Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 03-17-2009 - 4k
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)— Receipt and Transmittal of 2009 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report DEPARTMENT: Manager/Budget/Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. SAPFO Partners Transmittal Letter Craig Benedict, 245-2592 2. Draft 2009 SAPFOTAC Annual Donna Coffey, 245-2151 Report (Under Separate Cover) Shannon Berry, 245-2589 P.erdita Holtz, 245-2611 PURPOSE: To receive the 2009 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and transmit it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in May. BACKGROUND: 1. Annual Report; Each year the SAPFOTAC Report is updated to reflect actual changing conditions of student membership and school capacity. This information is analyzed and used to project future school construction needs based on adopted levels of service standards. There are two steps to the full report. The first part (Student Membership and Capacity) is certified in the fall and then this full report, in the spring of each year, is to keep the SAPFO system calibrated. At the December 11, 2008 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board approved the November 14, 2008 actual membership and capacity numbers (i.e. first part) for both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. There were mistakes with the initial numbers submitted by OCS and the BOCC approved revised OCS membership and capacity numbers at the February 17, 2009 meeting. b A draft of the full annual SAPFOTAC Report is complete and has bee n reviewed y the SAPFOTAC members. 2. SAPFOTAC: The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County and Towns, is tasked to produce an annual report for the governing boards of each SAPFO partner outlining changes in actual membership, capacity, student projections, and their collective impacts on the Capital Investment Program (CIP) and the future issuance of Certificates of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS). Orange County's Planning Staff compiles the report, holds a meeting discussing the various aspects, and then prepares a draft report, which is reviewed by the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee. 2 3. Membership Data: CHCCS total increase from the previous year: 199 students 129 Elementary School 75 Middle School (5) High School OCS total increase from the previous year: 12 students 7 Elementary School (36) Middle School 41 High School 4. Capacity Data: Two changes occurred in the CHCCS system with the opening of Morris Grove Elementary School and the implementation of the new class size ratio of 1:21 in grades K-3. Capacity at the Elementary level increased by 323. Two changes occurred in the OCS system as well. Capacity at the Elementary level decreased by 228 due to the implementation of the new 1:21 class size ratio for grades K-3 and capacity increased at the High School level by 25 with the completion of the new Partnership Academy Alternative School. 5. Capacity Issues SAPFO vs. DPI The SAPFO is a 'freestanding' ordinance, independent of State Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projections and rules regarding class size. The SAPFO, for instance, does not count temporary modular classrooms as fulfilling the capacity level of service outlined in the SAPFO interlocal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU requires 'bricks and mortar' instead of temporary facilities and also requires its own set of future student projections to identify long-term capital school construction needs. With the opening of Morris Grove Elementary in August 2008, CHCCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service established in the SAPFO. OCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service. 6. Student Projection Analysis Student membership projections show an increase at all levels in both school systems, except the High School level for OCS, in years 2009-2011. The projections are shown on pages 36-37 of the report. 7. Orange County Schools Systems; CIP Needs Analysis CHCCS Projected needs: New Elementary#11 2010-2011 (projected overage of 26 students) New Elementary#12 2018-2019 (projected overage of 33 students) New Middle School #5 2013-2014 (projected overage of 20 students) Expanded High School 2016-2017 (projected overage of 104 students) 3 OCS Projected needs: None for Elementary, Middle or High School in the next 10 years However, the SAPFOTAC report notes that development approval activity within the portion of the City of Mebane that lies within Orange County has been significant in recent years. Because the City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO at this time, CAPS are not required by the local government to be issued prior to development approvals. Once students generated from Mebane development actually enter the school system, faster enrollment increases would affect projections and may identify CIP needs within 10 years, unless enrollment is balanced by slower growth in other areas of the district. 8. Student Generation Rates The SAPFOTAC reviewed the updated student generation rates from the 2007 TischlerBise study. The report notes the SAPFOTAC recommends the BOCC and other governing boards accept the new, most current student generation rates and adopt them as the standard for SAPFO and the CAPS system. Later this year, staff intends to follow the process contained in the SAPFO MOUs to update the student generation rates as they pertain to SAPFO processes. 9. Access to Full Report The draft SAPFOTAC report will be posted on the Orange County Planning Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report will be sent to all SAPFO partners after this BOCC meeting advising them of the availability of the draft report and inviting comment. It is anticipated the draft 2009 SAPFOTAC report will be brought back to the BOCC for certification at the May 19, 2009 regular meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current 10-year student growth projections show future needs for additional schools in the CHCCS District. CHCCS Elementary School #11 is projected to be needed in 2010-11. CHCCS Middle School #5 is projected to be needed in 2013-14, Elementary School #12 is projected to be needed in 2018-19, and expansion of Carrboro High School is expected to be necessary in 2016-17. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: a. Receive the 2009 SAPFOTAC Annual Report; and b. Authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained in Attachment 1. To be printed on BOCC Letterhead Attachment 1 March 18, 2009 Kevin Foy, Mayor Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chairperson Town of Chapel Hill Orange County Board of Education 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 200 E. King Street Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Mark Chilton,Mayor Lisa Stuckey, Chairperson Town of Carrboro Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board 301 W. Main Street 750 Merritt Mill Road Carrboro,NC 27510 Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Tom Stevens, Mayor Town of Hillsborough P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Subject: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC)Annual Report Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to update you on the status of the 2009 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. In accordance with the SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding(MOU), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the November 14, 2008 actual membership and capacity numbers for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools at their meeting on December 11, 2008, and revised OCS membership and capacity numbers at the February 17, 2009 meeting. The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County and Towns has produced the 2009 Annual Report. As per the SAPFO MOU,the annual technical report contains information on Level of Service,Building Capacity,Membership Date, Capital Investment Plan, Student Membership Projection Methodology, Student Membership Projections, Student Membership Growth Rate, Student/Housing Generation Rate, and the SAPFO Process. Enclosed for your use are copies of the 2009 Executive Summary and the March 17, 2009 BOCC meeting agenda item abstract when the BOCC received the draft report. The full draft SAPFOTAC report is available on the Orange County Planning Department website in the Current Interest Projects section [Note: Report will be uploaded to website when BOCC receives report and authorizes transmittal to SAPFO partners; actual website address will be printed here prior to the letter being signed] o The 2009 Annual SAPFOTAC Report is scheduled to be certified by the BOCC at a regular meeting in May 2009. Therefore, if you have any comments pertaining to the report,please forward them to Craig N. Benedict,Planning Director,no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 20,2009. