Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-13-1999 - 1t . ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:. December 13, 1999 1 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, ext 2300 Donna Dean, ext 2151 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill. 968-4501 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) Alternative Models for Establishing Future School Funding Parameters The Commissioners' 1999-2000 goal for. "Effective and Efficient School Funding" includes preparation by staff of recommendations for."parameters that can be established to guide development of school current expense budgets. for FY2000-2001 and beyond"..The Budget Director researched this. topic and developed a report, first presented at the BOCC's August 31 work session, which outlines a number of models the Board may wish to consider as it determines the guidance it will provide to the County Manager concerning school funding for the 2000-2001 Orange County budget. The Manager will briefly review the major points of the report.. The BOCC may wish. to discuss the report with the two school boards as they consider what guidance they will provide to the Manager and staff later this fiscal year regarding school funding parameters for the FY 2000- 2001 budget. Attachment 1a - 8/31/99 Staff Report - "Education Funding in Orange County" b) Cost Efficient Facilities Initiative A work group involving County staff and two commissioners has met a number of times in recent months to develop a concept for maximizing the cost effectiveness of facilities constructed using County funds. This work involved. a refinement of the value engineering 2 themes that have been discussed during the past year. The attached report outlines a process for pursuing cost efficient facilities for both County and school functions. Essentially, the program would create. a performance standard overlay to the existing school construction standards. These performance standards would be used as a benchmark in the design of any County or school facility. On December 7, the Board of Commissioners endorsed this concept for discussion with the two school boards at this December 13 work session. .Attachment 1 b - 12/7199 Report - "Proposed Cost Efficient Facilities Initiatives for County and School Capifa/Projects" c) Parks Task Force Resolution on .Joint Access to Recreation Facilities Among the issues discussed by the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Task Force during the past year has been the desirability of providing open access to recreation facilities owned and operated. by one Orange County local government to the residents of all Orange County jurisdictions. The Task Force has developed a draft resolution that would endorse this concept, and would also endorse extending the concept to the school systems, OWASA, UNC, and Duke University. This resolution is to be circulated to all local governing bodies for consideration at one of their future meetings. The Boards may wish to discuss how this concept might be implemented with regard to school recreation assets, and to identify any possible .impingements or impediments that would need to be worked out to extend this concept to the school systems as well as the local governments. Attachment 1 c - "Resolution -Open Facilities Policy" d) County SchooUParks Reserve Fund On May 6, 1999, an ad hoc $OCC committee of Commissioners Brown and Jacobs met to look at the School/Park Reserve Fund and its use as a funding source for current proposals then on the table and long-term issues. The group was to present their report to .the BOCC for its approval. The report was presented to the Board on June 1, with no action taken at that time. The Board considered an .annotated update of the report at their November 22 work session, made several additional revisions, and approved the report at their meeting on December 7. That report is attached for review and discussion. Attachment 1 d - "Recommendations of the School/Parks Reserve Committee" e) Program/Staff/Facility Issues with Future Budgetary impacts The Board of County Commissioners requested during 1998-99 budget work sessions that both school systems keep the County informed on an ongoing. basis to provide "early warning".about initiatives that might lead to additional funding requests in future fiscal years. This topic was discussed at the joint Commissioner/school board meetings. last fiscal year, and has been a regular topic reviewed at monthly meetings between the County Manager. and the two Superintendents. Discussion at this meeting may focus on new/expanded initiatives that one or both school systems may be considering for 2000-2001. The Orange County Schools have indicated their plans to consider the establishment of pre-K classes in each of the system's elementary schools for the 2000-2001 academic year. The ~ 3 ' Boards may wish to discuss the financial implications of this initiative, and any others that OCS or CHCCS may be considering for the. upcoming fiscal year. No Attachments FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the discussion at this meeting. However, decisions that the 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. ATTACHMENT 1a Education Funding in Orange County August 31, 1999 Education Funding in Orange. County In North Cazolina, each county is responsible for supplementing state appropriations to public education. Local