis of the comparative costs of building two smaller vs. one larger additional high school in the Chapel,Hill-Carrboro system. Attachment la —1-a: HS Planning TF Minutes,5113/02 Attachment la —1-b: Draft HS Planning TF Minutes, 9103102 Attachment la —1-c: Table:Funding Possibilities for CHCCS New Schools Attachment la—2-a: SFTF Minutes, 5116102 Attachment la—2-b: SFTF Minutes, 5130102 Attachment la-2-c: SFTF Minutes,6/27/02r Attachment 1 a—3: Chapel Hill Township Park& Educational Campus Master Plan Process 2 b. Opportunities for Collaboration Between School Systems 1) School Survey Results 3) .Proposed Institute of Government Assessment As reported in task force meetings, both school systems have.conducted surveys of their students to ascertain the degree of interest that might axis;fn shared educational opportunities between the two systems. Representatives of both systems can outline the results of the survey and subsequent plans and considerations. The Chairs, Superintendents and Manager met recently with Phil Boyle of the Institute of Government Faculty to discuss the interests and objectives of the BOCC and school boards in pursuing an assessment by the IOG of opportunities for collaboration that may exist between the two school systems. A summary of that exploratory meeting will be provided at this September 23 work session. Attachment 1b: CHCCS Educational Opportunities Survey c. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance—Timeline & Outstanding Issues The County Planning Director will provide an update on the status of-consideration by the prospective parties to agreement on the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and implementing Memorandum of Understanding. He will explain the major decision points to be addressed in approval of the MOU and ordinance and review a potential timeline that could lead to February 2003 implementation of SAPFO. Attachment is— 1: Table— Voting on Schools Adequate Public Facilities Attachment 1c— 2: SAPFO Possible Implementation Timeline Attachment 1 c— 3: Flowchart—Procedure for Execution of School APFO d. Water Conservation Measures The County and both school systems have undertaken specific measures to respond to the adverse impacts resulting from the prolonged drought in central North Carolina. The accompanying attachments provide a basis for discussion, as the Boards may desire, for current and planned water conservation and other drought-related measures. Attachment 1d- 1: H2Orange Press Resource Attachment 1 d- 2: 9118102 OCS Director of Auxiliary Services Memo Attachment 1 d- 3: CHCCS Spreadsheet on Water Conservation Efforts e. Affordable Housing Opportunities for School Employees County and non-profit organization staff have provided information and will attend this work session to answer questions about several programs that may be of interest to school system employees in need of affordable housing. Attachment 1e - 1: 9118102 Memo from Orange Community Housing & Land Trust, Habitat for Humanity, and EmPOWERment Attachment le 72: Orange County individual Development Account Program I 3 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the discussion at this meeting. However, decisions that the school boards and BOCC will make at subsequent meetings are likely to have significant implications for future capital and operating budgets. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards discuss the issues noted and provide direction to staff, as appropriate. i APPROVED 09/03/02 HIGH SCHOOL PLANNING TASK FORCE J ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2002 MEMBERS ATTENDING: Valerie Foushee, Steve Halkiotis, Susan Halkiotis, Barry Jacobs, Dana Thompson, Teresa Williams STAFF ATTENDING: Donna Dean, John Link, Neil Pedersen, Rod Visser Barry Jacobs welcomed participants, noting he sees this as the first of an undefined number of meetings. There is more on this agenda than we can get to. He pointed out two sets of background documents: those distributed from the high school planning process in the 1990s that led to construction of East Chapel Hill High; and those received from TJCOG about school sites and sprawl. He drew attention to the "Conceptual Outline" of March 14 asking if this is still consistent with everyone's view of what we need to do. Barry noted that Commissioners have lots of questions. As the budget situation worsens, it promotes more questions we hadn't even thought of back in March. This broad list of factors would satisfactorily shape the BOCC picture. Dana Thompson noted that, as the newest person, it would be helpful to her to have historical documents on that process. She is interested in what conversations there were before East and Cedar Ridge were built and how that related to school construction standards. John Link noted we've always pursued a collaborative approach. Kay Singer's 1991 report raised the notion of building schools in modules. He sees that as pertinent now, if you start with a 750 student high school and add on — nothing here is really new or different. He recalls a lot of time on the East program committee was spent on vocational education and that Rose Bolick had lots of good input on that. Neil Pedersen remembers 2 committees -that program committee, which met after the 1992 bond was approved, and the 1991 committee that fulfilled the expectation that there would need to be conversations about merger when a 3rd high school in Orange County became necessary. The decision was to build at the north end of the CHCCS district to facilitate sharing, but that never materialized because East filled up so quickly. Barry drew attention to the Collaboration Committee report from February 2002. He asked if any more info has been developed. The BOCC feels like they don't know much,besides what. he's read in the paper-. They have lots of confidence that folks here want to collaborate, but we seem institutionally incapable of acting on that. Neil reported that not much more has happened. There was some work on survey questions, but he hasn't'seen it in 4-6 weeks when it was close to done. He clarified that it was students that would be surveyed. The survey has not yet been administered. He noted plans to share the survey with the BOCC. Neil says they would try to locate a firm as consultant and bring that to the BOCC to see if there was money. } APPROVED 09/03/02 y Dana reported plans for OCS to move forward with the International Baccalaureate certification process. Val Foushee said if that application is successful, she thinks CHCCS students might be interested, but it's not anything they can move on at this point. Susan Halkiotis remarked that the OCS Board periodically discusses the cost of workforce development and facilities needed to teach them. It is one of the higher priced aspects of school space. She thinks there might be some students who would cross district lines,,but only a handful - most teenagers don't focus on a unique educational program, but would rather be with their friends. It might be best not to fully enroll a student in the other school system, but let a voc ed program serve as a hub that kids might attend for part of a day. Barry said we need not to reinvent the wheel about what collaboration opportunities might be — maybe someone from the Institute of Government could share with us others' experiences. Dana feels the need to move forward with a survey of opinion. We're not in a perfect world, so there are other pressures like crowding that might cause parents to examine other educational programming opportunities more closely. The survey is a key piece. Teresa Williams observed that a survey should attend to more than just interest— are parents willing to go further and enroll? Depending on survey questioning, it might lead you to make expensive programming choices on "interest"that doesn't actually materialize. John noted one of his departmental staff as an example of an OHS student who developed her own plan and graduated from Mount Olive this weekend. How do we help folks not necessarily ready to go to 4 year college? Durham Tech may help. He sees a core need for high school space of at least 750, but notes that CHCCS doesn't yet seem wedded to a traditional high school set up. Have we thought about all the opportunities? Maybe middle college high school, or other options? How do we provide an alternative approach to kids who may not thrive from a mainstream approach? Dana said she recently met with their alternative school programming folks and community agencies. Many agencies have a wealth of wisdom, if not resources, to put into alternative approaches to schools. Barry asked why the two school systems started meeting separately. Dana explained that there are so many different kinds of kids who need this that it's difficult to offer just one program. She noted that they just decided to head in different directions. Val agrees —there were no other points of intersection in their discussions besides potentially failing kids, who attend Phoenix Academy. Susan cited a plan back during Nancy Farmer's time that would have addressed more than just kids with behavioral problems. It would have met the needs of students who just have a different learning style. Has anyone dusted that off and looked at it recently? Neil says they used that model when they started up Phoenix Academy. When the joint process fell apart, we took the model and worked with the person from UNC who wrote it. The model works— we just don't have enough capacity. APPROVED 09103102 Susan observed that the wall that the school systems hit was locating a site convenient for both systems. Steve Halkiotis made comments on the February 1 Collaboration Committee report. Before running out and getting a consultant, we should note that both systems essentially work together on transportation —the State mandates that. Steve notes that CHCCS has contracted out to Marriott for food service, while OCS still does it themselves. It is hard to get schools within one system to purchase together, never mind two systems, but it could work. Both systems have worked together on students with developmental disabilities —there's a rich history. How do we move beyond DPI school standards? He notes the wood frame charter school being built at Meadowlands that will be built at far less cost than a public school. Public schools have to be built to higher and more expensive standards. Steve hears that Guilford schools are paying Guilford college $5,400 per year for high school kids to go to college after they've been in the middle college high school program for 2 years. We should look at this at the flagship university here. If you talk to DPI folks on why you need so much acreage, they'll say something like 'We've always done it that way". Neil observed that DPI guidelines are just that—guidelines. He said that some charter school got USDA financing guarantees on the theory that it promotes rural development. Dana asked if it is our job to look at need? At possibilities to address the 4 year high school experience? At the possibility of a 3rd high school in CHCCS? Barry thinks "maybe". He sees it based on the apparent need for a 3'd HS in CHCCS as a starting point A corollary to that is another question —can we collaborate? Are there other ways to do this? Do DPI guidelines make sense, regardless of expense? We wouldn't be meeting on this right now absent a specific proposal for a 3`d high school on the table right now. Are there other documents that people want to request? Teresa noted that with regard to independent analysis, it appears that Steve sees that as possible to do in-house. Are you asking for in-house, or external? Barry sees the ball as still in the schools' court on this. He doesn't have an opinion yet, and recognizes that he sees it differently than Steve. If the schools think this can be done in- house and we get the same results, that would be fine. Steve sees two separate items of work: an in-house assessment, and an evaluation by someone who has experience in counties with multiple school systems. He is only interested in that if they don't tell us what we already know. He.thinks collaboration committee points might be done in house. With regard to the items on the conceptual outline, it might be worth seeing if the IOG can help. Steve asked where is CHCCS going in defining where a 3rd high school would be sited? Will it be a small high school, with or without athletic programs? A magnet high school? Val said that the CHCCS Board hasn't had that discussion yet, but is interested in a possibly smaller school site, driven somewhat by smaller sites that are available, as well as previous ti. APPROVED 08103102 y interest in something at the southern end of the district. Some of this is driven by funding — we may not be able to build something more than 750 student capacity. Neil said they have started some more programmatic function-based discussion. Now the Board is moving to more "traditional" school discussion, driven by forces like