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at(919)245-2592, by e-mail at cbenedictAco.oran e.nc.us, or by fax at(919) 644-3002. Any comments received will be part of our agenda package in May. Please share this information and the 2009 SAPFOTAC report with your respective boards. Sincerely, Valerie Foushee Chairperson Enclosures cc: Board of County Commissioners Laura Blackmon, Orange County Manager Roger L. Stancil,Manager, Town of Chapel Hill Steven Stewart, Manager,Town of Carrboro Eric Peterson, Manager, Town of Hillsborough Neil Pedersen, Superintendent, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Patrick Rhodes, Superintendent, Orange County Schools George McFarley, Chief Operating Officer, Orange County Schools Todd LoFrese,Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools Kevin Morgenstein Fuerst, Coordinator for Student Enrollment, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Orange County J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director, Town of Chapel Hill Roy Williford,Planning Director, Town of Carrboro Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, Town of Hillsborough ORANGE COUNTY, NC SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PREPARED BY A STAFF COMMITTEE: PLANNING DIRECTORS, SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) (PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 2003) (ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN JULY, 2003) Annual Report 2009 (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2008 DATA) _ CERwFIED BY THE BOCC ON XXXX, 2009 Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................i Introduction.........................................................................................................................iv Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners .............................................vi Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) members........................................................................Vi I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service............................................................................. 1 B. Building Capacity......................................................................... 2 Attachment: I.B.1. - Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle&High School)(2007)..................5 Attachment: I.B.2. - Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle&High School)(2007).........8 Attachment: I.B.3. - Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle&High School)(2008)................11 Attachment: I.B.4. - Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle&High School)(2008).........14 C. Membership Date ............................................................................17 II. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP).......................................................... is B. Student Membership Projection Methodology.......................................19 Attachment: II.B.1.—Student Membership Projection Descriptions........................................................20 Attachment: IIB.2.—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2007-08...................21 Attachment: II.B.3.—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2008-09...................25 C. Student Membership Projections ...................................................... 29 Attachment: II.C.1. —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary,Middle&High School) (2007)..........34 Attachment: II.C.2. —Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle&High School) (2007)...35 Attachment: II.C.3. —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary,Middle&High School) (2008) ..........36 Attachment: II.C.4. —Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle&High School) (2008)....37 D. Student Membership Growth Rate ............................................ ...................38 Attachment: II.D.1.—Orange County&Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates Chart dates from 2008—2018 based on 11115107 membership numbers(2007)............................................39 Attachment: II.D.2.—Orange County&Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates t Chart dates from 2009—2019 based on 11114108 membership numbers(2008)............................................40 E. Student/ Housing Generation Rate .....................................................41 Attachment: II.E.1.—Current Student Generation Rates (2002).............................................................43 Attachment: II.E.2.Recommended Student Generation Rates (2007)....................................................44 III. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process A. Proc_W 1 - Capital Investment Plan ...................................................,. ..................45 Attachment: III A.1.—Process 1 Capital Investment Plan ...................................................................46 B. Process 2 - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance; Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) System .....................................47 Attachment: III B.1.—Process 2 Certificate of Adequate Public Schools(CAPS)Allocation..........................49 2009 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service..............................................(No Change).........Pg. I Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County School District School District Elementary 105% 105% Middle 107% 107% High 110% 110% B. Building Capacity and Membership.........................(Change)..........Pg. 2 Chapel HilUCarrboro Orange County School District School District Capacity Membership Increase Capacity Membership Increase from Prior from Prior Year Year Elementary 5244 5302 129 3694 3165 7 Middle 2840 2697 75 2166 1601 36 Hi h 3835 1 3630 1 (5) 2558 1 2242 1 41 C. Membership Date—November 15...........(No Change).......Pg.17 II. Annual Update to SAPFO System A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP)............................(Change)..........Pg. 18 B. Student Membership Projection Methodology......(No Change).......Pg. 19 The average of 3, S,and 10 year history/cohort survival, linear and arithmetic projection models. C. Student Membership Projections.............................(Change)...........Pg.29 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2008-09 School Year—Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (The number in brackets[n]is the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. A number in parenthesis within the brackets [(n)]indicates the projection was low compared to the actual whereas a number not in parenthesis indicates the projection was high comp aced to the actual. Year Projection Made for 2008-09 Membership Actual 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Membership Elementary 5302 5465 [1631 5129 173 5296 6 5273 29 5317 15 Middle 2697 1 3000 303 2757 [601 2749 f521 2686 11 2684__[(13)) High 3630 1 3790 [1601 3671 F41i 3687 57 3648 [181 3695--[651 1 Executive Summary Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2008-09 School Year—Orange County Schools (The number in brackets[n]is the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. A number in parenthesis within the brackets [(n)]indicates the projection was low compared to the actual whereas a number not in parenthesis indicates the projection was high comp aced to the actual. Year Projection Made for 2008-09 Membership Actual 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Membership Elementary 3165 3185 20 3263 [981 3182 [171 3170 5 3245 80 Middle 1601 1 1633 [321 1609 [81 1592 (9)] 1604 131 1617 16 " High 2242 1 2082 (160) 2160 (82)] 2162 (80) 2203 39) 2223 19)] D. Student Growth Rate............................................(Change)..........Pg. 38 Average Annual Growth Rate over 10 Years Chapel HUMCarrboro Orange County School District School District 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Elementary 1.79% 1.95% 2.03% 1.85% 1.5% 1.68% 1.60% 1.49% 1.84% 1.16% Middle 1.91% 2.41% 2.35% 2.58% 2.03% 1.50% 1.18% 1.42% 1.78% 1.44% High 2.04% 1.95% 2.04% 2.31% 2.21% 1.21% 0.92% 0.98% 1.49% 1 1.0% E. Student/Housing Generation Rate....................(Change)...........Pg. 41 SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS (based on future year Student Membership Projections) A `Joint Action Committee' (language used in original MOIL)met in November 2005 to discuss Elementary level K-3 class size reductions related to legislation from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. The Committee recommended that capacity changes be implemented equally in both school districts when Morris Grove Elementary opened,which r occurred this school year. CHAPEL HILLICARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School District A. Does not exceed 105%LOS standard(current LOS is 101.1%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the next 10 years. -`- C. