Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2. Rani — could leave that to the discretion of the <br /> consultant. Long term planning for buildings <br /> could be done differently. Wouldn't want to be <br /> too prescriptive. <br /> 3. Bonnie — important the consultant be <br /> independent. Could put into contract that they are <br /> prohibited from doing any future work so no <br /> conflict of interest. Also want info about our <br /> processes, tools, metrics in addition to actual <br /> buildings. Could use FCI (Facility Condition <br /> Index) as a metric. <br /> 4. Jean — committee/subcommittee would work <br /> with county staff to describe what we want from <br /> the consultant <br /> 5. Renee—Under Recommendations section of the <br /> report—should be more clear that the two school <br /> systems agree to this—maybe a preamble(county <br /> can get the consultant but then schools are on <br /> their own to implement the recommendations) — <br /> boards will change — this is a JOINT school <br /> capital planning endeavor <br /> a. Jean—so we need buy-in from the boards. <br /> This is a recommendation from our joint <br /> committee and then the final report will <br /> go to all boards to see if they agree. <br /> b. Bonnie —this is the elephant in the room <br /> — schools receive money but don't <br /> necessarily want the county to dictate <br /> how to spend the money. Is there a way <br /> to add transparency and metrics without <br /> micromanaging?Could the FCI help with <br /> transparency? <br /> i. Dashboard with shared metrics <br /> and standards? <br /> c. Bonnie—what do Aland Nick think about <br /> micromanaging thoughts? <br /> i. Al — both district strategic plans <br /> are different, constituencies are <br /> different — don't want to be too <br /> prescriptive <br /> ii. Would be better to have a <br /> program manager to prevent <br /> internal bias (is a program <br /> manager an external party?) <br />