cost, site, size. He thinks the Board is heading more towards a larger school with athletic programs. Val concurred, and noted a larger high school may not fit at the southern end, so they are keeping open the possibility of a site nearer the northern end. Neil noted the southern sites are in the 30-40 acre range, which would allow limited parking, athletic fields, etc. There's some appeal to keeping options open and being able to expand in the future. Barry sees it as useful to discuss this on two parallel tracks — if site and available funding are not an issue, and, if they are. He is interested in how much the decision is driven by external factors. We can plan based on what level of constraints there are. What would you do with a 30 vs. 50 acre site? What are the tradeoffs if you could do it the way you want vs. what you do if you can't do what you want? Teresa thinks the Board of Education is more interested in 2 smaller high schools of 500 kids, but have abandoned that as financially impractical, irrespective of the State's budget woes. Barry notes it would be useful for CHCCS to walk us through that thought process. Neil noted their CIP includes a 750 student school, perhaps with the ability to expand it on that site, perhaps to a maximum of 1500 — but then they couldn't do it on any southern site. Barry observed that perhaps it couldn't be done with full athletic facilities or parking. Neil says they haven't considered southern sites for more than 1000 kids. They would have to build a high rise, or have remote athletic facilities. Neil thinks that won't happen here, and Steve concurs. He notes that some kids aren't interested in athletics, but doubts we'd find 1500 who aren't interested. Neil asked if the topics from the bullet list could be put in question form? We have lots of information and maybe we could use that to answer these as questions. For example , "when will CHCCS outgrow its two existing high schools and need additional space?" Barry suggested that all task force members develop these as questions, eliminating any you don't think are relevant. He noted OCS concerns about moving forward with SAPFO because of lingering questions about student projections. Susan needs to know how the options CHCCS has will play out. If the decision is to look at smaller, non-expandable high schools, that leads to a different kind of discussion. She would be interested in looking at whether we need smaller middle schools further down the road. Barry reiterated his interest in how much decisions are driven by cost vs, educational programming desires. He has asked staff to look at how a SAPFO that might limit new schools being built would affect impact fee revenue. Is it responsible to build two smaller, more expensive schools sooner, or build only one now and get through a budget crunch, APPROVED 09/03102 knowing the total expense will be greater further down the road? He wants school board input on that. Dana remarked on the need to think not only about building a building, but also having operating funds. Neil noted Barry's previous point that there are other committees working on some of the points listed on the outline/agenda (e.g. student projections). It may be appropriate to indicate information from those groups that will help answer some of this group's work. Barry and Neil noted the School Facilities Task Force, the CHATPEC group, and CHCCS programming committee that may be working on related topics. Neil noted there are several reports on the CHCCS website that address smaller schools. He will send that citation for folks to look up. The meeting adjourned at 1:40pm. !J Prepared III r Prepared 9/19102 DRAFT HIGH SCHOOL PLANNING TASK FORCE MINUTES September 3, 2002 MEMBERS ATTENDING: Elizabeth Carter, Gloria Faley, Valerie Foushee, Steve Halkiotis, Barry Jacobs, Dana Thompson STAFF ATTENDING: Ken Chavious, Donna Dean, John Link, Neil Pedersen, Rod Visser, Mike Williams OCS Interim Superintendent Mike Williams was welcomed to his first meeting with this group. The meeting agenda was accepted as prepared. Minutes of the May 13, 2002 Task Force meeting were approved as prepared. Both Superintendents handed out preliminary student membership figures for the 2002- 03 academic year. Neil Pedersen noted that at this point, Chapel Hill High has about 100 kids more than they had projected. East Chapel Hill High was a little under the local projection. The total is about 70 over the local projection, and 62 over the DPI projection for 10th day figures. CHCCS is up about 300 high school students since last year, roughly 200 high school students overcapacity. The 10"' day figures match recent trends of leveling out at the elementary school level, with growth at middle school and high school levels. There are no real surprises in these trends, with a total of about a 460 student increase in the system. CHCCS is108 students above the DPI projection. Neil confirmed Steve Halkiotis's observation that there hasn't been local funding for those 108. John Link mentioned Governor Easley's August 30 directive releasing State funding for additional students. Although not having seen the message, Neil thinks that may relate to discussion there had been about the need to provide funds for natural enrollment growth. Mike Williams concurred, noting that there are 175 students in OCS more than the DPI projection, with 123 of those at the high school level. Elizabeth Carter expressed concern, given the State budget problems, about the likelihood of actually receiving that money. She noted that it is nice that the Governor is . indicating his will on this subject, but she doesn't think we should rely on that money, Barry Jacobs asked staff to inquire of DPI staff whether the State would be amenable to accepting locally produced student projections in light of the inaccuracy of DPI projections. He observed that the growth numbers are pretty clear evidence that this is a trend and not an aberration. Neil distributed results from an educational opportunities survey that had been administered to 8th to 11 m graders. He noted that no matter what the opportunity was raised, students expressed interest. Neil walked through the results of various specific survey request , noting there were questions on the back about models for a 3rd CHCCS I Prepared 9/19102 DRAFT' school. Although not the majority view of students, Neil noted the results reflect significant percentages. Many students say they could live with less than a full athletics program, for example. This leads him to believe as we consider a 3`d high school that we should be open to innovative models. CHCCS is ready to move ahead with that once we get the system fully open for the 2002-03 school year. In discussion about a possible Middle College High School, Neil noted that they haven't discussed the subject with Durham Tech representatives since last year's trip to Greensboro. He said that Durham.Tech staff didn't think an Orange County campus would be the best location for a Middle College High School, because of its likely small size. Accordingly, the lack of an Orange County campus doesn't delay things. If transportation can be worked out, the best location will be the main campus in Durham. Dana Thompson noted that has also administered a survey, one that was more general, both at the middle school and high school level. They had similar questions about the International Baccalaureate program and workforce development, and got the same kind of expressions of general interest. Dana,noted OCS plans to administer another survey because the response to the first wasn't as strong at the high school level as at the middle school level. Barry observed that it might be helpful to parallel the choices kids can make between the OCS and CHCCS surveys, allowing for differences in opportunities. Neil thinks the response choices were the.same because the surveys were developed collaboratively. Neil reported on school collaboration consultant options, referencing the July 2, 2002 background memo from Randy Bridges. Neil related the substance of a conversation between Steve Scroggs and Phillip Boyle at the Institute of Government, who expressed cautious interest in participating. A memo from Steve Scroggs on this topic was handed out. Rod Visser reported on contact with Laurie Mesibov at the IOG who expressed a willingness to help out with any legal questions related to laws or regulations that either promote or inhibit collaboration between school systems. Steve Halkiotis suggested that Task Force members, Superintendents, and the Manager should explore further a possible collaboration assessment with Phillip Boyle since some people have spoken highly of him. Dana believes we'll need to have some answers ready for the public.as to whether we've exhausted all possibility of doing this in house. She sees value'in having an impartial view. There was some discussion about mutual concern that the public in each school system doesn't seem to appreciate the good things going on in the other school system. Steve Halkiotis noted the excellent cooperation between systems, citing as an example the possible loan of OCS busses to CHCCS to address their transportation needs. He thinks we should move on with this, and proceed with the IOG. ,t Prepared 9179102 DRAFT' There was consensus that staff should try to arrange a meeting among Chairs and IOG staff, before the 9/23 joint meeting of the school boards and BOCC if possible. Discussion ensued about the importance of distinguishing between "combining" and "collaborating". Barry noted that the BOCC just wants to challenge some of our existing assumptions, and examine whether something is the best possible way, or are there other ways we might want to consider, whether that relates to efficiency or something else. Barry made reference to a recent letter and resolution from the Chapel Hill Town Council expressing their interest in getting involved in the discussion about the location of a thins high school. John noted Chapel Hill's determination that they are not willing to swap land from Southern Community Park for a possible high school site and wondered about whether such discussion is accordingly a functional use of time. Neil noted that such discussion would involve three sites they've looked at. One is across 15-501 on difficult terrain that could work with extra cost, but their consultant has recommended not to pursue that. The second site would be on Smith Level Road, but outside Chapel Hill's urban service boundaries. Would they consider moving that line? The third site is on Ray Road, and the CHCCS first choice, but another party is interested in that. There is some merit in reconsidering those 3 sites. Valerie Foushee noted that early on she and Nick Didow talked with the Mayor about moving the urban services boundary, but that didn't seem to be something the Town would consider. She thinks the tenor of this recent letter leads one to believe that the door to that may not be closed. Barry asked if we talk about a smaller high school and less than 50 acres, would that open up other sites? Neil responded that these three are all smaller than 50 acres — about 40 or so. What athletic facilities would be lacking would depend on how much parking is needed, how many floors are constructed, and how much of the 40 acres or so would be actually usable. There might be only 2 fields and some tennis courts, not a full stadium - certainly, there would be something well short of what's at the Smith/CHHS complex. Neil also noted there are watershed issues, especially with adjoining other properties. He doesn't know the specific limit, but they went well below 50 acres in their search — probably as low as 25-30 acres. There are other properties, but some owners weren't willing to discuss a sale. Gloria Faley noted that the letter begs another question regarding good collaboration on use of other fields. There was substantial discussion about timeline and considerations for the Board of Education's determination about what size, programming, etc. CHCCS wants in a high school. Valerie noted that it is very difficult until we have a site to decide how big, what kind of school to have. CHCCS knows it will be very difficult to do a 1500 student school. Another possibility could be 750 kids at Lincoln Center and 750 at one of the southern sites. Gloria noted that the CIP says they want at least a 750 student site, but have a population to address for a total of 1500. Lincoln Center could be a site for 750, Prepared 9119/02 1 DRAFT" or for something else. Valerie thinks there's a whole other set of issues with Lincoln Center, including possibly razing what's there and relocating central administration. Dana asked about what percent of kids come from the southern end of the district. Neil recalled a plot map shared earlier, guessing it might be 40% depending on how you define "southern end" of the County. The student population definitely supports a high school there. Neil doesn't think anyone is averse