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary School#10(Morris Grove Elementary)opened in August 2008. D. Due partially to reduced class size capacities going into effect in 2008 with the opening of Morris Grove Elementary, the projections are showing a need for Elementary School #11 in 2010-11 by a projected overcapacity of 26 students. ii Executive Summary Middle School District A. Does not currently exceed 107%LOS standards(current LOS is 95.0%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the next 10 years. C. Chapel Hi1UCarrboro Middle School#5 is projected to be needed in 2013-14. High School District A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard(current LOS is 94.7%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the next 10 years. C. Expansion of Carrboro High School from the initial capacity of 800 students to the ultimate capacity of 1,200 students is projected to be needed in 2016-17. ORANGE COUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School District A. Does not currently exceed 105%LOS standard(current LOS is 85.7%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the next 10 years. C. Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10-year timeframe. However, staff is monitoring new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane,which is not a party to the Schools APFO MOU at this time. Middle School District A. Does not currently exceed 107%LOS standard(current LOS is 73.9%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the next 10 years. C. Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10-year time frame. However, staff is monitoring new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane,which is not a party to the Schools APFO MOU at this time. High School District A. Does not currently exceed 110%LOS (current LOS is 87.6%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the next 10 years. C. Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10-year time frame. However, staff is monitoring new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane,which is not a party to the Schools APFO MOU at this time. iii Orange County,NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance INTRODUCTION The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and its Memorandum of Understanding are ordinances and agreements, respectively. Supporting documents are anticipated to be dynamic to incorporate the annual changing conditions of membership, capacity and student projections that may affect School Capital Investment Plan(CIP)timing. This formal annual report will be forthcoming to all of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners each year as new information is available. This updated information is used in the schools capital needs process of the Capital Investment Plan(Process 1) and within elements of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools(CAPS) spreadsheet system(Process 2). This report and any comments from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners will be considered in the first half of each year by the Board of County Commissioners at a regular or special meeting. The various elements of the report are then"certified"and formally considered in the process of the upcoming Capital Investment Plan. The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools system is updated after November 15 when data is received from the school districts with actual membership and pre-certified capacity(i.e. CIP capacity or prior "joint action"capacity changes). The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Memorandum of Understanding have dynamic aspects. The derivation of the baseline and update to the variables will continue in the future as a variety of school related issues are fine-tuned by technical and policy groups. The primary facet of this report includes the creation of mathematical projections for student memberships by school levels (Elementary, Middle and High) and by School Districts (Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County). This information is found in Section II, Subsections B, C,D, and E. In summary,this report serves as an update to the dynamic conditions of student membership and school capacity which effect future projected needs considered in Capital Investment Planning. Interested parties may make their comments known to the Board of County Commissioners prior to their review of the report and school CIP completion or ask questions of the SAPFOTAC members. iv ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding (Schools APFO MOU) SECTION Id RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PARTNERS Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District School APFO School APFO Board of County Commissioners Board of County'Commissioners Carrboro Board of Aldermen Hillsborough Town Council Chapel Hill Town Council Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board Orange County School Board v Planning Directors/School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee (aka SAPFOTAC) Orange County Planning Department Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator and Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner 306-F Revere Road P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Town of Chapel Hill J.B. Culpepper,Planning Director 405 Martin Luther King,Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27514 Town of Hillsborough Margaret Hauth,Planning Director P.O.Box 429 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Orange County School District Patrick Rhodes, Superintendent and George McFarley, Chief Operating Officer 200 E. King Street Hillsborough,NC 27278 Carrboro Planning Department Roy Williford,Planning Director 301 West Main Street Carrboro,NC 27510 Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District Todd LoFrese,Assistant Superintendent for Support Services and Kevin Morgenstein Fuerst, Coordinator of Student Enrollment 750 Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill,NC 25716 Includes: SAPFOTAC/O.C.Budget Liaison Donna Coffey �- 208 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 vi I. BASE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A. Level of Service 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—Change can only be effectuated by amendment to Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)by all School APFO partners. 2. Definition—Level of Service(LOS)means the amount(level)of students that can be accommodated (serviced) at a certain school system grade group [i.e., Elementary level(K-5), Middle Level (6-8), High School Level(9-12)]. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District Elementary Middle High School Elementary Middle High School 105% 107% 110% 105% 107% 110% 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis of Existing Conditions Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District These standards are acceptable at this time. These standards are acceptable at this time. S. Recommendation — Recommendation— No Change from above standard No Change from above standard 1 Section I B. Building Capacity 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change-The Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC)will receive requested changes that are CIP related and adopted in the prior year. CIP capacity changes will be updated along with actual membership received in November of each year. - Other changes will be sent to a `Joint Action Committee' of the BOCC and Board of Education, as noted in the MOU, who will make recommendations and forward changes (on the specific forms with justification)to the full Board of County Commissioners for review and action. These non-CIP changes would be updated in the upcoming November CAPS system recalibration and included in the SAPFOTAC report. 2. Definition- 'Tor purposes of this Memorandum, "building capacity" will be determined by reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines(consistent with CIP School Construction Guidelines/policies developed by the School District and the Board of County Commissioners) and will be determined by a joint action of the School Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. As used herein the term "building capacity" refers to permanent buildings. Mobile classrooms and other temporary student accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent buildings and may not be counted in determining the school districts building capacity." 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District The original certified capacity for each of the The original certified capacity for each of the - schools was certified by the respective schools was certified by the respective superintendent and incorporated in the superintendent and incorporated in the initialization of the CAPS system(Chapel Hill initialization of the CAPS system (Orange Carrboro School District April 29, 2002 - County School District April 30, 2002 -Base) Base) -.X=: -&. - Capacity changes were made each year as Capacity changes were made each year as follows: follows: 2 Section I 2003: Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary. 2003: No net increase in capacity at 2004: No changes at Elementary,Middle,or Elementary level. No changes at Middle High School levels. School level. