Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 The Board provided notice of the Board of County Commissioners' plans to hold a public <br /> 2 hearing on April 5, 2016 on potential items for inclusion in Orange County's legislative agenda <br /> 3 package for the 2016 North Carolina General Assembly Session. <br /> 4 f. RFP Award —Audit Services <br /> 5 The Board awarded Request for Proposals (RFP) #5215 to Mauldin & Jenkins to conduct <br /> 6 auditing services for Orange County in the amount of$76,000 (first year); and authorize the <br /> 7 Manager to sign the contract on behalf of the BOCC pending staff and attorney review. <br /> 8 g. Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances —Adoption of the Appendices <br /> 9 to the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code <br /> 10 The Board amended the Orange County Code of Ordinances related to Emergency Services <br /> 11 and Fire Protection by adopting the appendices to the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code and <br /> 12 authorized the Chair to sign. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 7. Regular Agenda <br /> 15 <br /> 16 a. Consideration of a Third Party Analysis to Prioritize School Capital Projects <br /> 17 The Board considered authorizing staff to proceed with the solicitation of a consultant to <br /> 18 conduct a comparative analysis of school facility needs and to prioritize those needs based on <br /> 19 standard criteria. <br /> 20 Travis Myren reviewed the following information: <br /> 21 <br /> 22 BACKGROUND: During the September 29, 2015 joint meeting of the Board of County <br /> 23 Commissioners, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, and the Orange County Board of <br /> 24 Education, the Boards discussed the possibility of the County engaging a third party consultant <br /> 25 to compare and prioritize the capital needs of both districts. Since that time, no final decision <br /> 26 has been made by the Board of Commissioners about whether to proceed with this type of <br /> 27 analysis. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 During the joint meeting, staff from each of the school districts presented facility improvement <br /> 30 needs. These needs were based on comprehensive facility assessments conducted by <br /> 31 architectural firms. The assessments focused on repairs, renovations, and upgrades of existing <br /> 32 school facilities. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro analysis included the District's ten oldest schools <br /> 33 while the Orange County Schools analysis studied all of the District's facilities. The combined <br /> 34 cost of the recommended improvements totaled approximately $330 million. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Since the total cost of the recommendations exceeds the amount of funding contemplated by <br /> 37 the bond referendum for school facility improvements, the Boards discussed whether the <br /> 38 County should hire a third party consultant to prioritize projects. The consultant would review <br /> 39 the facility assessments prepared on behalf of each of the school districts and would apply a set <br /> 40 of standard criteria to rank and prioritize those projects. The criteria would include life, health, <br /> 41 and safety needs, security needs, sequencing based on operational needs, and structural and <br /> 42 mechanical needs. This process would establish an empirical element to the consideration of <br /> 43 capital projects and may help inform the Board of Commissioners' deliberations on how to apply <br /> 44 the proceeds of a bond referendum and other Capital Budget and Capital Investment Plan <br /> 45 funds. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 Commissioner Price asked if the two school systems have hired consultants to do <br /> 48 analyses, then why is the County suggesting doing this now. <br /> 49 Chair McKee said Commissioner Jacobs asked to put this on the agenda. <br />