to having a two-story high school, but more than that will require some deliberation. He doesn't think DPI standards are a barrier to building more stories since it's all local money- it's more an issue of going through the Town SUP process. Barry noted that other states have moved away from DPI's "sprawl model" and referred to a handout previously distributed about "Why Johnny Can't Walk to School". Elizabeth Carter has concerns that the "Scroggs problem" not be replicated, where some families don't feel part of that community because they re only there from Monday-Friday. She wants to be sensitive to folks who may be less fortunate than others, and wants Lincoln Center, if used, to be welcoming and a source of pride to those attending. Facilities are important in discussions about closing the achievement gap. Barry asked if staff can make an assessment of how much more it would cost to do two 750 student high schools rather than one serving1500, spread out over ten years, maybe without a tax increase. It may be we would spend more money over time, but could get something on line more quickly- not that you let money dictate educational programming. John expressed reservations about the County s ability to fund two 750 student high schools in the next 10 years with no tax increase. Economically, he thinks it would be better to build something expandable. Elizabeth noted that the concept of academies at East Chapel Hill High never materialized because the student population grew so fast there. Maybe its a bad time to discuss this, given the economy, but she thinks that smaller HS are better for children educationally Valerie said it would be helpful to see on paper if certain options are cost prohibitive, leading to less time spent on pursuing unrealistic approaches. We could just end any of that kind of discussion. We need to meet with the Chapel Hill Town Council. Rod and Ken Chavious noted the importance of working closely with school staffs on assumptions we use to build these cost models. The size and timing matter because of other debt considerations. Neil observed that it is important to remember that the cost of the high school noted in the 2002-12 CIP was "backed into": The $16 million figure was what we thought we might be able to scrape together for high school space. Staff talked about$16 million for 500 students, but didn't change that estimate when the Board of Education specified a building for at least 750. With a new middle school cost at $18.5 million, you can't realistically hope to build a full service 750 student high school for$16 milllion. > Prepared 9119102 DRAFT' Dana came back to the notion of smaller vs. larger schools. This is a very interesting topic for education folks. What she's read leaves questions what is a small school. She went to a 4000 student school, then a 1700 student school —the second one felt much smaller. She is not sure the research backs concerns voiced. Well-supported students at home probably don't derive the same benefits from smaller schools as severely disadvantaged kids.get. The research is clear that those students really do benefit from smaller schools. Gloria observed that Lincoln Center is important because of what the surrounding community perceives, and other positive impacts it would have on other institutions throughout the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County systems. Dana thinks that's what OCS did with Hillsborough. Elementary School. They are "not going to let the core die". Barry said that because of debt limits, costs, etc., it could turn out that we buy two of something rather than one, so we end up meeting our educational goals. It may cost more to do it this way, but maybe that's the only way we can do it. John suggested that maybe the two elements you work on are a new 750 student high school and Lincoln Center over the next 10 years. He noted that there's not an absolute requirement to use bond funds for elementary #10, but they could be used for high school space instead. There was consensus that it is OK for staff to consider that in assumptions and cost modeling. Neil explained that CHCCS are pursuing an architect firm for a third high school with no assignment at this point and no guarantee that there will even be a project . He handed out a memo from Steve Scroggs, noting that they don't plan to sign an architect contract now and recognize they need to come to the BOCC for funding. They just want to select the best firm to design a high school, without regard to cost, that considers their experience in non-traditional high schools and consideration of environmental factors. Barry noted that we've talked about most items on the bullet list on the agenda facesheet, or they'll be addressed in subsequent collaboration discussions. There was consensus to drop the item that related to whether student population increases represent a "trend or blip". Neil said that he is eager to move forward with internal committees on high school program design and other aspects, and that information will be funneled to this group. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45pm. 9/19/2002 Funding Possibilities for CHCCS New Schools Available Revenue 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 $27,849,000 I Projected cost range of 1000 student high school (in accordance with BOCC Adopted School Construction Standards) $24,600,000 to $29,901 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) $12,800,000 Projected debt service payments on new elementary school (assuming alternative financing) $1,100,000 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 APPROVED 9119102 SCHOOL FACILITIES TASK FORCE MINUTES May 16, 2002 MEMBERS ATTENDING: Margaret Brown, Keith Cook , Gloria Faley, Alice Gordon, , Lisa Stuckey, Dana Thompson STAFF ATTENDING: Craig Benedict, Ken Chavious, Raymond Cooke, Donna Dean, John Link, Bill Mullin, Steve Scroggs, Rod Visser Meeting Chaired by Margaret Brown Margaret Brown welcomed the group. There was consensus that she and Alice Gordon would alternate chairing task force meetings. Margaret suggested that the group determine what they want to try to cover during today's meeting, as well as a time frame and number of meetings we may need. Gloria Faley stated her understanding that this should be an organizational meeting, identifying tasks to be covered. Margaret concurred. Rod Visser pointed out that the School Facilities Task Force (SFTASK FORCE) report from April 2001 comprehensively covered topics that task force discussed. Several were left unresolved deliberately. This group can pick up on those, plus other issues identified by elected boards during the past year. Alice noted that some tasks are more urgent than others, such as the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO). Dana Thompson raised concerns that multiple committees not duplicate effort— perhaps we will need enhanced communication between groups like the High School Planning Task Force and SFTF. Alice thinks the objectives cover everything, but some need higher priority, such as SAPFO. She notes it would be good to have work done on construction standards before the new middle school and high school are started. Elementary#9 is "already out of the box". Gloria inquired whether this task force is going to address 3 separate issues that came out of the Carrboro Aldermen meeting the other day, although they approved the SAPFO Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Alice noted "there are issues and there are issues" - seven were identified in SAPFO materials as having to be resolved. There are other issues Carrboro raised. Gloria asked if this group will address those. Margaret suggested that those be written down, then the task force can discuss whether they should address them. APPROVED 9119102 Lisa Stuckey asked who decides student projection methodology. Margaret said this task force has that responsibility. Craig Benedict explained the process that the local government attorneys, managers, and staff(a technical team will address first,then turn o6er to be digested by whatever other group)will work on for SAPFO issues. Dana noted that Orange County Schools' (OCS) concerns are projections, capacity, and start up of schools. There's building the.school, then operating impacts and getting us over the hump of starting up a new school. She would like to have some group work on a process for opening anew school: In response to Lisa's request for clarification, Dana explained she is talking about the constraints that are faced when you have two school systems. When they open new schools in different years, it's hard to have the flexibility to address one system's need. Margaret asked staff to bring back historical information on costs to open new schools. Alice mentioned that Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools(CHCCS) district tax has been used to address start up costs, but per pupil/operating funds have to be used to address OCS operating startup costs. John Link explained in response to Lisa's question that CHCCS district tax can be used for either operating or capital, but traditionally special district taxes have been used for operating. Margaret concurred with Alice that we need to 'dill in the blanks" on SAPFO. There was consensus with that observation. Craig briefly explained the various methodologies that have been used on student projections. Those have been provided during the past year to take historical and current data to project 10-year student numbers. Some are conservative, some liberal, and differ on which year they might suggest a new school would be needed. The Schools and Land Use Council (SLUC) suggests averaging the 5 projection methodologies as a basis for feeding SAPFO and the County's Capital Investment Plan (CIP). SAPFO anticipates that each year you take current data and update projections. Maybe over time one methodology will be demonstrated to be more accurate. Updates create a resulting growth rate. All jurisdictions must consider those when they contemplate land use or zoning changes. We must see if the CIP supports the updated projections. High projections lead to accelerated capital needs, low projections mute the capital needs. SLUC thinks we should use the average of methods for the first couple of years. Technical teams would take pure mathematical calculations, nothing political —updated numbers would.go to the County Commissioners and other parties to agreement for comment, with the Commissioners making the decisions thereafter. The attorneys have been working to make this as legally defensible as possible, and want to base it on mathematics and technical matters. APPROVED 9119102 John noted the important outcome as it relates to this task force and SLUC is that there be a specific recommendation as to what approach will be used for the future—there must be something in place. There is self-interest that would lead one entity to favor a projection methodology over another. Craig noted that the Tischler contract required them to leave us their formulas. They had 4 different models themselves that reflect different conditions in the community. They used two different methodologies for calculating two separate sets of school district impact fees. If there are large buildouts, then planning directors can bring in local knowledge and other constraints to those models. Lisa observed that the goal is to remove subjectivity from the process—any change to formulas must be based on empirical data. Craig says they will explain the linear and cohort survival methods. Dana wants to see the formulas. Craig says some of those are simple, if you define things (e.g. building capacity) and stick with those over time. We are starting to standardize data better, and are getting better ideas working with school systems as to where the students are coming from. Dana asked whether we have tested the accuracy of these. Gloria thinks the performance of various models is important. Alice noted that SLUC has looked at all of these things and made recommendations. They decided last night that both systems should use the linear Tischler model. SLUC was charged at a Joint Planning Area meeting to make recommendations on these. Alice pointed out that its not just the Board of Commissioners, but all parties, that must approve these things. Alice noted that some of these models work in a way that requires adjustments each year, like DPI's. All of us need to understand the models' working, and those that want the nitty gritty can go deeper. Craig plans to do analysis so CIP preparers can understand the predictive value of methodologies. Gloria asked Steve Scroggs to explain his handout on which models were most accurate for 2001-02 for various levels (elementary, middle, high school). Alice surmised that there would not be statistical significance because of the small sample size. Alice then pointed out info from the May 15 SLUC meeting and Apr 2001 SFTF report comparing student membership numbers by school. She noted that with bond funded projects coming, we ought to be in good shape for SAPFO at both school systems and all levels, once the need for CHCCS high school space is addressed. APPROVED 9119102 John noted that staff who go "into the cave" on projections may have different opinions going in, but need to come out with one set of data that everyone will work with. Steve says we should plan to work with November membership numbers each year and go into the cave each February. Alice noted that people are concerned that if we get into an overcapacity situation, whether there would need to be any development moratorium. Craig thinks our own data will be credible within about 3 years as we gather more GIS data. Alice said Orange County is going forward with our CIP since SAPFO is not in place. She doesn't see any projection information changing any 2002-03 projects. Years beyond that are not locked in stone. May 30 and June 6 public hearings are an opportunity for folks with concerns about the CIP relationship to SAPFO to comment. Dana noted the value of having one methodology cited for public consumption, but there's also value in looking at the data broken down in more detail. Craig said we will do all the projection graphs, but the one for public consumption would show just one average. Margaret asked if task force members need data about capacity of school buildings. Gloria suggested staff producing data on space used by classroom in each school for daycare, pre-kindergarten, and special populations. Dana asked if there is some standard for daycare or special class size. Steve noted that classroom standards have changed. 