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge 2005: No changes at Elementary,Middle, or High School. High School levels. 2004: No net increase in capacity at 2006: No changes at Elementary,Middle,or Elementary level. No changes at Middle or High School levels. High School levels. 2007: An increase of 800 at the High School 2005: An increase incapacity of 100 at level with the opening of Carrboro High Hillsborough Elementary with the completion School. of renovations. 2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary 2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the School level due to the opening of Morris Middle School level with the completion of Grove Elementary School and the Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of implementation of the 1:21 class size ratio in 15 at the High School level with the temporary grades K-3 location of Partnership Academy Alternative School. An increase of 2 at the Elementary level due to a change in the capacity calculation for each grade at each school. 2007: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2008: A decrease of 228 at the Elementary School level due to the implementation of the 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 and an increase of 25 at the High School level with the completion of the new Partnership Academy Alternative School. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis of Existing Conditions Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County SclooI District The Schools Facilities Task Force developed The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a a system to calculate capacity. Any changes system to calculate capacity. Any changes 3 Section I year to year will be monitored,reviewed, and year to year will be monitored,reviewed, and recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to SAPFO partners and forms distributed to SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by the Board of certified upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners each year. County Commissioners each year. The requested 2008-9 capacity is noted on The requested 2008-9 capacity is noted on Attachment I.B.4 Attachment I.B.3 ` A `Joint Action Committee' met in November 2005 to discuss Elementary level K-3 class size reductions related to legislation from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. The Committee recommended that capacity changes be implemented equally in both school districts with the opening of CHCCS Elementary School#10 (Morris Grove) in 2008-09. 5. Recommendation —Accept new Recommendation — Accept new Elementary Level capacities as reported Elementary Level capacities as reported by by CHCCS and shown in Attachment OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3. I.B.4. 4 Attachment I.B.1 Section I (page lof 3) School APFO Capacity Change Request Form and Current Membership School District: Orange County Schools, 3APFO CAPS Year; November 15.2007-Novernhcr 14,2008 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date., November 15,2007 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2016 Rccjue�ted R(tjuvstefl Requestud ReflucsteO St I tri re Rut]11CIStk d In schmA Feet Capaci C"I Imcity CA V.'Icily ("'I Pacit Cap"Wil 70,81 59 5 52,492 493 481 23 9 5,29,:'- 52 4JO 8 8 flap 64,316 9 52-1 '17 74,016 5 575 515 576 "576 -�-414 414 514 501 561 New Elope,:. 6 622 .22 568 2 10 621 6 0 164 8 60,13 60 616 :616 427 5,282, 600 3t9221 °.3922, Special Note, istr the'Noveatbec 15,201P2 base year the beard aooeptcd the supezimcudent-ceflified capacities as part of the School FacilidesTnk Force review and 2003 Planners and School Represent tjiVL!-[',cit[kic,,Lj%dvisoiv Gammitux m-port.these or&,ities will remain Xonive until chaji-ed by(1)the School ell,err-)an w-=n&d w2sicaof this form that is c-tifiax!hY the BGCC. Justification; An Increase in Hillsborough Elementary capacity of 100 was completed prior to the start of the 2003.04 school year in accordance with the CIP. However,due to continuing renovations within tho school,the full capacity of 614 student seats was not achieved until the 200512006 school year. The above numbers reflect school capacitywithout onsideration of state class size reductions in grades K-3. The revision for 2006-07 was due to a change in the method of capacity calculation to be more precise by using the actual number of classrooms at each grade level. Capacity m -2 d)- Sulornntendent Date B ft, Qate Membership Certification, P 44* /1-4--)-j}- Superintendent Date C air Date Attachment I.B.I Section I (page 2 of 3) School APFO Capacity Change Request Form and Current Membership I L School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15.2007-I\Yovember 14,2008 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date. November 15.2007 -1003-2004 M04-200-4 2005-20% 2006-2007 2007-2008 Middle stj[Mrc SrIlool I'U(2t Capacit� capacit.� C")Pacit� (%ipadt�, 136,0 7-7,--' ,:7. 7 7. . 740 7.4U 609 7 107,620 26 726 726 26 72` 123,000 -0 0 0 700 790 445 366,6 1.46 :1,4661 2,166: 1fi371 Spacial Notes Stff the November 15.21KJ2 bass year Lite I)nard acteptod the saperintand"c-Dardfied capacities as part of the&hool racifides.Task Form rcvicw and"-(W I'lanncrs mnd.Schwl RerAvwwaLivu Twhnicul Advisory GMVULthU!RC[XVI.These:cip2ciLio-q will reil]3i3ldffCLileuutitcli,,need by(I)the SchcoICIPor(—))an amended version of this fonntbw Justification; An increase in capacity was generated as a result of the completion of Gravelly Hill Middle School in Fall 2006. This school added an additional 700 middle school student seats. cppac!!�Certific,; tion: ,1 Superintendent Date B?610�ChaN Date Membership CertWication; B h it Superintendent "Date Date Attachment I.B.I Section I (page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity Change Request Form and Current Membership School District: Orange County Schools SAFF5 CAPS Year. November l5,2007-R'i3vcizkberl4,2008 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date- November 15,2007 2003-2004 1004-2005 200-5-2006 2006-2007 2007-21HI),S High School V(Ct Rckjm"Ied Reque.,lu(I Retpioted Reque.sted Reflocsted CIrlj-,Cj(y Cap;lcity ('apacifi 213.509 1,518 1,518 ed Q.'T2 dge i 206,900 1.000. 2,249 0 0 t 5 15 7 4, 1 422,658 2,51 77777M 2,533 1,,,I'r,- 27331 Special Notez.For tho Nowrnber 13,2002 bw year tIjeb(KiTd.,u:cepIed tbosurerineadent-certified expacific,5 m FmTtof the School Facilities Task Rwe.review and 2003 Planners and$Chonl RepreSNxadve Technical Adviaxy(QrmnittaL Repen.These capacities will wavain effeefiva,until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an aim)dad version of this form that is cmdfied by the BOCC. Justification, Partnership Academy Alternative School(P.A.A.S-)is temporarily located at Fairview Baptist Church which allows limited capacity for alternative school students. Upon completion of the permanent site for P.A.A.S.we anticipate approximately 40 student seats added to the high school capacity. Capacity Certification: Z--6-2! /At, /,/— '6—�— Superintendent Date it Date Membership Clartification- --6- 7 /'/---z 6- Superintendent Date BO C Ir Date Attachment I.B.2 Section I (page I of 3) School APFO Capacity Calculation and Change Request Form School Distr ct'. Chapel Mil-Caffbora City Schools 1 - School Year. November 15,2007-November 14,2W8 64 832 2003-210114 2IM4.20115 200� 211DI, 20M,2will 2(107-200S V I k.[I w lit a 1-% Sill 4;ri, rl M-�.......... 458 472 k- 66,952" 472 e-,M -- -1 14 W -S49 fey Iitfls` Clem 56,299 .1 4W5," 549,! 5 - 1 50,764 445 445 lo -491 Pi 66,689 570 $70 570 4 596 .659 N, 98,000 596 ................. 619 V;i,.--4`��,6B 63-3 95,729.,',,��.