current expense appropriations aze allocated to each school system based on an equal amount per pupil. In addition, counties provide funds to each system for recurring and long-range capital projects. School systems in North Cazolina do not have separate taxing authority and aze not allowed to issue debt for school construction and renovation projects. Therefore, issuance and repayment of long-term debt, such as general obligation bonds and private placement loans, are the responsibilities of county government. Many city school units in the state also have special district taxes. These voter-approved taxes, levied within the unit's boundaries, further supplement county funding. Historically, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners has given top priority to funding public schools. The County's number one ranking in total education funding in the state evidences this. The chart to the right compares Orange County's total 1998-99 General : Fund appropriations for education to several other counties in the State. As the graph indicates, Orange County's total spending per pupil is almost twice the State average.. sa.ooo s2,soo Recently, the Boadd of County s2~0°° Commissioners asked the County s'~0° Manager to look at various s''0°° alternatives far funding public ~0° education in Orange County and to s0 0~ ~ n.._ ~~. ~.. "~. a,..e Fwd ~...... develop pazameters for future "~"~` funding.. This. report contains ^o~~co~mY^s~mamgco~~^su~na.~ possible funding models that' the Boadd may choose for the Manager to use as he develops the annual ' recommended budget four schools. While this approach guides staff in developing the annual budget, each yeaz the Board can consider departures from the recommendations based upon particulaz one-time circumstances. such as start up costs for new facilities. Staff contacted several counties .throughout the state to determine what, if any, funding formulas are currently in use. The counties responding to the survey included: • Alamance • Brunswick • Chazlotte- Mecklenburg • Chatham. • Durham • Forsyth • Guilford • Lincoln • Moore • New Hanover • Pitt • Scotland • Surry • Wake Eight of the responding counties use formulas or other guidelines to determine school funding (as shown in Figure 2 on the following page).. Staff found few similarities in county funding for school systems. Some counties use a formula for current expense funding only .while other counties use a formula to Education Funding in Orange County calculate all funding for education (current expense, recurring capital, debt service and long range capital). The following chart provides information gathered: F:Q.,.•o 7• i2oe.dte of Crhnnl FnnAina Cnrvev - - County Formula Brunswick County • Contract between County and School system in place • Thirty-seven percent of the tax rate is allocated to current expense • Debt service is funded from the school's portion of the one- half cent sales taxes Chatham County • Formula in place • Current fiscal year per pupil allocation is multiplied by the State Department of Public Instruction projected enrollment. That amount is then increased using the Consumer Price Index (CPn • If CPI is less than three percent, schools are .guaranteed an increase of three ercent Forsyth County • No formula in place • County Manager provides guidelines for school requests • Average increase for the past few years has been three-to- four cent Lincoln County • No formula in place • Current expense funding is significantly lower than the state .average • Board of Commissioners adopted a four. year plan to bring the schools up to the state average • For fiscal year 1999-00 total school funding is $11.9 million (26% of the Count 's General Fund bud et) Moore County • No formula in place • Annual increase for schools is based on the increase in r valuation increase Pitt County • Formula in place • Current fiscal yeaz per pupil appropriation is base • Annual percentage increase as determined by Consumer Price Index (CPn and Cost-of-Living Adjustment for County employees • Holds school systems "harmless" for new students • :School and County staff disagree on what source to use as avera a dail membershi (ADM Scotland County • No formula in place • This is the only county in the state that is mandated to fund the school system at the. statewide local average (current expense only) • Annual average of $100,000 goes to recurring capital • Debt service paid from schools'. portion of one-half cent sales taxes Wake County • Dedicated tax rate of thirty seven cents • ..This is far current expense and recurring capital • Debt service paid from schools' portion of one-half cent sales taxes Page 2 of 9 Education Funding in Orange County lending Public Education in Orange County In developing various funding pazameters for public education, staff considered the total General Fund appropriation for schools. For fiscal yeaz 1999-00, the County's allocation to education totaled $48,371,435 or 48.27% of the total General Fund budget of $100,251,148. The following chart provides a breakdown of the categories: i~m,.