Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />ORANGE COUNTY <br />BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br />ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br />Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 <br />Action Agenda <br />Item No. _ <br />SUBJECT: Polic on Plannin and Fundin School Ca ital Projects <br />DEPARTMENT:. County Manager/Budget PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No <br />ATTACHMENT(S): <br />Policy on Planning and Funding School <br />Capital Projects as of 10/17/00 <br />Summary of Work Group Comments of <br />8/17/00 <br />9/07/00 Draft of Policy an Planning and <br />Funding School Capital Projects <br />INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />John Link or Rod Visser, ext. 2300 <br />Donna Dean, extension 2151 <br />TELEPHONE NUMBERS: <br />Hillsborough 732-8181 <br />Chapel Hill 968-4501 <br />Durham 688-7331 <br />Mebane 336-227-2031 <br />PURPOSE: To adopt a "Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects". <br />BACKGROUND: At the March 29, 2000 CIP work session, the Board expressed its intent to <br />communicate to both school boards its expectations regarding communication and review <br />processes that should be associated with school capital projects. The Board enumerated a <br />number of points that a written policy related to planning and funding school projects should <br />address. <br />Staff drafted a proposed policy document to define the Board's expectations. Both school <br />boards expressed a number of concerns about the draft policy and requested that the Board <br />refrain from adopting any such policy until formal dialogue among the boards occurred. In <br />August 2000, the work group that had reviewed school funding options last winter met to <br />discuss potential improvements to the policy drafted by staff. <br />At the September 25, 2000 BOCC work session with both school boards, staff presented a draft <br />policy that highlighted concerns of the work group and offered passible solutions to address the <br />concerns (Attachment 3). At that meeting, each board had the opportunity to share their <br />thoughts regarding the draft policy. While full consensus on the policy has not been achieved, <br />there seems to be general agreement that the proposed policy (Attachment 1) is more workable <br />than the original draft prepared in April. <br />One major change from the April version of the policy to the current version pertains to the <br />approval process for Level 2 projects. The April version provided for an approval process of <br />individual components the scope of a project developed. The proposed policy streamlines the <br />approval process into four phases: <br />