�N 619 Vaill fm 509 vz 669 09 9 ":996 4 9 6 52 498 639,141 4,9211"1 9211 Special Note% For the IN(Nember 15.2002 bast),car the boind acaqAed the superintendent-certified capacities,,-.part of the Sluhuot Facilities Task Force review=d 2003 Maners and Sclxml Represaxafive7cchnical Advisory CLvainittee RC MY. These captcides will Lwain effective UPAII Changed by())the Schaal CIP to(2)antuneito version of this furm that is oudficd by the HOW. Justification; 1.FPO square footage increased due to primary wing renovations The above numbers reflect school capacity without consideration of state class size reductions in grades K-3. Capacity Certification: Superintendent Date 0C ai Date Membership Certification: Superintendent Date Date' Section I Attachment I.B.2 (page 2 of 3) School APFO Capacity Calculation and Change Request Form 1School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City SclioDis 1School Year. November 15,2(X)7-November 14,2008 211113-241f)-i 2004-200�, 2005-2006 20W)-2007 -1007-200S Nliddlu Sk 114-1 Sqwl:,C Rqnu�,t(d RoluQted Rutlws(v6 Requulud kl,�I I!I C�tl I on 'a PAcit% Capacitl C 1)116t� 'apacio capacitIN �choo I tar) 67 4 'y' '732 732:; j d fl 13627-1 So �441-1 Ak" 7 6 4W ft" 105,498 70,6 0 7. tX 2 732X6, 12 732 128,764 1V MP k, 'Y Q 482,541 Special Note: Foe the Navernber 15.1002 buc year the houxi=mpted the wrx-intendant-certified capacities u pan of tiLu School Facilities Tusk Force review and 2003 Humm and Sch4"Repmentative Tzrbnicxt Advisury GormiAnx RepmL These capacities will remain cffmfive uaid changed by(1)the School('lP or(2)an attended version of this&xrn dat is ccLlirid by the BOCC. Justification: 1.Square footage at Culbreth increased due to auditorium expansion Capacity Certification- Superintendent Date BO ail Date Membership Ce,40oationi Superintendent Date Ch it Date Section I (page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity Calculation and Change Request Form [school District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools ISchool Year: November 15,2007-Noveniber 14,2008 5 1,515 Special Note*Fhr the November 15,2012 haw ywr the bcord Accepted dw superbilindcris-eintified capackics as pan*f the School Facilities Task in q Fnrce revic%-md 2003 Plannam and 5dwl RcprcscnEw.lve Teclinkal Advisory Onrimittee Report. 'nese Cal)&-Cifies Will Fernalm OrIbclive tintil cl n�pd by<1)the Schwl CIP Or P)All OmLnc!L%i v0sion of tills form that is cartified by the ROM Justification: corrboro High School opened August 25,2007 With a design capacity of Capacity Certificatp*Pm. TuperinteNdent Me— BO h It Date Membership C"'fipation; BO all Ti perintendent Date Date ' , Section I Attachment I.B.3 (page Iof3) School • Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year., November 14,2008-November 13,2009 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2008' 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 70,812 559 565 1 52,492 455 455 1 64,316 487 497 1 74,016 526 544 1 51,106 477 471 1 100,164 577 586 1 85,282 556 576 1 498,188 3,637 3,694 3,694 Special Note(s). 1.For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Plans and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report.These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School C1P or(2)an amended version of this foam that is certified by the BOCC. 2.November 15th falls on a weekend in 2008 and 2009.Therefore,membership numbers provided shall be from the Friday before. Justification: I.Elementary school capacities reflect 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 Capacity Certification: au LL= Superintendent Date l�Zpq BOGC Chair, 'lDdte `� f Membershiipj Certification: Q� t G �f�fz- otl��+ ��--• �3��1y Superintendent Date BO-CC Chair Date 11 Section I Attachment I.B.3 (page 2 of 3) School • Capacity, School District: Orange County Schools 3 PFO CAPS Year. November 14,2008-November 13,2009 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2008 Middle s(111:11-e 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 [List i fical ioll School I'm Foolliote.4 136,000 740 740 107,620 726 726 123,000 0 700 366,620 1,466 2,166 Special Note(s)t 1.Forthe November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Plan=and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report Thew capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. 2.November 15th falls on a weekend in 2008 and 2009.Therefore,membership numbers provided shall be from the Friday before. Justification: Capacity Certification: X:)it pllII41o4 Superintendent Date B CC Chair Date Membership Certification: 3�S/°y Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 12 Attachment I.B.3 Section I (page 3 of 3) School • Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SA FO CAPS Year: November 14,2008-November 13,2009 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2008' 2004-200-5 2005-2006 2006-2-007 2007-2008 2008-2001) 213,509 1,518 1,518 206,900 1,000 1,000 2,249 0 15 1 WRWWWMJ 422,658; 2,518 2,533 _ Special Note(a):1.For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-cati8al capacides as pad of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Reptesentstive Technical Advisory committee Report.These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. 2.November 15th falls on a weekend in 2008 and 2009.Therefore,membership numbers provided shall be from the Friday before. Justification: 1.The capacity increase reflects the relocation and new construction for Partnership. Capacity Certification: oiDateq 3 djs Su m Date ien ent BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: �t a. ot�26/oR /SIQ� Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date mac:—==•-- 13 Section I Attachment I.BA (page lof 3) . .l APFs Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form SchoulDistrict. Chapel t -Cn oro .tn•.c nnts ear. ovetn er 4, -N ovem r . Capacity and Membership Submittal[Date: November 14.2008 2004-200-5) 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Nlenihership FlenientarN Square ju�lifi"tion (referenced 60,"2 533. r I $9 66.952 448 448 1 43 * -96299 r a 52, 527 5272 ! .. 50,7641:,-",- 423 423. .. t ,z 66,089- 53 98,000.. -.`aP,•��4 64 '.TV!1 564 S. 95,729 ;..!" $8 585 Sol X57 9 1980 5? 5-75 § t 4Q0 f 5 52,896 466-- a w' 166: l »' -59_ t 90,221 ; f M _- 4 { 729,362 4,65 ",4" Speela!Note(s):I.Fin tIx ivtweniber 15.2062 base ycai the board acccpted the superntendcm•ccrrit3:d capacitics as part ofvtre Schad Facilkie, Cask Force review and 200 Phrrtners and School Rrpresematine Technical Advisory Cominiucc Report TTcsc capacitics will temain c%crfivc uant changed M t 3 i the Schted(1P or(2)an amended version of this farm that is certified by the BQCC 2. NovettttMr 151h talk on a weekend in 21)(W and 20(1Y I hererme,membership numbers(Provided Aall be tritin the h'ndxv hefiwe. Justification: 1 Elementary school capacities rettect 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 Capacity Certification: A4,4, Superintendent Date BQCC Chair Date ` Membership Certiffeatfon: - �V-lf /J Superintendent Date BQCC Chair Rate 14 Attachment I.B.4 Section I (page 2 of•3) School Schooloistnat., Chapel 11iliTarrharo City c oa s Year. November 14,27008-November 3.2009 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14.2008- 2004-200i 2005-20116 20[ffj-2007 21101-2008 2008-2001) bvr�hifj jWf 136,221 ='{ 732 € = ';F3 732 " z - _106 706 - 128.764 '?° 732 ti, a 732 4s2,541 2,840 :<. 2,8 W51 Spedaf ffate(9): I For the November 15.200+2 lase yrar the bond acceveS t;a serperirtcndcnt•crntf cd capac+iirs as pu+t of the School Facilities Tahti Forte review and 2003 Yiannrts and 5chm-A Rermsemativr rechn+cal Adv snry Cornm!Ltea RgWf Tl+ese calratibcs will rernaut of rcuve until -hanged by(l):he school Op of j'_i as amended version of this fornt that is m;tsiied by the f3UCC 2. Noven:bcr 1 Sth!a;ls:xt a wetl.end+n 2LV73 and 2il00'h l'herrlorv.+nemt+crsri+p num!xn pr�yided shall bt lizti+n the Fnday before Justiffcatlon: Capacity Certiffcatlam Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: tom' • :�l.K//!/�C1G�..� lrlr��'Qf �'�'�LC.� /z-z'�--tl Superintendent Date OCC Chair Date 15 Section I Attachment I.B.4 (page 3 of 3) School • Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form .5collool Distnet. Chilpcl Hill-Currboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS ear. Noveritivir 14.2008-Novettiber 1:, [ Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2008' 21)(15-21)(16 2000-2007 2007-20ON 20o�_20" Membership! t1 241.111 259,869 1IS 1515 1,5t5 s ' r x�. 148,1123 4 0 •U 800 0 t,T 644,003.{y' , 3,035.c, ,? 3,83.5 :?'' k; = Speeiai Hate(5)c I Fur the Nmwmber 15.2032 base yrar the band we led the supcnntc.Acnt-ccr6fic:capacities as part of the School facilutes Trask force review and 2t7O3 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisnty Committee Repu:t Tliese capaciOes%ill remain cttec7tve until changed by i It the tichml CIP ur 0,2}tin amcN e-d version of thn fbnn that is certified by the LIOCC 2. NOVetnbet 1.5th falls on a u:^racnd in 2VOM and 2009 Thvefrre.memN(ship namhers provided shall be from the Pnday befute Justification. Capacity Certification: Superintendent Date 70-CC Chair Date Membership CCorttification. r ;40,6L, //- Superintendent Date BOCC Ch Ir Date I 16 Section I C. Membership Date 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—Change can be effectuated only by amendment to Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)by all School APFO partners. The Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC)may advise if a change in date would improve the reporting or timeliness of the report. 