900 square feet for kindergarten was fine in 1973, - now we wouldn't build less than 1200, but still both are counted as having the same kindergarten capacity. CHCCS uses standard special population classroom capacity as 10, although it might have 3 kids or might have 16 kids depending on circumstances. Dana said that what spaces are called matters. At New Hope Elementary, the dance studio space is really being used as a classroom. Margaret pointed out that the list needs to include the number of classrooms,by school. Alice said we would need a chart with a design capacity and how space is actually being used. Steve and Raymond Cooke will collaborate on a standard format for the capacity information. APPROVED 0119102 Craig explained how student generation rate categories were developed and examined — "single family" and "other". He suggests we work with the statistically valid approach we have now until we come up with something better. Craig will prepare a written explanation of that approach. Dana asked why were these specific level of service (LOS )figures chosen? Craig said they looked at other APFOs around the country. Some places were starting at 150%for LOS. The thought here was we have the ability to be tighter here, so let's go with that. With 5% as permissible overcapacity spread over 6 or 7 schools, that might lead to a maximum of 1 or 2 portable classrooms at each elementary. John noted people have differing opinions— some think 100% LOS ought to be the standard.r Others, like the business community, may see those numbers as too low and leading to the need for a development moratorium. Steve noted that elementaries have the least flexibility, so they ought to have the lowest LOS. Alice noted these are about the tightest standards in the country. John believes it necessary to make sure people are clear on LOS meaning, e.g. that it applies to a whole school system, not one school within the system. Dana suggested maybe two levels of LOS where you start higher, then definitely kick in delay in CAPs issuance when you get to the lower figure. Craig said.that's generally the concept we're looking at. Margaret noted that we haven't focused on debt capacity of the County and tax increase the public is willing to assume. John suggested that the question is at 105% can we carry out the CIP? We're in better shape than other jurisdictions that have tried APFO with regard to available capacity. His outlook is a little different than a year ago, as pressure on the CIP is coming from all sides. Margaret expressed concern that we're just leaming about pieces of State funding that will be taken away and affect our ability to address mandated services. Lisa notes that when you reach LOS, folks who have existing CAPS continue to build and more kids come into system, thus eating up more capacity of new schools. Craig said we can't control student growth associated with existing development (e.g. 45% of Carrboro growth may come from reworking of existing housing)-what we can control is impacts of new development. We will still see growth, but it won't be as steep. Dana thinks the development community wants to know that we're taking into consideration the lag time. APPROVED 9119102 In response to Lisa's observation, Craig pointed out that you don't bankrupt yourself to build schools— it's what's financially feasible, and you have to make your best effort. Keith Cook thinks it important to consider that the cost.ofhousing being built doesn't attract children — houses of$100-125K aren't being builf—those are the type of houses where kids coming to schools would live. Margaret noted that we have a huge stock of existing affordable housing in Orange County, but folks aren't moving out of those homes. . Steve and Raymond said they can prepare school capacity tables. Craig can do a summary of the student generation rate approach and Carrboro's SAPFO issues. At the next meeting, we will also cover the portion of the agenda that wasn't covered today. It was decided that the next meeting will be on May 30 at noon at the Southern Human Services Center. Craig will create the next agenda with Margaret and Alice. Staff will not have time to prepare minutes of this meeting for review then due to attention to the budget process. The meeting was adjourned at 1:40pm. APPROVED 9119/02 SCHOOL FACILITIES TASK FORCE MINUTES May 30, 2002 MEMBERS ATTENDING: Keith Cook , Gloria Faley, Alice Gordon, Lisa Stuckey, Dana Thompson STAFF ATTENDING: Craig Benedict, Randy Bridges, Donna Dean, John Link, Bill Mullin, Kathy Osborne, Steve Scroggs, Rod Visser Meeting Chaired by Alice Gordon The May 30 meeting agenda was accepted as prepared. Rod Visser explained the general siting considerations that are listed in the school.construction standards. Staff will later distribute those. Location considerations mentioned include: utilities, access, public transportation, density (as relates to source of the student body), master planning process for phasing, land availability (increasing scarcity of suitable parcels). Alice Gordon explained Schools and Land Use Council (SLUG) discussion of possible school sites-Chapel Hill has some potential school sites on their comprehensive plan but it is unknown whether they will work. Carrboro uses a different process—they have listed as potential school sites the land the County has bought. Craig Benedict explained that in unincorporated Orange County, there were about 60 potential sites identified —those need to be narrowed to reflect acreage needs, so that the County comprehensive plan can include some appropriate potential school site designations. Keith Cook noted that 2/3 of sites had to be eliminated because of lack of water and sewer. Dana Thompson asked for a summary of the water summit discussion. She thinks it is important to know what roads are in place so there will be easy access to get children to the parcel the school would go on. Gloria Faley noted that in terms of potential of shared sites, Efland wouldn't work well for CHCCS. It is important to identify early on whether a school site really is suitable. Alice noted the need to work together to be more proactive to identify sites, even in lean budget times. She noted the previous creation by the Board of Commissioners of the school/park reserve fund. The constraint in OCS seems to be infrastructure, in CHCCS it's availability of land. Craig explained that software exists that can help identify school sites based on student locations and plans reflecting likely future development. APPROVED 9/19/02 Alice wants CHCCS to provide the letter they sent earlier requesting the BOCC look more closely at the high school sites that CHCCS has proposed. John Link notes there is a big difference between a utility extension and actually getting sewer to the Efland area,. There is a need to consider where a school project ends and a larger question of utility,provision arises. Lisa Stuckey asked if there are no alternatives to water and sewer for schools? Craig explained some of the limitations to wells and septic systems that lead to the conclusion that as a practical matter, water and sewer are needed for a school. Steve Scroggs notes that high performance standards are in use in CHCCS that far exceed State requirements—Alice wants to provide those. Gloria noted that high performance standards in some ways cost more for maintenance and more upfront, but also are just good for the environment (and sometimes that costs more). Staff will work on providing examples of both for elementary, middle, and high school level. Steve sees smaller schools as something this group should look for possible. changes to school standards. Gloria mentioned urban vs. suburban school acreage, building up vs. around. There was consensus that cost per seat goes up with smaller schools. Dana suggests we look at why some systems built smaller schools—are their reasons germane to one or the other of our systems, or not? Alice thinks you need to ensure that you get value from the tradeoffs you get from smaller schools- . larger schools may have more problems, but they may provide more programmatic options—need pros and cons; they might not be better or worse, they might just be different. Dana observed that if programming is built into the standards, is it something that can be offered throughout the County— not something that one system may,lack the money for? Gloria inquired about split campuses if you don't have one larger sites but have two 20-acre parcels nearby? Randy Bridges suggested you should look at how systems have gone to smaller schools for various programming needs. Square footage and inflation factors are standards issues that need to be considered. Dana wants to discuss the age of buildings, how long they should serve as schools—she sees the importance of keeping schools in APPROVED 9/19/02 neighborhoods, but eventually they can't be patched anymore. We should consider deconstructing unserviceable schools and rebuilding in place. Steve explained that basic capacity is easy to calculate (x classrooms times y kids per class)—it gets tricky with the ebb and flow that results from capacity adjustments that are necessitated by special needs kids. A 26-student classroom may quickly be reduced to 4-5 capacity if more autistic kids enroll. He cited an example that last week 6 autistic kids enrolled for next year, which reduces elementary capacity by 24. Steve notes they can't serve autistic kids in _ modular units because of regulations requiring access s to facilities,.ADA compliance, etc. John notes the problem that causes with developers who don't understand capacity changes that might keep them from getting authority to build. Alice notes it's impossible to forecast growth in special needs. Lisa and Steve point out that people come to CHCCS from all over the country for the TEACCH program—they have grown from 1 to 8-9 autistic classes, Alice notes that we went about 20 years without building new schools —that means we have new schools and others that have their charm but have their problems as well. Some things you can't practically deal with — if school classrooms were built too small, it's hard to adjust that— it may be prohibitively expensive to bring those up to current standards. Gloria wonders if adding storage space in older facilities could address fire code concerns and lead to more effective classroom space. Alice wonders can room size be designed to not be so specialized? Flexspace may be more controversial, but.... She notes Craig's previous mention of this as a way to address any "bubble" moving through the school system in terms of the number of kids in a particular grade level. Craig notes in Florida that there might be a larger size for some classrooms that would allow different ages and class sizes to use the same space as grade sizes increase and decrease. This works best in campus type sites where a building could be used one year for elementary and at a different time for middle school kids. Randy said that student surveys have gone out. Parent studies would go out next fall. Steve says the student surveys are out, but he doesn't know when they were administered. Both systems will provide their surveys as information for the BOCC. Gloria thinks SAPFO and construction standards decisions are needed to support the work of the group looking at the Old 86 site and to make a decision