Agenda - 04-25-2006-1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Halkiotis noted that in the past it was controversial for the County to identify future school sites. "It was like siting a landfill." We need a better process for getting people involved and engaged positively in future site selection, he said, Ms. Stuckey said that Chapel Hill needed special legislation for the authority to reserves sites, but "the developers don't litre it." Given political opposition to that kind of special legislation, what would be a practical way to secure future sites ?, she asked. Mr. Jacobs said that land banking enables counties to purchase school sites for the future, but a County would have to have the money to make the purchase. Mr. Copeland added that OCS has access to large tracts of land, but the land does not have the water and sewer infrastructure that a school would need, "So we have to achieve capacity through student assignment." Although it was suggested that new sites might be acquired through negotiations with developers, it also was noted that the County was not able to influence the Waterstone developers to provide infrastructure for schools. This is why the planning directors should be convened with the school officials, said Mr. Jacobs. The Mayors are supportive of integrating school capacity and land use planning, he said, and they can lead their boards in directing planning staff to work with the schools. Mr. Halkiotis noted that in Charlotte Mecklenburg and Cary the local governments have been effective at convincing developers to pay for schools. It was noted that the municipalities' development regulations — the amenities required by the Towns -- add significantly to the cost of building schools. Town requirements added approximately $1 5 million to the cost of Rock Haven school, for example. Mr. Copeland asked if there was a standard assumption for how long a school building is expected to last. Dr. Pedersen said that 50 years has been a rule of thumb, although CHCCS has three schools approaching that age and the district has no thought of getting out of those buildings. "We're spending enough on upgrades and maintenance to expect our schools to last sixty or seventy years," he said. Ms Stuckey said that the City district has a "decade -by- decade" plan to keep its schools upgraded, including schedules for maintaining and replacing HVAC systems, windows, and bathrooms, etc. Dr. Caraway said that OCS has a similar plan for maintaining its physical plant. She added that within OCS, school obsolescence would generally come from a state determination following a comprehensive facilities inspection, as opposed to a local decision. Mr. Link said that in general an existing school will be maintained as long as a need for school capacity exists in an area For example, he said, Southside Elementary in Durham was abandoned because non- residential growth in the area around the school displaced the neighborhood. Mr. Copeland said that Orange County residents appreciate the look and history of its older schools, and so are willing to maintain their buildings. Mr. Hartkopf added that policies relating to school construction should not address new buildings only, but also should address keeping the existing physical plant "viable and fresh." Mr'. Hartkopf said that this group's reassessment of school construction standards should consider stonnwater protection methods that set practical goals and are protective of local watersheds. A school building that collects rainwater, for example, might be "credited" under a local government's impervious surface rules. OCS might be able to "get more mileage" out of Efland Cheeks with innovative stonnwater management, he said. Ms. 3