2. Definition -The date at which student membership is calculated. This date is updated each year and also serves as the basis for projections along with the history from previous years. "For purposes of this Memorandum, the term "school membership" means the actual number of students attending school as of November 15 of each year. The figure is determined by considering the number of students enrolled(i.e. registered,regardless of whether a student is no longer attending school) and making adjustments for withdrawals, dropouts, deaths,retentions and promotions. Students who are merely absent from class on the date membership is determined as a result of sickness or some other temporary reason are included in school membership figures. Each year the School District shall transmit its school membership to the parties to this agreement no later than five(5) school days after November 15. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District November 15 November 15 of each year of each year 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions This will be analyzed in the future years to determine if it is an exemplary date. This date may sometimes occur on a weekend (as it did this year) and is not a typical date for membership census and recordation. An earlier date such as the "40`h day" membership may be suggested in future years so data can be analyzed earlier to assist in school CIP needs assessment. 5. Recommendation -No change at this Recommendation -No change at this time time 17 Section II II. ANNUAL UPDATE TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE SYSTEM A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) after review of the CIP requests from the School Districts. Action regarding CIP programs usually occurs during the BOCC budget Public Hearing process in the winter and spring of each year. The development of the CIP considers the conditions noted in the SAPFOTAC report released in the same CIP development year including LOS (level of service), capacity, and membership projections. 2. Definition—The process and resultant program to determine school needs and provide funding for new school facilities through a variety of funding mechanisms. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions The MOU outlines a system of implementing the SAPFO, including issuing Certificates of Adequate Public Schools(CAPS)to new development if capacity is available. The Requests for CAPS will be evaluated using the most recently adopted Capital Investment Plan. A new Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior to June 30, 2009. 5. Recommendation — Not subject to staff review 18 Section II B. Student Projection Methodology 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—This section is reviewed and recommended by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC)to the BOCC for change, if necessary. 2. Definition —The method(s)by which student memberships are calculated for future years to determine total membership at each combined school level (Elementary,Middle and High School)which take into consideration historical membership totals at a specific time(November 15)in the school year. These methods are also known as `models'. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District Presently,the average of five models are being used: namely 3, 5, and 10 year history/cohort survival methods, Orange County Planning Department Linear Wave and Tischler Linear methods. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Performance of the models is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the annual Capital Investment Plan(CIP)updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and construction. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment II.B.3 shows the performance of the models for the 2008-9 school year from the prior year projection. 5. Recommendation — Seven(7) years of projection results are now available. Analysis on the accuracy of the results is showing that some models have better results in one district while others have better results in the other district. The historic growth rate is recorded by the models but projected future growth is more difficult to accurately quantify. In all areas of the county,proposed growth is not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment. The system is updated in November of each year,becoming part of the historical projection base. This is especially pertinPxit in the Orange County School District which serves students living _. within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane which had had little historic enrollment impact. The significant proposed residential growth occurring within Mebane's jurisdiction has yet to be fully entered into the historically based projection methods. 19 STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS coo n N O. PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIPTION I CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS ti Tischler Unea4OCS& Mathematical formula;straight line projection YYI(c'b)*x)+b Historical growth is reflected in projected growth CHCC4 ye projected population;c=historical annual change;b=base year;ere projection years • BYM+(BYI+S(n))at EYM EYM*%SL=EYM!SL Base year growth reflects 10-year average; SYM base year 2nd month membership;BYl=yearstudent membership increment OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school base;EYM=ensuing year membership;n=projection year;%SL=%of total increase in BYI of 5 every other year reflects (OCS) levels;reflects progressing waves of membership increases In housing growth;reflects bugdout membership per school level(is,elementary,middle,high);EYMlSLgnsuing year member by school level constraints BYM+(BYI-15(n))=EYM EYM*%8L=EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10-year average; OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school BYM_base year 2nd month membership;BYI=yearatudent membership Increment dec e in BYI of 15 until school year 2010-2011 (CHCCS) levels;reflects progressing waves of membership base;EYM�rhsuing year membership;n=projection year,%SL=96 of total reflects decreases in housing growth; reflects membership per school level(Le.elementary,middle,high);EYM/SLeensuing year member by school level buildout constraints K,=k.1+(k„.t'0.01) Mathematical forrrarta that computes the average n=1 advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each a(E Gn I g,,.r)13 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the 3-Year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n4 kindergarten grade level;assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed beg Rr(a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K=ldndergarten membership;nolven school year;G-giver grade's graduate to the next level each year and/or historical growth rates manthership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership,asaverage advancement rate;b=proje led membership K,=k„.r+(k,.1*0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each a(E G./g,,.r)15 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the 5 year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=5 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b9.441) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records Kelrindergarten membership;n=given school year;G-given grade's graduate to the next level each year and/or historical growth rates mem bership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average advancement rate;b=projected membership K,=kmr+(k„.+"(1.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 I CO advancement rate over the previous 10 years for each a=(E G„/g,.r)110 Assumes a I%annual growth rate for the 10 year CohorttIOCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=10 kindergarten grade level;assumes the same CHCCq, projected membership by school level;an assumed • b=g an(a) percentage of students in each grade level fD kindergarten membership is based on birth records Kgindergarten membership;negiven school year;G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average Il W • advancement rate;b=projected membership c c Attachment II.B.2 Section II (page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2007-2008 School Year(November 15, 2007) 11/15/06 Actual Projected 11/15107 Change between actual 2006-07 2007-08 Actual 2007-08 Nov 2006-Nov 2007 Elementary 3072 3158 +86 Model Pro'ection is T 3130 L28 OCP 3119 L39 10C 3120 L38 5C 3144 L14 3C 3137 L21 AVG 3130 L28 11/15/2007 Middle 1576 1637 +61 Model Pro'ection is T 1606 L31 OCP 1612 L25 10C 1585 L52 5C 1605 L32 3C 1597 L40 AVG 1601 L36 11/15/2007 High 2184 2201 + 17 Model Pro'ection is T 2226 H25 OCP 2247 H46 10C 2138 L63 5C 2167 L34 3C 2146 L55 AVG 2185 L16 11/15/2007 - Totals Elementar 3072 3158 Middle 1576 1637 High 2184 2201 6832 6996 + 164 Mode Pro'ection is T 6962 !3_4_ OCP 6978 L18 10C 6843 L153 5C 6916 L80 3C 6880 L116 AVGJ 6916 1 L80 H means High L means Low *includes hospital school 21 Attachment II.B.2 Section II (page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2007-2008 School Year (November 15, 2007) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS 'TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • Projections were all low(from 14 to 39)when compared to the actual November 15, 2007 membership. The average projection was 28 students lower than actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 86 members between November 15, 2006 and November 15, 2007. Middle School Level • Projections were all low(from 25 to 52). The average projection was 36 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 61 members between November 15, 2006 and November 15, 2007. High School Level • Projections were mixed (high and low) ranging from being low by 63 students to being high by 46 students. The average projection was 16 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 17 members between November 15, 2006 and November 15, 2007. