Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Geof Gledhill said that the interlacal agreement includes in paragraph 8 that the Board of <br />County Commissioners agrees to approve by capital project ordinance, an appropriation to the <br />capital expense fund of the board of education of $2.2 million mare than the $27.8 million if the <br />Board of County Commissioners is satisfied with the board of education's proposed design <br />promoting smart growth. Addendum B, if both parties agree, says that there is agreement on <br />$1.9 million worth of the smart growth money and that more work needs to be done an <br />$300,000 of the smart growth money. <br />Commissioner Brown said that the school board came forth with a list of items for smart <br />growth that were part of the school construction. The Board had never determined whether it <br />was just part of the school construction that she thinks was accepted standards, or whether it <br />would be paid for additionally. She hopes the staff accepted the list as outside the normal way <br />of building the school. <br />Rod Visser said that he recalls aver the last six months that the assumption is that these <br />standards were incorporated by reference into the smart growth initiatives. <br />Commissioner Brawn asked Commissioner Halkiotis if any of these standards were built <br />into the budget for Cedar Ridge High School. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he could not <br />answer this without looking it up. He said that he thought a lot of the items that CHCCS had <br />already listed were same of the smart growth initiatives. <br />Chair Jacobs acknowledged that Superintendent Neil Pedersen and Vice-Chair Lisa <br />Stuckey from CHCCS are in attendance. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that Craig Benedict had came up with a concept of allowing <br />a total number of parking spaces and then leaving it to the school board to decide how they <br />would be allocated among teachers, staff, and visitors. Craig Benedict said he evaluated the <br />existing high schools and worked through some school construction standards. It appears in <br />page 81 of the abstract. The outstanding issue is to reduce impervious area by 35%. He said <br />that you could reduce parking and parking size to achieve the 35°~. This was also a suggestion <br />from Carrbora. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that student parking is in the $1.9 million, but teacher, staff, <br />and visitor parking is in the $300,000. She wonders why parking is not all together in the $1.9 <br />million. Craig Benedict said that, of the four issues out there, what happens with the parking lot <br />is not about the $300,000 because there is cost savings associated with that. This is the one <br />about reducing parking area by 35%, by means of reduced parking space numbers. <br />Geof Gledhill said that they split the parking up because there is a memorandum from <br />Steve Scroggs to Neil Pederson dated January 5, 2004 in which the board of education staff <br />concurred with accepting the student parking totals but had concern about the teacher and staff <br />parking totals in the original addendum B that was sent to the board of education. The teachers <br />and staff agreed on 260 parking places for students in phase 1 and phase 2, but did not agree <br />that 80 staff/visitorlother spaces was adequate. The recommendation was 150 spaces. The <br />260 plus 150 exceeds the total recommended in the original addendum B, which would be the <br />35°!° reduction in parking. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked the board of education if they would rather go with a <br />specific number of parking spaces and work it out themselves. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would suggest the Planning Department watch a <br />high school parking area and see who shows up every day. It is different than an elementary <br />school and a middle school. There are a number of people that come to high schools and these <br />people are not going to get on a bus to came to the school. He understands what they are <br />trying to do, but the reality speaks to something else, namely, that more parking spaces should <br />be allowed. <br />Chair Jacobs made reference to the back page of the blue sheet and item f, the <br />construction of weatherproof climate-controlled shelters. He suggested saying "weatherproof <br />(perhaps climate-controlled)". He said that this might be a significant increase in costs. He <br />