about a third high school. We need to have the timeline for this task force mesh with the timeline for the Old 86 property process timeline that Dave Stancil distributed recently. APPROVED 9/19102 b Steve suggests dealing with high school standards and middle school standards first. There was extensive discussion about the suitability or not of the 15-501 potential high school site—steepness, RCDs, wetlands, etc limit available acreage to about a 20 acre strip right along 15-501 —Steve thinks they could handle a 500 student high school there. Lisa and Steve noted the success of the McDougle campus in providing flexibility. Alice noted that CHCCS seems to be comfortable with SLUC recommendations on SAPFO, but OCS isn't yet. Craig plans to attend an OCS meeting to try to respond to their questions. Alice said that at the next SLUC meeting on June 12,they will look at Carrboro and Chapel.Hill concems and conditions, such as Level of Service issues. They will consider how material can be packaged and sent out to jurisdictions for action on the actual ordinance. Although the BOCC wouldn't want to, its possible that SAPFO could be applied first in CHCCS, and later in the OCS district. Craig explained that it may indeed be necessary for various goveming boards to address the SAPFO several times as one jursidiction or another decides it needs "tweaks" (for example,Carrboro's level of service concerns that adoption not lead to an immediate moratorium), but that this round-robin approach may be necessary. Craig provided an explanation of the concept behind level of service consideration and.determination. It defers development until CIP can be matched to provide needed schools. In Cary, they started at 148% LOS because . they were already at 143% and they didn't want to require an immediate moratorium. Keith noted the adverse educational impacts that could result if the percentage of overcrowding goes up every year under a higher level of service while we're waiting for the construction of a new school that will provide some relief: Dana has concems that conversation persists everywhere that maybe a new middle school isn't needed that soon, even though funded. If you change level of service standards, that could foster even more of that kind of view that we should wait to build the school. John thinks there needs to be good thumbnail projections; citizens must see that there is agreement about the definition of"overcrowded". There must be great care on the part of County and school folks to be in tandem when we say something is overcrowded or not. APPROVED 9/19/02 Dana wonders if we have made sure that programming is driving the need for space -that it is what we really need, the way we use classrooms, the way we've examined collaborative opportunities are appropriate and necessary— if not, maybe we should rethink our message that overcrowding is such a heinous thing. High school standards, middle school standards, and building capacity are the priorities in Alice's view—also level of service if it comes up. Craig says we could also bring the easy SAPFO pieces for this group to look at. Dana thinks it is very important to lay out the process for opening a school —she would like to see a written document on that with the kind of detail that we have in the policy for developing new schools and where the decision points are, and who needs to be involved. That is a concern for OCS before they'll feel comfortable moving forward with the SAPFO. It was decided that the next meeting would be at noon on June 27 in Hillsborough focusing on SAPFO issues. The meeting adjourned at 2:45pm. � - �� a APPROVED 9119102 SCHOOL FACILITIES TASK FORCE MINUTES June 27, 2002 ; MEMBERS ATTENDING: Margaret Brown,Alice Gordon, Lisa Stuckey, Dana Thompson STAFF ATTENDING: Craig Benedict, Donna Dean, John Link, Bill Mullin, Steve Scroggs, Rod Visser Meeting Chaired by Margaret Brown The meeting agenda was.accepted as prepared. Draft minutes will be considered for approval at the next meeting. Margaret Brown referred to a matrix prepared by staff reflecting decision points related to adoption of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). i Rod Visser explained handouts provided on student membership and school capacity as certified by the two Superintendents. Craig benedM clarified that capacity cited is 100% building capacity, not "Level of Service" (LOS) capacity as that term is used in SAPFO discussion. Rod clarified that we're not saying that building capacities would never change. Staff just wanted a common baseline that folks could agree on. Lisa Stuckey expressed concern that if the State 'requires smaller class sizes, there needs to be the ability to adjust building capacities. Alice Gordon asked for and received the State requirements for class size. She expressed interest in average class size per grade level,which Steve Scroggs explained is only calculated once per year, for the opening of school report. Dana Thompson pointed out that there is a difference between the funding formula and maximum number of kids you can legally put in a classroom. She,suggested that after everything settles down, maybe we should approach the BOCC about impacts on facility needs such as exceptional children, People need to understand the process so there isn't great fluctuation from year to year. Margaret confirmed that members can live with these capacities as standard for now, then have staffs bring forward any subsequently needed changes to the BOCC. Craig said there would be a standard sheet that schools could use to explain why they need a change incapacity. There would be certified capacities for each school for each year. Steve said that exceptional students would be the major determiner. We might want to pursue needed changes later in the year because you get more exceptional students as the year goes along. Craig suggested it should be done between November 15 and February APPROVED 8!19102 15—perhaps in December— so that the technical committee could wrap that into their information. Steve indicated that he thinks we could have exceptional children and any State changes by November 15. Alice noted that since we have talked about the difference between building capacity and programmed capacity, it-might be good to track both. Steve cited examples (such as year round schools)where there would be differences between building and programmed capacities. John Link noted that the entire school community understands building capacity and that they will understand the nuances about program capacity after you explain why. Lisa recapped what she understands as the process for changing stated building capacity. John said that's when you get into discussion in the CIP- schools identify something as programmatically important, but the BOCC needs to sign off because they are responsible to find money to pay for additional seats. Submittal in and of itself does not necessarily constitute approval. Bill Mullin pointed out another twist: if you convert a kindergarten class to something with 10 students, that's understandable - but if you take a non-capacity classroom (like lab or music room) and convert it to a regular classroom, does your capacity then go up? Alice noted we may have difficulty finding funds to build more space if there are big swings in capacity. Steve pointed out that SAPFO numbers must be legally defensible. As soon as you deny the first CAPS, you'll have a legal action and will need to fall back on DPI standards. Lisa said that as a school board member, she would not want to go up and down in capacity from year to year. She would want to be very clear that there is justification for a change that is basically permanent. Craig agreed, saying there must be a rational basis and a good paper trail of the reasoning. Dana noted that if there's any suggestion you've changed capacity when development requests are coming in, you've got problems. That argues-for having an established date by which you report capacity every year. She prefers using the best 1 of 2 months, but is willing to live with November 15 so the MOU doesn't have to go around to everybody for change. Perhaps leave it for now and change it in the future if needed when the next group of changes have to be circulated. Alice explained that she had talked extensively with County Attorney Goof Gledhill who insisted that November 15 is the day to use for annual reporting purposes. " Rod explained the staff interest in using 40th day figures because that's a number both school systems use and report. Also, the first School facilities Task Force selected that figure in its recommendations. That said, we can live with November 15—it's not a big enough issue to have to have all bodies review the MOU (which cites the November 15 date) again. Craig said the technical group will look at both 2d month and November 15. If a change is needed, then we could perhaps make that change in the first year. There was then E t APPROVED 9119192 consensus that the Task Force will use November 1Z as the membership date upon which to forecast student projections every year. Craig walked through updated projection tables and graphs: Donna Dean pointed out where new schools are programmed to come on line in these tables. For CHCCS with two new elementaries, the only problem year is 2002-03 — buf if the ordinance effective date is 2/15/03, it will be OK to issue CAPs because new capacity will be available by August 2003 (because Elementary#9 will open then). For middle schools in CHCCS the average of 5 models exceeds LOS in 2007-08. For CHCCS the average exceeds high school LOS of 110% in 200405. For OCS middle schools, we are over LOS for 2002-03. Steve pointed out the precedent problem: if you change the LOS once because you can't afford schools, developers will come back later and point out that you changed it once, so why won't you change LOS again so they can build their developments? Lisa asked rhetorically"why have this ordinance if you seek to avoid its implications?" Dana asked if we can get a legal opinion to the effect that it is OK to start higher and then ratchet down the LOS. Steve pointed out that linear models are more forgiving of"blips", whereas the cohort . approach really hammers home on any "blips". He thinks you need to stay with the average of the models until we can determine that one works best. Dana would like to see, later, how numbers from three years ago would have been projected out using these models. She is very concerned that projections for OCS look low because of what they view as a "blip". Alice observed that the only question arising from these charts is when to build OCS middle school #3-for 2003 or 2008? There's also a question of impact on the County's debt capacity. It was noted that if we used 110% for OCS middle school level of service, that would provide enough latitude based on these updated projections to not exceed LOS. Steve noted that they are seeing more older kids, fewer five year olds coming in. John observed that these numbers show we have an issue with CHCCS high school and OCS middle school —the others are OK for 10 years. It is much easier to start with a higher number then go down later. This would mean if you tweak the LOS up to start, with plans to lower it later, then you don't have to have a moratorium. Perhaps we would need to consider whether approved 2001 bond funding would need to be allocated to new schools that are facing an LOS problem. Dana has a concern with what people think about when they think of capacity. If you start with a higher LOS, that may create impression that that's the level when you need to start getting concerned about crowding. She is concerned that may create political pressure to delay implementing a school project because there doesn't appear to be a capacity problem. If OCS can't continue to offer slightly smaller class size, that reduces their attractiveness since they don't have as much in financial resources. APPROVED 9119192 ` John would advocate that if you start with a higher LOS, that you say upfront when you plan to reduce that based on CIPs and student projections. Dana would feel reassured by that. Lisa observed that the 5 year average projection model suggests that CHCCS elementary #10 wouldn't be needed until 2009-10. Alice sees a big question as to why both systems are seeing reductions in elementary membership. Bill says that's happening elsewhere in the Triangle, including Wake County where they are reconsidering whether some bond money approved for elementades should go to high schools.instead. Dana noted the surprising number of students from both systems,who are willing to consider going outside of district. She thinks it would be helpful to see if some of the OCS excess high school capacity could be used. We would need to promote interest through positive comments from leaders. She could see interest in IB and workforce development. This approach might help in the short term avoid any moratorium requirement. Steve noted the possibility of having some middle school students stay at elementary campuses to deal with some of the short term crowding problems. Craig summarized decisions made: we will keep November 15 as membership date for projections; we will use DPI certified capacities, but will also.track programmatic capacities; we will clarify membership projections in the future, and show on charts years in which school levels will exceed LOS. There was consensus to use Tischler student generation rates, noting we don't have any better altemative. John suggested that County and school staffs could examine the possibility of tweaking LOS and reallocating capital funds between now and 2007 to see what kind of deficit that would leave for capital,operating, and start up:costs. Alice reiterated the point that voters supported CHCCS elementary#10 and OCS middle school#3 and we can't back away from that commitment. All agreed with that sentiment- it's just a question of timing. The next meeting was scheduled for noon on August 29 at Southem Human Services Center and staff will try to get agenda materials out the week before. The meeting adjourned at 2:10pm. CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP PARK & EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS Master Plan Process Adopted by Board of Commissioners, May 14, 2002 In order to begin the process of planning for the new park and educational campus on the County's 193-acre site near Old 86 and Eubanks Road, the following is offered as a draft proposal for the Board of Commissioners' consideration. This draft is based on previous drafts, comments provided by the Board at October 22, . 