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were low (from 18 to 153). The average projection was 80 students low. • The membership increased in total by 164 students, which is the sum of+86 at Elementary, +61 at Middle and +17 at High. 22 Attachment II.B.2 Section II (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2007-2008 School Year(November 15,2007) 11/15/06 11/15/07 Actual Projected Actual Change between actual 2006-07 2007-08 2007-08 Nov 2006-Nov 2007 Elementary 4980 5173 +193 Model Projection is T 5103 L70 OCP 5079 L94 10C 5233 H60 5CI 5157 L16 3C 5138 L35 AVG 5142 L31 11/15/2007 Middle 2592 2622 +30 Model Projection is T 2656 H34 OCP 2670 H48 10C 2605 L17 5C 2588 L34 3C 2593 L29 AVG 2622 exact 11/15/2007 High 3520 3635 +115 Model Projection is T 3606 L29 OCP 3613 L22 10C 3589 L46 5C 3616 L19 3C 3570 L65 AVG 3599 L36 Totals 11/15/2007 Elementar 4980 5173 Middle 2592 2622 High 3520 3635 11092 11430 +338 Model Projection is T 11365 L65 OCP 11362 L68 10C 11427 L3 .--- 5C 11361 L69 3C 11301 L129 AVGI 11363 L67 H means High ' excludes hospital school L means Low 23 Attachment H.B.2 Section II (page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2007-2008 School Year(November 15, 2007) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level - • Projections were mostly low (by 16 to 94 students)with one high projection (by 60 students)when compared to the actual November 15, 2007 enrollment. The average projection was 31 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 193 members between November 15, 2006 and November 15, 2007. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed (high and low) ranging from a low of 34 to a high of 48. The average projection was exactly what the actual membership is. • The membership actually increased by 30 members between November 15, 2006 and November 15, 2007. High School Level • Projections were all low(by 19 to 65 students). The average projection was 36 students low. • The total membership actually increased by 115 members between November 15, 2006 and November 15, 2007. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were all low by between 3 and 129 students. The average projection was low by 67 students. • The membership increased in total by 338 students, which is the sum of+193 at Elementary, +30 at Middle, and +115 at High. 24 Attachment II.B.3 Section II (page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year(November 14,2008) 11/15107 2008 Report Actual Projection for 11/14/08 Change between actual 2007-08 2008-09 Actual 2008-09 Nov 2007-Nov 2008 Elementary 3158 3165 +7 Model Projection is T 3219 H54 OCP 3244 H79 10C 3247 H82 5C 3259 H94 3C 3257 H92 AVG 3245 H80 11/14/2008 Middle 1637 1601 36 Model Projection is T 1669 H68 OCP 1644 H43 10C 1580 L21 5C 1598 L3 3C t2244 596 L5 AVG 617 H16 11/14/2008 Hi h 2201 2242 +41 Model Projection is T H2 OCP 258 H16 10C 2193 L49 5C 2205 L37 3C 2217 L25 AVG 2223 L19 11/14/2008 Totals Elementa 3158 3165 Middle 1637 1601 High 2201 2242 6996 7008 +12 ModelProjection is T 7132 H124 ., OCP 7146 H138 10C 7020 H12 5C 7062 H54 3CI 7070 H62 AVGJ 7086 H78 H means High L means Low 25 Attachment II.B.3 Section II (page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS 'TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • Projections were all high (from 54 to 94)when compared to the actual November 14, 2008 membership. The average projection was 80 students higher than actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 7 members between November 15, 2007 and November 14, 2008. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed (low and high) ranging from being low by 21 students to being 68 students high. The average projection was 16 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 36 members between November 15, 2007 and November 14, 2008. High School Level • Projections were mixed (low and high) ranging from being low by 49 students to being high by 16 students. The average projection was 19 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 41 members between November 15, 2007 and November 14, 2008. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were high (from 12 to 138). The average projection was 78 students high. • The membership increased in total by 12 students, which is the sum of+7 at Elementary, (36)at Middle and +41 at High. 26 Attachment II.B.3 Section II (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year(November 14,2008) 11115/07 2008 Report 11/14/08 Actual Projection for Actual Change between actual 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 Nov 2007-Nov 2008 Elementary 5173 5302 +129 Model Projection is T 5305 H3 OCP 5317 H15 10C 5367 H65 5cl 5295 L7 3C 5299 L3 AVG 5317 H15 11/14/2008 Middle 2622 2697 +75 Model Projection is T 2689 L8 OCP 2676 L21 10C 2692 L5 5C 2676 L21 3C 2687 L10 AVG 2684 L13 11/14/2008 High 3635 3630 5 Model Projection is T 3728 H98 OCP 3692 H62 10C 3684 H54 5C 3684 H54 3C 3688 H58 AVG 3695 H65 Totals 11/14/2008 Elementar 5173 5302 ' Middle 2622 2697 High 3635 3630 11430 11629 +199 Model Projection is T 11722 H93 OCP 11685 H56 10C 11743 H114 _ 5C 11655 H26 3C 11674 H45 AVG 11696 H67 H means High L means Low 27 Attachment II3.3 Section II (page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year(November 14, 2008) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS 'TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level - • Projections were mixed (low and high) ranging from a low of 7 students to a high of 65 students when compared to the actual November 14, 2008 membership numbers. The average projection was 15 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 129 members between November 15, 2007 and November 14, 2008. Middle School Level • Projections were all low, by 5 to 21 students. The average projection was 13 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 75 members between November 15, 2007 and November 14, 2008. High School Level • Projections were all high, by 54 to 98 students. The average projection was 65 students high. • The total membership actually decreased by 5 members between November 15, 2007 and November 14, 2008. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were high, by between 26 and 114 students. The average projection was high by 67 students. • The membership increased in total by 199 students, which is the sum of+129 at Elementary, +75 at Middle, and (5)at High. 28 Section II C. Student Projections 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for annual report certifications. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition —The result of the average of the five student projection models represented by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level(Elementary,Middle, and High) for each school district(Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District and Orange County School District). 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B (Student Projection Methodology) (Student Projection Methodology) See Attachment II.C.4 See Attachment II.C.3 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued growth in both systems. Variability by school level and between the School Districts is also noted. Year-by-year percent growth is shown on the attached table as well as the projected LOS. The projections models were updated using current(November 15) memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter. 29 Section II Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Elementary The previous year(2007)projection for November 2008 at this level was overestimated by 15 students. The actual growth was+129. Over the previous seven(7) years, this level has shown • varying increases in growth. From 2001 until 2003, growth steadily increased; however,in 2004, the increase suddenly fell to an increase of only 3 additional students. In years since 2004, student membership has increased by over 100 students per year. Projections done this year include the student membership from Morris Grove Elementary which opened in August 2008. The projections show the need for Elementary School#11 in 2010-11. A site has been identified for Elementary School#11 and efforts are underway to identify construction funding. In 2007, State Statutes were amended so that effective the 2009-2010 school year, children entering kindergarten must be five years old by August 31 st of the year starting school, versus the current statewide policy date of October 16th. For the 2009-2010 school year, this will result in a 45 week enrollment period as opposed to the typical 52 week birthday enrollment period, thereby creating a potential for a reduction in the number of children entering kindergarten in 2009. The 7 weeks lost in 2009-2010 will be picked up in 2010-2011,resulting in a 59 week enrollment period, and the children not entering kindergarten in 2009 due to the policy change will accordingly be added to the rolls in 2010. The enrollment period will return to 52 weeks in the years following, and the membership numbers should return to projected levels. Middle The previous year(2007)projection for November 2008 for this level was underestimated by 13 students. The actual membership increased by 75. Over the previous seven(7) years, growth decreased precipitously from 214 to 68 to 4, to—52 and then has seen modest increases of+12, +20,+30 and+75 since 2004. This school level shows a projected need for Middle School#5 in 2013-14,which is the same year projected in last year's projections. 