Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br />1 no recommendation set in stone. She said the difference will be the preference of the Board of <br />2 Commissioners and the school boards. <br />3 Chair Jacobs said the Board has not created the bond group yet. He said this has been <br />4 discussed at their school collaboration meetings, and it will be a topic at the retreat. <br />5 Commissioner Gordon said she raised this question because the economic climate is <br />6 different now than from what it was in 2001, and more time may be needed to do the <br />7 educational campaign. <br />8 Commissioner Rich asked if the way the bond committee ran in 2001 was considered <br />9 successful, or if there were any lessons learned. <br />10 Chair Halkiotis said he was there in 2001, and he agrees with Commissioner Gordon. <br />11 He said the process should start early regardless of the bond date that is chosen. <br />12 Chair Jacobs said the 2001 process was successful, and the schools had a prominent <br />13 voice at the table. He said there is no reason not to be cautious, as it is a different time, but he <br />14 thinks people will get this. He said the Board would need a decision item in June 2015 to get <br />15 the group started prior to the Board of County Commissioners Meeting in August 2015. <br />16 Chair Jacobs noted that most of their bonds in the past have been driven by the <br />17 schools. <br />18 Chair Bedford said timing makes a big difference, but it is very difficult to plan until you <br />19 know how much money you have to work with. She hopes the following presentation will help <br />20 explain the dilemma. <br />21 Todd Lofrese the Board has already received their report and approved the overall <br />22 recommendations for the ten oldest facilities. He reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: <br />23 <br />24 CHCCS Older Facilities Summary <br />25 Older schools need significant investments <br />26 Recommendations <br />27 — Fix aging infrastructure issues <br />28 — Bring older schools to OC standard <br />29 — Address safety and security <br />30 — Increase capacity and delay new schools <br />31 — Delays operational increases <br />32 Timing is important <br />33 Continued collaboration <br />34 <br />35 Facilities Assessment Recommendation and Differed Cost of New Schools <br />36 Recommendations increase student capacity as follows: <br />37 Carrboro Elementary + 52 <br />38 Ephesus +137 <br />39 Estes Hills + 58 <br />40 Seawell +119 <br />41 Lincoln Center Pre K +189 <br />42 Total Elementary x-555 <br />43 CHHS +105 <br />44 Total +660 <br />45 <br />46 Facilities Assessment Recommendation and Differed Cost of New Schools <br />47 $160.8 mil Cost of Recommendation <br />48 ($34.5) Budgeted Cost of New Elementary School <br />49 (delayed beyond 10 years) <br />50 ($23.1) Budgeted Cost of High School Addition <br />