2001 and November 13, 2001 worksessions, and subsequent. meetings and/or discussions. It also includes additional thoughts from. at least two Commissioners in the last few days. New additional language is shown in bold italic. This draft process for the Master Plan Work Group is designed to comprehensively integrate the planning of the educational campus and park site to ensure maximum efficiency and flexibility of use. NOTE: Recent correspondence from the CHCCS Superintendent to the School Board — augmented by discussion at the March 25 BOCC/School Boards meeting - have noted the plans for a second school at this site (a middle school), as well as potential location for a high school as part of a three-school campus. Tentative Schedule of Activities* Action Date Master Plan Work Group appointed June 2002 Work Group begins work September, 2002 Interim report to Board of Commissioners Janusa, 2003 Work Group completes Master Plan May-June, 2003** Board of Commissioners reviews and approves August-September, 2003 Master Plan Town of Carrboro review and approval of site August 2003—June 2004 lan Develop bids and bid project June-Au t, 2004 Construction of Phase I—Schools component TEA Construction of Phase I—Parks Com vent November 2004—October 2005. * - adjusted to reflect current timetable ** • some aspects of the educational campus design may not be completed by this time 1. Proposed Master Plan Work Group Chase: 1 . DEVELOP A MASTER PLAN FOR THE CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP PARK AND EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PRE-CONCEPT PLAN, GUIDING PRINCIPLES (PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT 1) AND OTHER DIRECTION PROVIDED FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON OCTOBER 22, 2001 , NOVEMBER 13, ' 2001 , ' FEBRUARY 18, 2002 AND AT SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS. 2. THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING „ COMPONENTS: • A concept plan for both the park and educational campus*. The concept plans should include all proposed buildings, playing fields, roads, parking, other facilities, amenities, infrastructure locations, vegetative cover, hydrology and other components that are .commonly included in park or school facility concept plans. To accomplish this task, the Work Group may divide into two subcommittees — a Park Subcommittee and an Educational Campus Subcommittee. Following basic initial planning for,the entire site, the two subcommittees.could convene to develop plans for individual components of . the property. It is recognized that the Educational Campus Subcommittee will be limited to initial site planning considerations, as it awaits the completion of other school-related committees that have implications for design of the campus. The subcommittees would need to communicate regularly and openly to ensure that an integrated design for the whole site is maintained. The Work Group as a whole would then reconvene to approve the overall Master Plan to be submitted to the Board of Commissioners for approval. • A written report outlining the proposed uses, the design rationale, description of work group process, natural and cultural features,means of soliciting community input, the potential future phases, and construction cost estimates. The report should also include a phasing plan for both. concept plan components, showing how the park and school facilities could be developed overtime in a cost-efficient fashion. R 3. THE MASTER PLAN WILL ADDRESS CO-LOCATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS AND PARK, AND SERVE TO PROVIDE FOR A "SE4MLESS TRANSITION"BETWEEN SCHOOL FACILITIES AND PARK FUNCTIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE 4. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL, VIA A SEPARATE PROCESS, ADDRESS THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARK Product: A Master Plan report and map, as described above, by March 1, 2003 Timeframe: May 2002- March 2003** Final Steps: Once completed, the Master Plan will be submitted to . the Board of County Commissioners for approval. The Board may either approve the Plan, remand it back for further work, or decide to pursue the Plan. *- It is recognized that the level of detail for the educational campus may of necessity be less precise. However, it is expected that the educational campus component of the Master Plan should, to the degree possible, show the proposed uses, general building locations and functional layout of the school facilities **- Some components of the Educational Campus design may not be completed by this time, pending the work of other school-related committees I Proposed Membership --Chapel Will Township Park and Educational Campus Master Plan Work Group (23) Appointed by Orange County: • 2 County Commissioners (Work Group Co-Chairs) • 3 citizens at-large • 1 Commission for the Environment member • 1 Recreation and Parks Advisory Council member 2 InterGovernmental Parks Work Group members • Duke Forest Resource Manager • 1 Carrboro Northern Transition Area Committee member + 1 Orange County Planning Board member • 2 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools parents • 1 Orange County Schools parent Appointed by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board: 2 CHCCS School Board members Appointed by the Town of Carrboro: • 1 Carrboro Alderman • 1 Carrboro Parks and Recreation Commission member Appointed by the Town of Chapel Hall: 1 Chapel Hill Town Council member • 1 Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission member ' • 1 Chapel Hill Greenways Commission member Appointed by the Orange County Board of Education: • 1 Orange County Board of Education member Staff(Orange County, • County Manager or designee ■ Environment and Resource Conservation Director ■ Land Conservation Manager- ■ Open Space Design Specialist ■ Recreation and Parks Director (Assistance also to be solicited from Planning Director,County Engineer,Purchasing Director, and Public Works Director). Other Staff ■ Chapel Hill-Ca;rboro City Schools Superintendent(or designee),Associate Superintendent • Orange County Schools Superintendent(or designee),Associate Superintendent ■ Parks and Planning staff from Town of Carrboro would be invited to attend and participate ex-officio. J + ATTACHMENT 1 III. Guiding Principles In addition to the charge, the Work Group shall use the following Guiding Principles in developing a,Master Plan for the site: • The park and school facility functions and uses should conform to the Pre- Concept Plan reviewed and agreed to by the Board of Commissioners on October 22, 2001 and November 13, 2001 The site should promote a pedestrian-friendly environment and work to discourage automobile traffic between the different components of the site • The protection of important stream corridors and natural areas should be a foremost consideration, and active recreation facilities should be designed in concert with the natural surroundings wherever possible. Grading and alteration of the natural landscape should be minimized, with the understanding that some portions of the active recreation area will require grading for playing fields • Generally, all portions of the site not identified for school facilities, playing fields or ancillary uses should adhere to "Olmsteadian" park and open space design principles, promoting open spaces, meadows, and fields that may flexibly be used for a variety of public leisure purposes • Efficiency opportunities in grouping of playing fields and related facilities (lighting, restrooms) should be explored • The open spaces, including_trails, should be -developed as both an internal and external network, with leisure and pedestrian movement between school facilities and the park addressed internally, and linkage to future Carrboro greenways externally • The plan should promote xeriscaping (native vegetation and minimal water use)within the entire site • The plan should address incorporating the farmstead structures and log cabin into the overall park design • Accordingly, the plan should reflect design that is sensitive to adjoining landowners (particularly the "in-holding" parcel) • The Master Plan should ensure that educational facilities and park amenities are inter-twined based on access and commonality of use, with as seamless of a transition between uses as possible • As information regarding potential co-location of other facilities becomes available, the Work Group may consider this information as directed by the Board of Commissioners • Additional basic operating principles may be developed by the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group and approved by the Board of Commissioners me �' lb Educational Opportunities Survey 'R1 alt Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools This survey is designed to explore potential opportunities for collaboration between Chapel Hiil-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools. The objective is to investigate where the opportunities for high school students exist between the two scho districts. The focus is on ways to arrange for these opportunities. 1. What is your grade level for the 2001-2002 school year? a. 81h 784 b. 9 434 a 10 406 d. 11 386 2. Would you be willing to-Wend part of your school day at a school outside of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district at a school offering specialized courses? a. Yes MS-28% HS-39% b. No MS-20% HS-11% c. Maybe MS-52% HS-60% If your answer is NO to question#2,go to question#4 and continue. If YES or MAYBE, please answer the following question and continue. 3. Would you need transportation to the other school? a. Yes MS-59% HS-43% b. No MS-9% HS-33% c. Maybe MS-32% HS-24% lam a Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools student and would consider enrolling in the following high school programs in the Orange County Schools:(See end of survey for the program descriptions.) t 4. Agriculture and Horticulture/Landscaping a. Yes MS-27% b. No MS-73% HS-17% HS-83% 5. Carpentry Technology a. Yes MS-30% b. No MS-70% HS-25% HS-75% 6. International Baccalaureate Program(potential new program) a. Yes MS-28% b. No MS-72% HS-30% HS-70% 7. Junior ROTC(potential new program) a. Yes MS-32% b. No MS-68% HS-25% HS-75% Would you consider enrolling in a potential new program at a nearby community college, at some point in your high school career? (See end of survey for program descriptions.) 8. Cosmetology a. Yes MS-36% b. No MS-64% HS-27% HS-73% 9. Culinary Arts a. Yes MS-42% b. No MS-58% HS-43% HS-57% 10. Criminal Justice a_ Yes MS-46% b. No MS-54% HS-46% HS-54% 1 e 11, Would you ore let 10 all air a 1500 s[u0en1 high school or a smaill r school of a Maimalel 750 Students? a. 1500 Culbrelh MS Mcpou IoM Phlli s MS Smith MS c. tloesn't m Ice an tliherence 37% - O+B .