•n Z• Flpmpntc of Frlnc•Atinn Ti nnrlinu % of 1999- 00 General 1999-(10 General Fund Current Ex se Based on r u it $34 537 104 34.46 3 cents on property tax; allocated to each school ~~ ~ ital s stem based on number of students enrolled $2 043 675 2.04% Debt Service Funded from sales tax & rtion of tax $8 968 305 8.95% One-half cent sales taxes and portion of property Ca ital Pro'ects & Reserve tax $2 822 351 2.82% 371435 48.27% The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projected a total student. enrollment of 15,309 for the two school districts located in Orange County for the 1999-00 fiscal yeaz. Taking into consideration. the total General Fund appropriation, the 1999-00 per pupil allocation is $3,160. (In calculating the amount per pupil, the total General Fund appropriation for education [$48,371,435] is divided by the total number of projected students [15,309]). This per pupil allocation represents an increase of 5.43 percent over the 1998-99 fiscal yeaz. For fiscal yeaz 1999-00, it is projected that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools will receive an additional $9,743,228 from the district's special district tax. This equates to an additional $1,094 per pupil for that district ($9,743,228 divided by 8,903 students). Historical Perspective/Trends As shown in the next chart, total funding for public schools in Orange County has comprised an average of 48.12 percent of the General Fund budget over the past five yeazs. Page 3 of 9 Education Funding in Orange County Figure 4. Annual General Fund Appropriations for Education Fiscal Year Ending .Current Expense Appropriation Recurring Capital Debt Service Long Range. Capital Capital Reserve Total Total General Fund B t Education %o of Total GF Budget 1990 $11,403,973 $1,500,000 $1,792,275 $3,450,300 $0 $18,146,548 .$42,494,467 42.70% 1991 . $13,057,549 $1,500,000 .$2,636,842 $2,044,661 $0 $19,239,052 $46,351,500 41.51°!0 1992 $14,861,157 $1,500,000 $2,963,400 $1,827,627 $0 $21,152,184 $50,935,148 41.53% 1993 $15,713,450 $1,500,000 $2,879,475 $2,603,953 $0 $22,696,878 $53,887,298 42.12% 1994 $17,258,306 $1,500,000 $4,879,002 $2,606,048 $0 $26,243,356 .$60,852,952 43.13% 1995 $19,098,062 $1,500,000 $5,717,540 $1,408,581 $0 $27,724,183 $66,581,662 41.64% 1996 $21,175,309 $1,500,000 $8,524,408 $3,049,749 $476,048 $34,725,514 $73,099,271 47.50% 1997 $24,604,074 $1,624,500 $8,318,118 $4,058,571 $494,442 $39,099,705 $79,259,530 49.33% 1998 $27,197,822 $1,856,528 $8,767,660 $1,999,147 $618,843 $40,440,000 $85,483,019 47.31% 1999 $30,422,520 . $1,949,652 $9,318,087 $2,353,225 $649,884 $44,693,368 $92,685,103 48.22°!0 2000 $34,537,104 $2,043,675 $8,968,305 $2,597,547 $224,804 $48,371,435 $100,251,148 48.25°k In fiscal year 1999-00, total funding for education increased by more than $3.6 million (8.23 percent). This is lower than the average of the past five (just over 12 percent) and ten (11.5 percent) years. Major factors influencing increases in the past years aze: a Repayment of debt associated with three voter approved bond referenda and private placement funding for school facilities. • Increases in annual current expense funding each year. • Increases in recurring capital appropriations.. (From $750,000 per school system in fiscal years 1990 through 1996 to a dedicated three cents on the property tax rate currently). • Creation of a capital reserve' fund for School/Pazk projects. _ The chart to the right projects funding levels for the school systems if the Board of Commissioners elected to fund the schools at the historical rates. Should the historical percentage increases continue, appropriations far public schools would more than double over the next ten years. s16o MIIIb6e.rD.llaet Siao siao slop sso s6o sao sw so 3W1 1003 3m3 20M 3m3 2006 2007 1008 3009 101f -+ 1999-00 Average - -5 Year Average -~-10 Year Average -*- . . . . . Page 4 of 9 Education Funding in Orange County Current Expease Funding Alternatives In order to maintain consistency between the funding formulas, staff made the following assumptions: • Total education funding consists of the following components: debt service, current expense, recurring capital, long range capital, and capital reserves. • All models hold the school districts "hazmless" far new students. In other words, special consideration is given to ensuring that there will be no decrease in per pupil funding from yeaz-to- yeaz. • Staff used the past yeaz growth in student enrollment as the base for the next ten yeazs. Student enrollment projections from the North Cazolina Department of Public Instruction will not be available until the week of August 30, 1999. • The 1999-2009 Capital Investment Plan did not include major projects that would require additional debt obligations. Therefore, none of the following models includes additional .debt service requirements. Listed below aze funding options that staff has explored Appendix A provides a comparison of all models outlined below. Model l This model, similaz to the formula used by Chatham and Pitt counties, increases the. per pupil appropriation by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). (In Chatham County, if the CPI is less than three percent, schools aze guazanteed a three percent increase.) This amount is applied to the projected student enrollment. Figure 6. FY 20(10-O1 Funding Example if Model l Used Orange County Example 1999-00 Total General Fund Per Pupil Appropriation $3,160 Guazanteed CPI 3.00% 2000-01 Per Pupil Appropriation $3,254 Enrollment Projections 15,705 The following questions related to the Consumer Price Index (CPn would need to be addressed before this model is implemented: • What CPI source would be used? • What period of time would be used {Januazy to December, July to