Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />12 <br />could be added for that school system. When OCS middle school #3 (Gravelly Hill Middle <br />School) was built, the middle school level was included for OCS and when CHCCS high school <br />#3 (Carrboro High School) was built, then the high school level was included for CHCCS. <br />From Perdita Holtz - Commissioner Gordon is correct that the SAPFO adequacy test was <br />suspended for these two school levels in the MOUs (and subsequent development <br />regulation amendments) during the time period mentioned. The purpose of suspending <br />the adequacy test was that these two levels were already above, or very close to <br />exceeding, the agreed -upon maximum capacity levels when the SAPFO was adopted in <br />July 2003. If the adequacy test had not been suspended, the effect of SAPFO adoption <br />would have been to curtail residential development in both school districts immediately <br />upon adoption of SAPFO. <br />Commissioner Gordon would like this information noted as a historical reminder and so <br />that there is no misunderstanding regarding the effectiveness of SAPFO. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to <br />move the manager's recommendation approving the 2014 Schools Adequate Public Facilities <br />Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the <br />Report, with the addition of one sentence on page 11 and one sentence on page 12 to indicate <br />what is meant in the charts, and with the inclusion of the submitted questions and comments <br />into the record. <br />Commissioner McKee said he would like to note that SAPFO is only a planning tool and <br />should be used as such. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />f. Buckhorn- Mebane EDD Phase 2 Sewer Extension — Amendment of Design Contract <br />and Approval of Budget Amendment #7 -C <br />The Board considered authorizing the Chair to sign an amendment to the design <br />contract for the Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD) Phase 2 Sewer Extension <br />Project and approval of Budget Amendment #7 -C. <br />Commissioner Price said she needs clarification on some differences in the numbers. <br />Craig Benedict said this amendment is just to add an additional $120,000; however if <br />you look back over the past several years, there has been a change of $1 million, from $3.8 <br />million to $4.8 million. He said this includes an increased scope to the project and an increase <br />to protect capital costs. He said tonight's item would only involve the additional funds of <br />$120,000. <br />Commissioner Gordon said she asked about this budget amendment, and the finance <br />director said this will be documented in the future as a separate statement. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br />authorize the Chair to sign an amendment to the design contract for the Buckhorn Economic <br />Development District (EDD) Phase 2 Sewer Extension Project and approval of Budget <br />Amendment #7 -C. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />7. Regular Agenda <br />