� Wh1ch 01 the lall:m areas 01 so St.alizalion would Epp aal Ip District Du? 12. A school mat em haaietl the use of lechnolo 25% 36% 39% 36% 35°; b.no O4% 90% 25% 25% 13. A school Ihal em 99YO 40% naxietl science an main - )1% 87% b. no 29% 34% 80% 33% 6 hat em 20% 0% 64% 19. A acho0l t hasizgtl the ens and humanities 39% 69°, a, es Sit 49% 36% 31 % no 91% 51% 59% 66% 41X 32% 53% 50% 15. A school That celaletl c0umew0lk to roe eclives earears in amgs such as law haallh social services and business 4)% 56% a. as 69% 61% 50% 44% D. NO 31% 65 Y. 71% 39% 35% 67% lb. Would Yolk consider anen0in a hi h gm lela rra of ens Inealer bans 29% 89% school that did not o8gr 33% 67% 52% b, no dance alto 35% 3 % fi7% 62% _ miter attending _ ID% - 17. Wou10 ou conenoin a high school that tlitl nm hav wm lele arm of s orls Ieams7 _ 33% fi5% e a a- es 65% ®9% - 3 % 35% D. no 0 38% 91% 3a% 50% 18. WOUId 66% 50X 434 37% _ ou lind it a ealinn [o mNe some or all 01 our 50% cawse work 37% D- es . soma - aF a Dammunil colle a7 - 83% 89% 29% 63X 50% 61% 32i 95% C. no 6B% 36 19. Wpu10 ou find it a 12% - 55^6 64% 35% ealin to attend school for a. es a onion Of me da and lake our remainin 54X 19% - D. n0 cgursewprk on the Internet .1 38% 55Y. 38% Sq% 1 }% 20. Wpultl ou like 10 see a miry hi h school be different 31.6 57% a. es lrom our Iwo eurrem mm renenaive hi n 59% 96X 32% 55% 00% 66Y. 34% D. no sthools? 91% 34 Y. 30% 60% 60Y. - 53% 40% 0% 338% 52% 4 55% 6% Avers a Numb¢r pl 6lutlem p¢s Onaes 47% 48% 83% 95% 37% 40% q9% 57% 207 204 43% , 218 91 427 767 1912 W 0 d School Adequate Public FaCU leS Q V r. 7 VI 11/14/01 SLUC Vote X X X 02/08/02 SLUC SAPFO Version sent to all local governments and School Districts. Review and Approve: Carrboro X X X Chapel Hill X X X Board of County Commissioners CHCCS X X X Hillsborou h X X X Board of County Commissioners Orange County Schools X X X SLUC X X X X X: X X ; 05/16/02 Schools Facilities Task Force 06/27/02 Schools Facilities Task Force X X X X 09/19/02 Schools Facilities Task Force 09/25/02 SLUC Compile and Resend to local govermnents and School Districts Review and Re-approve: Carrboro Chapel Hill Board of County Commissioners CHCCS Hillsborough o Board of County Commissioners Oran a Count Schools 02/15/02 Local Government Implementation r..�vi:ajwws•.remrvW�„q a s PFO m: l 1 A+6ekmu+ Lc. Updated 9119/02 SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE September,2002 Schools Facilities Task Force Final Review and Recommendation of (muddle) Memorandum of Understanding variables as delegated by Board of County Commissioners. See MOU-APFO Chart. Special Schools and Land Use Councils meeting: September,2002 Schools and Land Use Councils Final Review and Recommendation of (late) Memorandum of Understanding/School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance based on local government,School District and Schools Facilities Task Force which incorporate public input. September,2002 Schools and Land Use Councils transmit final version of Memorandum of Understanding/School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance including all determined variables to local government for School Districts for Memorandum of Understanding(amended)re-approval. ORDINANCE ADOPTION October-November 2002 All local government and School Districts adopt accordingly. October 2,2002 Orange County Planning Board Ordinance Review of School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. rr {Ft+ of t October,2002 Possible discussion,if necessary,at October 30,2002 Assembly of (late) Governments meeting. If possible,Board of County Commissioners discussion afterward November 6,2002 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item for adoption of Memorandum of Understanding and Ordinance. November 11,2002 Board of County Commissioners Work Session—if necessary for adoption. November 15,2002 Receipt of membership numbers by schools,level by School District for Planning Directors,School Representative Technical Advisory Committee. Planning Directors,School Representative Technical Advisory Committee begins 2002 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance projection report.. November 19,2002 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item for adoption of Memorandum of Understanding and Ordinance if not acted upon on 1 Updated 9/19/02 November 6 or November 11,2002. January,2003 Planning Directors,School Representative Technical Advisory (early) Committee report issued to School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance parties. February 4(?),2003 Board of County Commissioners certified 2002 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance system February 15,2003 New development subject to School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. 2 Revisee h 02� Procedure for Execution of School APFO Data Gathered School District School'Boards and Provides Membershi BOCC Provide Boil Data Capacity Figures I 15th Data Reported to PSTAC (Planners and Schools Technical Advisory Committee); PSTAC Recalibrates Model(i.e.updates actual membership and building capacity)and Projections(to assist in CIP development);Notifies All Parties of Results January 100, (guildlme) BOCC reviews materials from PSTAC and determines whether or not changes to model or other elements are necessary,notifies other parties to the agreement Process renews February 1 at each fall N BOCC Certifies Model, Projections and Results by February 15th New CAPS Model for New Development Goes Into Effect OCS&CHCCS w/BOCC Develop New CIPs&School Capacity Limits ( ,WEND OWS\TEMP\FIowchr--F=ofSAPFO 3-02.dw s� -1 Water is essential for good health and sanitation. The Orange County community is experiencing a drought that may impact upon the quality and availability of water. Water conservation is critical. This five-year drought will not be resolved with a few rainy afternoons and our well owners may experience delayed results later this fall. It is important to maintain good health and cooperative spirits during this time of stress. A work group comprised of local water suppliers, municipalities, government agencies, non-profits, and the agricultural community are collaboratively working to empower citizens to conserve water and develop strategies for the months ahead. Current work group focus areas include: ♦ Drought Drive ♦ Drought Hotline ♦ Community outreach and education Water saving devicestleak test kits offered by water suppliers ♦ Agricultural Community Outreach Drouaht Drive As water restrictions tighten and wells begin to go dry,families with limited resources will be in need of assistance. The Department of Social Services has joined forces with Orange Congregations in Mission (OCIM) and Inter-Faith Council (IFC) to establish a "Drought Drive". Citizens can donate funds, store-bought bottled water, paper plates, cups, and plastic utensils to aid needy families with water conservation. Families in need will be screened by Social Services. To make donations, please contact Kay Stagner, OCIM at 732-6194 or Kristin Lavergne, IFC at 929-6380. Wal-Mart will be kicking off the Drought Drive with a donation of water. Agency Contacts: Nancy Coston, Director, Department of Social Services 245-2800 Rev. Sharon Freeland, OCIM 732-6194 Chris Moran, Inter-Faith Council 929-6380 „ Steve Dooley, Chapel Hill/Durham Wal-Mart 4891412 Drought Hotline 644-3333 Soil and Water Conservation is staffing a hotline that will help citizens with drought-related water questions. Citizens will be connected to the appropriate agency or resource during the business day and can leave a voicemail message after hours. Residents with water bill questions need to contact their water supplier. Brent Bogue, Director, Orange Soil and Water Conservation 245-2750 Community Outreach and Education H2Oranae.org H2Orange is an educational campaign aimed at creating drought awareness, educating the general public on water conservation strategies, and encouraging consumer use of water saving devices. Phase I of the campaign involved development of a website: www.h2orange.org. The community can"access information on their water supplier, current water restrictions, conservation tips, and links to other water websites. Water conservation tip sheets are being distributed throughout the county, especially in utility bills. Website Contacts: Kent McKenzie, Emergency Management Services 968;,2050 Donna King, Orange County Health Department 245-2449 Water Conservation Tips for Restaurant and Food Service Preparation Orange County Health Departments Environmental Health Division developed a list of tips to help local restaurants conserve water and maintain proper sanitation Environmental Health Specialists are distributing tip sheets via the mail and as they visit food establishments. The tip sheet is also available on the web: htip://www.p2pays.org/ref/23122003.pdf Contact: Ron Holdway, Director, Environmental Health 245-2360 Water Suppliers and water saving devices Water conservation is a year round activity for the water utilities. Most of the local water suppliers offer water saving devices, leak test kits, and will make an one-time adjustments to water bills when receipts for repairs are submitted. Residents should contact their local water supplier for the availability of water saving devices and test kits. Town of Hillsborough 732-2104,Oran e-Alamance Water System, Inc. 563-6212, OWASA 968- 4421. For residents on wells, contact Orange County Cooperative Extension Services 245-2050. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA)give* away low-flow showerheads(2 per OWASA customer), toilet leak detection tablets (food dye)and information on conservation techniques including water-efficient landscaping as well as indoor conservation. Contact: Greg Feller, OWASA Public Affairs, grellere-owasmorg or 968.4421, or see the OWASA web site, www.owasa.org Town of Hillsborough will be offering low-flow showerheads and water saving toilet flapper; Contact: Kenny Keel, 732-1270 Orange-Alamance has toilet leak test kits available. Faye Metcalf 563-6212 Agricultural Community Response and Outreach Orange County Cooperative Extension, USDA Farm Service Agency, USDA Rural Development, and Orange Soil and Water Conservation are working with farmers to minimize loss to crops and livestock. Wells and irrigation sources are drying up and losses are mounting. Meetings are being conducted to provide technical assistance, as well as, monitor the situation. how cost loans and grants are being made available to aid in the relief. Cooperative Extension will also be providing water saving devices to those on wells. Contacts: Fletcher Barber, Director, Cooperative Extension 245-2050 USDA Farm Service Agency 732-4301 USDA Rural Development 732-9388 ext.4 Brent Bogue, Orange Soil and Water 245-2750 Orange County Board of Education TO: Mike Williams Michael F. Williams Interim Superintendent Interim Superintendent FROM: Steve Halkiotis WIA Board Members: Director of Auxiliary Services Dana Thompson,Chair Delores Simpson,Vice Chair DATE: September 18,2002 Robert Bateman Keith Cook RE: Water Conservation Measures in the Schools Susan Halkiotis David Kolbinsky - Brenda Stephens The attached article from the News of Orange highlights very clearly the water conservation measures we have undertaken in the Orange County Schools from the very beginning of the 2002-2003 school year. Mr.Buster Crabtree,Director of 200 East King Street Maintenance,is keeping a close eye on any and all water related issues at all of our Hillsborough,NC 27278 sites on a daily basis. Telephone: 919-732-8126 FAX: 919-732-8120 please note that the Child Nutrition Program is incurring significant cost increases to meet the current water situation in our school system. An example would be that the paper trays we are using in the elementary school,cost approximately 9.2 cents each 'i wholesale. We are doing our par[to conserve water and we accept the additi onal cost graciously. 0 /pmc Attachment Orange County Schools -Providing educational Opporiunidesfor successfu lfulum." - �C� ShN '1•S! 1 ■ ■ / ■ b ' + A t. Y - t - 1 1 • 11 a� i 1 - 1 � ; � 3 4 • - ! 1 11 - I � 1 { ) � _ `i �` y. 5 L" 3.; 5 dYx ✓i t F .. _ IN .. •-1 ! � a ! : ++. �s t s- a .. . - - - I _ 1 1 - 1 1 - I � 1 1 - 1 I - 1 1 • . - • 1 �i-f f't .a �$ - Yt' � #�7't Y � � W q } Y. 11 _ 11 " 1 I 1 I 1 I1 I 1 11 11 11 - 1 ' - I 1 1 - 1 ! • 1 1 - • - la 1 Il 1 - 0 _ 1 11 I ' 1 . 1 r II 1 1 Ip - 11 1 p Fil *.. 3333 � i J �1 Schools.;. fink" from l serve water 03 Fialluons '` Yike OS'sterBay.opted to use'dis- jot week's' Town Bid tomi..