June, October to September)? The following chart graphically illustrates the future trend of school funding in Orange County if the Boazd selected Model 1 (assumes the guazanteed three percent increase). Page S of 9 Education Funding in Orange County Figure 7. Model 1: Per Pupil Appropriation Increased by Annual CPI $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 _ - _ _ _ ~ 99- 00- O1- 02- 03- 04- OS- 06- 07- 08- 09- 00 O1 02 03 04 OS 06 07 08 09 10 Mode12 While similaz to Model 1, this model uses the total education funding as the base instead of the total per pupil appropriation. The base is increased by the rate of inflation as determined by .the CPI. Again, schools aze guazanteed an annual increase of at least three- percent. The same issues cited in Model 1 aze applicable to this funding model. Figure 8. FY 2000-O1 Funding Example if Mode12 Used Orange County Example 1999-00 Total General Fund Education Appropriation $48,371,435 Guazanteed CPI 3.00% Total 2000-O1 Education Appropriation $49,822,578 Enrollment Projection 15,705 The chart below provides funding projections for the next ten yeazs if the Commissioners. selected Model 2. Figure 9. Mode12: Total Education Funding Increased by Annual CPI $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 Page 6,of 9 Education Funding in Orange County Mode13 This formula increases the current year per pupil appropriation by the increase in the County's total property valuation. While the projected increase in fiscal year. 1999-00 is 3.37 percent, the average annual increase in valuation for the past five years is about 3.6 percent. Figure 10. FY 2000-01 Funding Example if Mode13 Used Orange County Example 1999-00 Total General Fund Education Appropriation $48,371,435 Five Year Average Increase in Valuations 3.60% Total 2000-01 Education Appropriation $50,112,807 Enrollment Projection 15,705 Figure 11 illustrates future trends in school funding if Model 3 were implemented by the Board (the five year increase of 3.6 percent is used as the annual multiplier). Figure 11. $100,000,000 $so,ooo,ooo $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 99- 00- O1- 0.2- 03- 04- O5- 06- 07- 08- 09- 00 O1 02 03 04 OS 06 07 08 09 10 Mode14 Model four guarantees that the school systems receive a designated percentage of the total General Fund budget. For the purposes of this report, staff assumed that the Board of County Commissioners would want to maintain the current forty-eight percent of General Fund funding threshold for education. Page 7 of 9 Education Funding in Orange County Figure 12. FY 2000-O1 Funding Example if Mode14 Used Orange County Example 1999-00 Percent of General Fund Appropriated to Education 48.27% Projected 2000-01 General Fund Budget (total) $108,435,000 Tota12000-01 Education Appropriation $52,341,575 Enrollment Projection 15,705 The graph in Figure 13 provides information regarding future funding. if Model 4 were selected Figure 13. Mode14: Education Funding as a Percentage of Total General Fund $125,000,000 $100,000,000 $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 Mode15 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 .2007 2008 2009 2010 This model proposes that the percentage increase in education funding is equal to the annual .increase in county departments and outside agencies. The five-year average increase for county departments and outside agencies is just over 6 percent (6.04%). (During this same period, the average increase in total education funding is about 12 percent.) rigure 14. r'Y 2UW-01 1H~nding Example if Mode15 Used Orange County Example 1999-00 Total General Fund Education Appropriation $48,371.,435 Five Year Average Increase in Appropriations 6.04% Tota12000-01 Education Appropriation $51,293,070 Enrollment Projection 15,705 Page 8 of 9 Education Funding in Orange County Figure 16. M ode16: Education Funding Increases at County D epartment H istorical Trend $ 1 00,000,000 $8 0,000,000. $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 .-, ~~ c 8 8 8 8 N N N N N N N N N N N Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Special District Tax Staff recommends that the Boazd of County Commissioners continue to address increases or decreases in the special district tax each yeaz. Over the past few years, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools .have used the district tax mainly to address start up costs for new facilities or new programs. When submitting their annual budget request, the Board of Education should make a sepazate proposal for use of the district tax proceeds. While this is a suitable use of the special district tax, the Orange County Schools does not have a district tax upon which they can rely. One alternative would be as follows: • For the start-up yeaz, the Boazd of County Commissioners could chose to increase its General Fund commitment to schools and reduce Chapel Hill-Carrboro's special district tax. While Orange County could use the increase to pay far one-time. start-up costs, Chapel Hill-Carrboro could supplant lost district tax revenue with the increased General Fund appropriation. Conclusion As the Boazd considers future education funding. concepts, it is reasonable to look at models that closely align themselves with historical trends. Of the models presented in this report, .model four appears to be the formula that keeps public education funding at the high level with which Orange County