Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-25-2002 - 1
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2002
>
Agenda - 03-25-2002
>
Agenda - 03-25-2002 - 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2017 8:17:48 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:37:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/25/2002
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20020325
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
s <br /> ti CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS <br /> Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road <br /> Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 <br /> Telephone: (919) 967-8211 <br /> Neil G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent <br /> Superintendent for Instructional Services <br /> Raymond J. Reitz Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent <br /> Chief Technology Officer for Support Services <br /> TO: Barry Jacobs, Chair <br /> Orange County Board of Commissioners <br /> John Link <br /> Orange County Manager <br /> FROM: Valerie Foushee, Chair J�� <br /> Board of Education <br /> Neil G. Pederse <br /> Superintendent <br /> l <br /> RE: Responses to Questions Raised by BOCC Re Third High School <br /> DATE: March 5, 2002 <br /> 1. What funding sources could be identified to pay for new 'CHCCS high <br /> school space? <br /> As the Commissioners know, there were not sufficient funds approved for the bond <br /> referendum or the alternative financing package to support a new high school. There <br /> still is no way to construct a large, comprehensive high school (1000 or 1500 students) <br /> with available funds unless we did not build the second elementary school. This is one <br /> reason that we are proposing the construction of two smaller high schools and, under a <br /> somewhat optimistic scenario, we would have sufficient funds to construct the first of <br /> these. We have budgeted a total of$15,188,987 (excluding land)which comes from <br /> the following sources: Alternative financing in 2004-05 ($3,700,000); impact fees <br /> ($9,999,208); the Public School Building Fund ($989,779), and balance from ECHHS <br /> ($500,000). We believe that this level of funding would allow us to build a high <br /> school, with some limitation on facilities, for 500 to 700 students. <br /> 2. What cost savings might be associated with having two smaller new <br /> high schools rather than one larger new high school? <br /> This proposal is not based on projected cost savings. The financial benefit, as <br /> described above,is that there may be sufficient funds to proceed with a smaller high <br /> school whereas a large high school is out of the question. It also allows us to bring <br /> capacity on as needed rather than building more than is needed and waiting for it to fill <br /> up. Some savings are possible if a scaled-back athletic program is found to be <br /> acceptable. Most high school positions are allocated on a per-pupil basis, so the <br /> additional cost for personnel is not as great as one might expect. If the high school is <br /> located in the Southern end of the district, it could reduce transportation costs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.