`_3lt_�plets ice: tg¢e u3 Keel sal. he 6ad,n ecen tag �vster citon u�GCapt increase„ih water lie Bostddeatded-0u-zcgtnte teetau•. since the school 'system s ,r rates ro nse paPtt Plates and ea[ t2 Oqulg #d 'iaA 8 ° i fang 1ltedstl 1 T ,Welborn s waterand . ()a Aug 27 thy;lbwn 4 it unammousty eppnovod creafila6Sawer ndvlBay Cumtmuee I. Stage VI w81[eF teetrlchons' 'Hiliebgsongh i�onfetence soom.;at. wdl hold off on more stn ¢ :% s g p 8,bte stage. water rpstnenons tin the it P hne6_ creaut .a possible stage VII, vPaIIe?.Y1 % Under 9ta$e Hl:wa[a ns 4 Sn`d� t�ts'Ye�I 1p the emauot:,.of. tiOnB, ,r $tOtllant5' '� ales r�tat COmnterel8l Wa B:ter: o-r ��Ua[Oltlels a[e �ingt iWCCOtY mendgdtand are ;nat � d asprtrposedbyKeel �` w3eGbaumBmSevVr�gl+t dtseosebl� PYalei and ygtut$ ,lnesler�tiewaojorange coin utensils howq?et reatetuadl9r a J. v ' CHCCS Request by County for information concerning water conservation efforts by the district Water Conservation All schools notified of urgency All Schools All irrigation of fields stopped Buses haven't been washed since July Leaks and drips in plumbing identified and repaired (on-going) Cafeterias using all disposable plates and utensils (styrofoam + plastic) No watering of outside gardens Smith Rainwater collected from the roofs is used to flush toilets in the entire building Underground tanks have 70,000 gallons and are presently full Since school started, 16,308 ngallons has been used for flushing Water use can be monitored daily Date: September 18, 2002 OAK To: Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Board of Education Chapel Hill Carrboro Board of Education ORANGE COMMUNITY From: Robert Dowling, Orange Community Housing and Land Trust HOUSING & Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity LAND TRUST Mark Chilton, EmPOWERment, Inc. Board of Directors Re: Marketing homes to County and School system employees Wayne Kuncl Chair Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, Habitat for Humanity and Nina Moseley Empowerment are all non-profit developers of affordable housing. Key Vice-Chair target markets for each of our organizations are the public sector Eleanor Howe employees who work in the schools and for the local governments. Secretary Amy Newton We all sell homes to individuals and families who earn less than 80% Treasurer of the area median income; more specific buyer qualifications are Marceia Blake provided on the following pages. Flicka Bateman Marion Brooks We would like to ask for your help to establish a systematic Laurie Cbarest means of marketing our homes to employees of the County and Gary Giles both School Systems. Amy Hannon Barbara Kaminski We each already work with the school systems and the local Susan Levy governments to disseminate information to the employees. However, Mabon Malekian a more systematic approach would better serve employees and save Ruffin Slater Cbris Moats us all the time it takes to re-negotiate these matters individually. Garry Sronce Alexzaffron Since none of us can afford to pay Realtor commissions, marketing our tart„zawawi homes often present a challenge. This is the great irony of our work— RobertDowling despite the obvious need for affordable housing, the homes can Executive Director sometimes be difficult to sell. Ideally, we would like every employee of the County and the Schools to be aware of the opportunities we have Funding provided by to offer as they become available. We are happy to work with your Town of Cbapel Hill respective staffs to accomplish this goal. Orange County Town of Carrboro As we all know, housing is becoming increasingly expensive Town of Hillsbarougb throughout the County. Our collective efforts will not resolve the problem of inadequate levels of decent, affordable housing. However, we can serve some of the folks who currently are unable to afford to own a home in the community where they work. PO Box 307 104-C Jones Ferry Rd. Thank you for your interest in our work, and your willingness to Carrboro, NC 27510 participate. 919. 967. 1545 Fax 919. 968. 4030 www.ochit.org t Orange Community Housing and Land Trust ORANGE Developments in the pipeline COMMUNITY HOUSING & LAND TRUST Under Contract Already • 32 townhomes in Rosemary Place Townhomes at Board of Directors Meadowmont: 2 BR, 2 '/z bath, for $80,000: 3 BR, 2 '/2 bath WayneKund for $95,000 Chair Nina Moseley Corning Spring 2003 Vice-Chair • 30 townhomes in Vineyard Square, a future development Eleanor Howe off Homestead Road In N. Chapel Hill; 2 & 3 BR units Secretary • 16 condos in the Greenways Condominiums in amyNr Meadowmont: land 2 BR Treasurer er Marceia Blake Proiected Fall 2003 through 2005 Flicka Bateman • 13 single-family homes in Larkspur, a future development Marion Brooks Laurie Cbarrst off Weaver Dairy Extension in N. Chapel Hill; 3BR units Gary Giles Amy Hannon Late Winter 2003-2004 Barbara Kaminski • 18 condominiums in Providence Glen in Chapel Hill Susan Lmy Malin Malekian We also have a selection of single-family homes and townhomes -bris Moses that periodically become available in both Hillsborough and arty$ronc'e Slater ;arty Chapel Hill. For more Information call Martha Isleib at 960-0076. ty Jrx Zaffron ,ren zawawi There are 4 basic requirements a buyer must meet to be eligible for obertDowling land trust homes: cecutive Director 1. The buyer must have a total family income at 80% or less than the area median income (In 2002 - $38,100 for a single; coding provided by $43,500 for a family of 2; $48,950 for a family of 3). on of C'bapel Hill 2. The buyer must have lived or worked in Orange County for at ange County least one year. m of carrboro 3. The buyer must intend to occupy, not rent, the property. m of Hillsborough 4. The buyer must be a first-time homebuyer. If you have any additional questions about our organization, please call Martha Isleib, Sales and Marketing Manager, at 960-0076. You can Box 307 also visit our website for information at www.ochlt.ora. C)ones Ferry Rd. Soro, NC 27510 967. 1545 )19. 968.4030 ochit.org HOW TO GET and QUALIFY for a HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ORANGE COUNTY HOME Iff What is Habitat for Humanity? Habitat for Humanity is an ecumenical housing ministry whose mission is to eliminate poverty housing worldwide and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience. Habitat for Humanity brings together people in need of decent shelter with people who have the resources to help. Habitat builds not only homes, it builds communities. Our volunteers represent every color and creed,with widely different beliefs, but despite the differences,all agree that striking a hammer to a nail is the first step toward ending poverty housing. Habitat for Humanity is not a handout program;Habitat helps people help themselves. Future homeowners invest hundreds of sweat equity hours working side by side with volunteers to build their new home. Habitat builds homes that are modest in size but soundly constructed and energy efficient. Habitat for Humanity is not an emergency housing agency and it does not provide free housing. It does provide opportunities to qualified families to build a home in partnership with Habitat volunteers. All of the money to build houses comes from private donations and the monthly mortgage payments made by Habitat homeowners. Requirements: • Need: The applicant's present housing should be clearly deficient,such as lack of indoor plumbing,poor heating,leaking roof,rodents,overcrowding,unsafe neighborhood,etc. • Stable Income:Includes your paycheck,Work First and/or Social Security benefits,child support,and retirement. The applicant's record should reflect steady employment or a regular income for the past two years. The family must be able to afford a monthly mortgage payment of approximately$350.00. • Closing Costs:$750.00 will be required to pay closing cost and to set up an account for payment of taxes and insurance before moving in, • Credit:No unpaid judgments,no wages being garnished for bankruptcy. Collections must be less than$1,000. • Sweat Equity:Be willing to do 325 hours of "Sweat Equity." This means to partner with Habitat and help build your home and other future Habitat homeowners'homes. This includes SATURDAYS,budgeting class and education sessions. Once construction has started on your home,you are expected to be on sight EVERY SATURDAY. • Live and/or work in Orange County for 1 year. • Be unable to qualify for a conventional mortgage. • Allow Habitat to verify the information on your application,pull a credit report and contact your references(landlord,employer,credit and personal). • Allow up to 2 home visits by members of the Family Selection Committee. At any step in this process,your application for a home may be denied if it is determined that you do not meet our criteria or do not fully meet the terms of the Habitat partnership. If at anytime false or misreading, information is discovered this will be grounds for rejection of your application. r Eaula HOUSING OPPONNNOr Dear Applicant: Thank you for your interest in a Habitat for Humanity, Orange County home. Our program is an affiliate of Habitat for Humanity International; a not for profit housing ministry that seeks to eliminate substandard housing. Our purpose is to build homes in partnership with the Habitat families who will own them. The home is sold at no profit and financed with no interest to families who could not otherwise afford a home. Habitat homes are modest, well-built homes, constructed by volunteers from the community and the families who are selected by our Family Selection Committee. The cost of a Habitat home in the Orange County area is roughly $67,500, and the home is financed through no- interest loans from Habitat for Humanity, Orange County. Mortgage payments average between $290 and $350 a month, depending on location. Please read How to Get and Qualify for a Habitat Home to see if you have an interest in our program AND to see if you meet our general guidelines. All information is considered confidential and is to be used only for family selection. The application process can take 3 to 6 months to complete. If you believe you qualify for a home according to the guidelines and want to start the application process, we encourage you to call the Habitat for Humanity Office at 732-6767 ext. 3 and leave your mailing address to be placed-on our mailing list. Once an Application session is scheduled,you will then receive an invitation. If you have any questions,you may reach me at the Habitat Office, 732-6767,ext. 13. At any step in this process,your application fora home may be denied if it is determined that you do not meet our criteria or do not fully meet the terms of the Habitat partnership. If at anytime false or misleading, information is discovered this will be grounds for rejection of your application. On behalf of the Family Selection Committee, thank you for your interest in Habitat for Humanity, Orange Co.NC, Inc., Marckita Garrison, Family Services Coordinator Habitat for Humanity,Orange County,NC,Inc.as a matter of policy does not discriminate on the basis of race,color, religion,sex,age,national origin or physical or mental disability for its clients,its employees,its volunteers,or the member of its Board of Directors. ewuswaxx orwxNxm Habitat is not accepting applications at this time,however,a waiting list is being maintained for interested applicants.(September 2002) ORANGE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT PROGRAM Overview MISSION: The mission of the Individual Development Account(IDA)Program is to foster housing opportunities for the low wealth residents of Orange County in central North Carolina. Purpose of IDA Program: The purpose of the IDA program is to provide increased opportunity for homeownership for low wealth residents of Orange County through: • Providing an incentive for participants to develop personal savings habits and improve economic literacy; and • Providing an incentive for families who are currently capable of beginning to save personal dollars for homeownership. Goal of IDA Program: The goal of the Orange County IDA Program is to assist 20 families within Orange County to attain homeownership by June 30,2004. IDA Program Design: Participation in the IDA program will only be open to individuals/families with earned income at or below 80%of Orange County's median income with the intention of purchasing a first home in Orange County,but outside Chapel Hill city limits. Participant personal savings will be matched on a two to one basis with grant funds available through a Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) from the NC Department of Commerce. The personal savings amount will be equal to $1,000 per family;matching funds shall be$2,000. Participant savings shall be forwarded to Central Carolina Bank on a monthly basis for deposit in interest-bearing individual savings accounts. Participant savings amounts,plus earned interest and IDA matching dollars will be disbursed to the appropriate vendor(s)upon attainment of the savings goal of$1000 and submission of invoice for approved purpose. FAMILY SIZE 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON INCOME LIMIT $38,100 $43,500 $48,950 $54,400 FAMILY SIZE 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON INCOME LIMIT $58,750 $63,100 $67,450 $71,800 IDA Program Contract: All families selected for participation will be required to complete an application for participation in the program and to sign a program contract setting forth the terms and conditions for the program. The contract shall be signed by the family members in whose name the IDA account is held. IDA Program Administration: The Program Coordinator of Consumer Credit Counseling Services (CCCS) at The Women's Center shall administer the program in collaboration with the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department. Program participants will be chosen from referrals from local housing non-profit agencies.