prides itself. The Board may be aware of other formulas that could be considered Page 9 of 9 p Proposed Cost Efficient Facilities Initiatives (CEFI) for County .. and School Capital Projects December 7,1999 A work group involving two County Commissioners, the County Manager and several County staff members met several times over the past month in an effort to identify .cost efficiency initiatives in the development of County and School facilities. The ensuing report in meant to reflect the essence of these discussions as well as to provide a point '~, of departure. for dialogue among the Board of Commissioners and School Board members. Why Initiate Cosf Efficient Facilities Initiatives (CEF~ Now? According to the Orange County Planning Director, projections of school construction .needs indicate that approximately 19 schools will be required to meet the student population needs over the next 30 years. Based on construction estimates from the school construction standards ,the present value dollars needed to support construction for these educational facilities is estimated to be $339,463,685. . The following table reflecting the projection of school needs is based on the assumption that growth will continue at a constant enrollment increase each year (i.e. Orange County School. District at 150 new. students per year and Chapel Hill/Carrboro at 300 new students per year. As further development of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) continues, a further analysis of existing_capacity as well as proposed capacity will be conducted.) Orange County System ChapellHill Carrboro System • Elementary: • Elementary 4 x $12,785,485=$51,141,940 7 x $12,785,485=$89,498,395 • Middle: Middle: 2 x 18,504,670=$37,009,340. 3 x .18,504,670= $55,514,010 • High School: High School: • 1000 student capacity: • 1500 student capacity: 1 x $24,700,000 = $24,700,000 1 x $40,800,000= $40,800,000 • 1500 student capacity: 1 x $40,800,000= $40,800,000 ~ f • Total estimated construction costs over 30 years for Orange County School District is therefore $.128,951,280. • Total estimated construction costs over 30 years for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District is therefore $ $210,512,405. • Total estimated construction costs over 30 years to meet educational facility needs is therefore $339,463,685. Further, the County is facing significant construction needs of its own through its statutorily required support of court system facilities. Preliminary estimates equate the cost of the judicial facilities (without jail construction) with those of a new elementary school This brings the total potential 30-year construction outlay for education-and judicial facilities to approximately $ 352,249,170, Projected costs of this magnitude create a considerable challenge to ensure that construction and major renovation projects funded by the County are properly designed to meet both County and School needs within. available resources. In addition, with the advent of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO), now in development, the fiscal issues will demand greater attention. As you may know, the SAPFO will, among other things: • Define a level of service capacity, which each new school will be expected to meet. For example, ff "X" number of units are approved for development within the County, then "Y" type of school (elementary, middle, high school) with "Z" capacity must be built within the next "N" number of years; and. The SAPFO will allow schools to operate marginally over-capacity for only a limited period of time, thereby creating the necessity for school construction to be considered in a timely manner. A pofenfia/solution: This look to the horizon tells us that the limited package of funding resources available to support construction initiatives will not be sufficient to meet demand without very careful planning, Ratherthan to immediately raise the funding bar, and potentially the tax rate, it is prudent to consider cost efficiency. - . measures that will provide functionally excellent facilities at a manageable cost.. In the Spring/Summer 1999 the Board .considered a value engineering option for County and school projects, in which each facility would be subject to a value engineering process in tandem with its design. This approach proved to be unsuitable, particularly for upcoming school construction projects, from a cost and timing point of view. Further discussion has prompted us to suggest an alternative approach that functions as a stand-alone process for County projects but creates a design standard overlay to the existing school construction standards. The process is outlined as follows: • A group similar to the school construction standards committee would be convened to review infrastructure items common to all buildings (HVAC, plumbing, finishes, window glass, etc.). This group would also include a third party consultant to add avalue-engineering component to the development of the standards (accurate cost projections, life cycle cost analysis, etc.) • Functional standards would be developed for each of these components. Examples of the functional standards might be: • The roofing standard for buildings, will be metal (unless prohibited as may be the case in historic districts); or 3 • A specific energy efficiency level (Btu consumption persquare foot) must be achieved by the HVAC system proposed; or • To avoid future maintenance complications, systems, such as water%gas service or wiring raceways, shall not be embedded in the concrete floor slab unless code restrictions prohibit overhead installations. • Upon completion, the resulting standards would be taken by the committee members to their. respective governing boards for comment. • Ultimately, the Board of Commissioners would adopt the standard by which they would fund capital projects. • Standards would be provided to any firm retained by the County or the Schools to design a facility. The firm would be expected to design in compliance with the design guidelines.. . • -Upon completion of a facility design, the designer would provide certiflcation to the School and . the County that the design guidelines had been met or cite areas where deviations were mandated by a regulatory .body. The County Engineering staff would .review the bid/construction documents and the certifications and render an opinion on the sufficiency of compliance documentation. • In regard to school projects, if a School Board determines that exceeding a standard is critical to the viability of a given program, then the School Board may submit a proposal to pay for additional costs from other pay-as-you-go funds available to the School, e.g. recurring capital. Funding: Recommendations for funding of capital projects remain as endorsed. by the Board in June 1999. The concept is as follows: • While the Board will continue to approve the projects in the County's ten-year CIP, approval of specific project components will occur after costs have been firmly established by bid, a contract, or other highly reliable cost determining .means for each component of project development. Essentially, the appropriation. would be equivalent to the amount of money ready to be spent for a particular project component function (planning, site development, construction, etc.) • Capital Policy revisions to reflect this are imminent. As noted in the June action, this process will involve additional steps as the Board is called upon to take action at various milestones in the project, rather than allocating a lump sum for each project when the CIP is approved. However, this means of,appropriating for capital projects appears to provide the County considerably more flexibility in resource management. Since appropriations would be made by project component and would be based on more accurate cost data, any surplus from the total project would remain available for appropriation to future CIP projects. Benefrts: • We believe this approach promotes greater consistency in systems and does a better job of analyzing systems before they are specified for use in a building. Major time and cost commitments occur one time. As future refinements of the standards become necessary, they should be manageable and could possibly be accomplished through collaboration of School and County staff. • This approach provides consistent guidelines for designers retained by the County and Schools for facility design. Clearly articulated expectations on the front end of a project are likely to yield a more acceptable result. Possibly the greatest benefit to implementing. cost efficient facilities initiatives is our enhanced ability to project accurate construction costs. As previously indicated, our accurate projection of costs for the CIP will become essential with the adoption of SAPFO. This becomes apparent when one understands that SAPFO is driven by a complex inter-relationship involving growth-generated demand forschool capacity, capacity of existing school facilities, projected school constructioNcapacity, construction / ~ 4 costs for school facilities and CIP funded budgets for school construction ..Under this scenario, any deviation from. original data regarding capacity and subsequent construction costs could cause significant negative impact on CIP appropriations. Resolution -Open Facilities Policx An Open Facilities Policy for Recreation Facilities in Orange County WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County have developed parks and recreation facilities to provide service to citizens in their jurisdictions, and WHEREAS, the location and type of many parks and facilities is such that residents of adjacent jurisdictions are. in close proximity to parks of a different jurisdiction or desirous of use of the facilities, and WHEREAS,. the spirit of inter jurisdictional coordination on current and future recreation programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years with cooperative ventures between local governments, OWASA and the school systems, and WHEREAS,. attempting to tie use of recreation facilities to users only of the providing jurisdictions. would be complicated administratively and would hinder community- building and. inter-local efforts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County be encouraged to adopt this resolution for an Open Facilities Policy, which would provide that all public recreation facilities constructed by the member local governments of the County be open to use by aII County citizens. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, upon adoption of this resolution by the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County, the resolution be transmitted to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, the Orange County Board of Education, and the Board of Directors of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, asking their endorsement of the concept of an Open Facilities Policy; AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the local governments agree to explore opportunities, at a later appropriate date, to clarify and explore a modification of an open facilities arrangement with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University. This, the _ day of , 1999 a+~-a~~~~.~-~ .~d 2 Recommendations of the School/Parks Reserve Committee May 6, .1999 (revised 11/22/99) (Revised 71-22-99 as per memo and addition at meeting. New language shown in italic) On May 4, the Board of Commissioners appointed members Margaret Brown and Barry Jacobs as a committee to discuss the proposed school/park combination projects raised at the May 4 .meeting and the potential use of the School/Parks Reserve Fund. The Committee met with Finance Director Ken Chavious and Environment and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil on May 6. At this meeting, the committee agreed to develop both short-term recommendations on the disposition toward the school/park proposals on the table, and long-term recommendations for the future of the reserve fund. On November2~ 1999, the Board ofCommissioners discussed the reportrecommendations and revised the re~rt with updated information, The updatedreportis as fo/%ws•• Short-Term/Current Projects. A. The two projects mentioned on May 4 shou/d be hand/ed as fo/%ws to meet the needs ofthe crommurity 1. The Board has decided not to pursue the Northern Orange Elementary site because the Orange County Schools did not hold clear title to the land. 2. The Board has decided that the Smith Middle School field project in Chapel Hill-Carrboro should be pursued, but is on hold pending review by the N.C. Departmentof Public lnsfruction on lease arrangements. B. These needs can best be met without tapping into the School/Parks Reserve Fund. C. The following criteria should be used in evaluating funding for these or other short-term school/park requests: 1. As an incentive to assist the Towns in meeting parks needs, County funding of Town park projects (including school/Town park combinations) would be offered on a 1:1 matching basis. 2. The land in question for a proposed school/park co-location must be owned by a governmental entity before County funds are committed. 3. County funding contributions should not be made for parks design or planning, unless County. funds are used to complete the project. Anysuchfundingissubjecttoapprova/oftheBoardofCounty Commissioners, arda designatedrepresentative ofthe Boardshou/d be invo/vedin the design/p/arming process, as the Board deems approp~rate, D. Funding for the expanded Smith Middle School/Carrboro Park arrangement should be addressed through use of the remaining moneys from the parks bond for facility development. The County should offer to match the cost of this proposal with a like amount from the Town of Carrboro. The estimated project cost is $450,000, which would translate into $225,000 each from Carrboro and Orange County. TheBoardhasdecidedincorcept to pursue a Arstphase ofthisproject with $75,000provided by the Town ofCarrboro and with a $75,000iratch from the County, Before thismoneyisappropriated, however, the Countyshou/d receive and approve a written pro~sa/c7vncerning thisprojectanditsassociatedcosts 3 Long-Term /Reserve Fund Recommendations AsofDecember1,1999,the School/Parks Reserve Fund balance is $2,38million, with $2.24 million in revenue to the fund and $0.14million in accrued interest. The fund hasreceivedone-cent on the tax base each year in revenue, which translates into an estimated $682,000 in FY 99-00. In June, the Board changed the future funding allocation from one cent to 7/3 cent on the tax base per year, with Z/3 cent going to county capital facilities needs. A. It is recommended that the School/Parks Reserve not be used for the current needs, and instead be designated for longer-term land acquisition needs, with the following parameters: 1. The creation of the Parks Council is currently deferred pending discussion of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report 2. The interest accumulated in the Reserve Fund should be available for possible use to address facility development needs not addressed through bonds or other means. There is currently an estimated $147,000 in interest accrued to this fund. However, County funding assistance for facility development should be contingent the Board of Commissioners having a say in the development of the site and that value engineering is pursued for the project. 3. The existing $2.24 million in the fund (minus the interest above) should be retained for future land acquisition. Bond funds and other sources should be used for facility development. 4. In the interest of maintaining maximum flexibility for the Board of Commissioners, the school/recreation nexus need not always be readily apparent at the time of acquisition. 5. The Committee recommended that future one-cent allocations to this fund be split and re-allocated as follows: a. 50% to County capital facility needs (this will amount to approximately $341,000 in FY 99-00) b. 50% retained for land acquisition in the reserve fund (also $341,000 in FY 99-00) In June, the board changed the future funding allocation from one cent to 7/3 cent on the tax base per year, with 2/3 cent going to county capital facilities needs.