30 Section II High School The previous year(2007)projection for November 2008 for this level was overestimated by 65 students. The actual membership decreased by-5. Over the previous seven(7) years, change has varied from a high of 199 students to this year's loss of 5 students. Actual real estate market conditions can suppress historical and mathematical trends,which is likely the case in all three school levels within the school system. This year's projection projects a need for additional capacity in 2016-17,which is one year later than the need projected last year. Additional High School capacity is expected to be achieved by expanding Carrboro High School from 800 students to 1,200 students, as was included in the construction plans for the high school. Orange County School District Elementary The previous year(2007)projection for November 2008 at this level was overestimated by 80 students. The actual membership increased by 7 students. Over the previous seven(7) years, this level has experienced erratic enrollment which changed from-185 to+8 to+44 to+71 to— 10 to +66 to+86 and+7 students a year. This created a historical base of negative growth which was captured by the various mathematical models to produce moderate growth projections. In the Orange County school system,historic growth is more closely related to new residential development than in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District,which has a sizeable number of new families in older,regentrified housing stock. Therefore,development activity should be monitored off-line as a harbinger to student growth on a more equal level to historically based • mathematical models. The need for an additional Elementary School is not anticipated in the 10- year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring new sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough. In addition, OCS is placing a heavy emphasis on Pre-K programming which may also impact capacity at district elementary schools. In 2007, State Statutes were amended so that effective the 2009-2010 school year, children entering kindergarten must be five years old by August 31st of the year starting school,versus the current statewide policy date of October 16th. For the 2009-2010 school year,this will result 31 Section II in a 45 week enrollment period as opposed to the typical 52 week birthday enrollment period, thereby creating a potential for a reduction in the number of children entering kindergarten in 2009. The 7 weeks lost in 2009-2010 will be picked up in 2010-2011,resulting in a 59 week enrollment period, and the children not entering kindergarten in 2009 due to the policy change will accordingly be added to the rolls in 2010. The enrollment period will return to 52 weeks in the years following, and the membership numbers should return to projected levels. Middle The previous year(2007)projection for November 2008 for this level was overestimated by 16 students. The actual membership decreased by 36. Over the previous seven(7) years, growth has varied widely and included an unexpected decrease of 78 students in 2004-05 with smaller decreases each year until 2007-08 and again decreasing this year. However, certain models did reflect the negative growth(-185) at the elementary school level in 2001-2002 as they progress into the middle school cohorts. The district's third Middle School, Gravelly Hill Middle School, opened in October 2006. The need for an additional Middle School is not anticipated in the 10- year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring new sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough. High School The previous year(2007)projections for November 2008 for this level underestimated by 19 students. The actual membership increased by 41. Over the previous seven(7) years, growth was relatively constant Even though 4-year historic growth at the high school level is moderate and recognizable, future projections are more moderate because of the slowing of growth at the elementary and middle school levels. The need for an additional High School is not anticipated in the 10-year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring new sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough. Additional Information for Orange County School District The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange County portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, the City of Mebane is not a party to 32 Section II the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not issue CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools). In previous years, development activity within the Orange County portion of Mebane was minimal. However, development activity and platting of new subdivisions has been steadily increasing over the past three years. . Increased coordination with the City of Mebane regarding development issues may be necessary in the future. OCS currently has capacity to serve additional growth,but it is possible that rampant development in the Orange County portion of Mebane could quickly encumber available capacity. 5. Recommendation — Use statistics as noted in 3 above 33 Co" OCS Student Projections(1) ^wmpbaW Orange County Budget On. h 02/202008 nausea by Panning on 2120/09,625,08 O Elementary School Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009.10 1 2010.11 2011.12 2012.13 2013.14 2014.15 2015-16 2018-17 2017-18 Actual 3,078 lit ®'-t M11:1131.1130 3.006 MINILEIIIIESEI I--.-4 Tocnler' 3219 3281 3,342 3,404 3465 3,527 3,588 ,650 3711 3,772 OC Planning 3.244 3,337 3432 3,531 3.633 3,707 3,766 3,826 3888 3,951 10 Year Gr06l" 3.247 3.335 3.370 3,447 3,547 3682 3,618 3,654 3691 3,728 5 Year Growth 325g 3,357 3,391 3,472 3569 3604 3,640 3,677 3713 3751 3 Year Growth 3,257 3,353 3,389 3,468 3,566 3601 3637 3674 3710 3747 Aver• NIf_LUIIIIIELF.a=E=ESE 1111111Elr!n111111EX::1E1 :1 -7 Annual • -Increase Decrease In Actual&Pr.cited 111111111111111111■11111111■21© II_ 111111111111111111111CFalIMEl11111111111[?]•1111111i!111111111W]11111111111C:111111111111C1•1111111rA 46 47 Ca•ci •100%Level of Service 3820 11111XECINEXICIIMMIIIMEILECI�" 1E111111303911 3 '7ET. EXMINI .I1=x?'1W 1© 3694 3694 Number of Students Actual and Pro acted Over U •- 100%LOS 4..,;1111111122111MIDIMENEMINE■1111111M•111311•11111111:1611MEMIIIIIIIIELHIMIREI1111111102111111111117.A11111MRIMIIIIIIIKII 49 96 105%Level of Service 4.11 MCIIIMINCEMINCLUMMOIMINKIENOMKNEEh _�]��Y-01� ]E]jy1�F,j �ry] 3878 Number of Students,Actual and Protected,Over(Under)105%LOS ���� ME101���1�QLH EE1�Mf�::r�iL)1 '• 80 Actual-%level of Service 80.6% 78.3% .vere.e eve 0 e/0 Ce '1t•:rNi:1MILj(:yMMILi;.1 rgi ry i' 4 ■ v IxltliborW 100 new seats itlkbor0uph Bemmoy indicates first year that 091601 surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service ' It is important to note that this reflects the November 15,2007 date of membership as outlined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. .The TisnNer Model provides for the"Linear Method"of projections for both CHCCS and OCS.Original projections used in prior years projection models included the"Linear Extrapolation Method'for CHCCS. "':Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000-01 through 2007-08 and average membership for years 2008-09 thr0ugh 2017-18 ''Class sizes for grades K3=123 for school years 2000 through 2008-09.In accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction,with planned opening of CHCCS Elementary X10 in school year 2008-09,K3 class sizes for school years after 2008-09 Middle • hoof ear qe,, imYISt{.1• . . rFh61; ,,,!.,,.... •bL61ib .,..Si...51, �jjj� a5rJE LSfa .17.18 Actual 1,504 �,,,-•-.1 •1,680 Tischler 1,669 1.701 1,733 1,764 1 796 1828 1,:?. 1 89 1.9 4 1956 OC Panning 1.644 1,672' 1701 1,731 1.762 1.793 1,842 1,892 1,844 1,967 10 Year Growth 1,580 1671 1632_ 1.664 1673 1691 1,752 1,837 1,856 1874 5 Year Growth 1,598 1,605- 1,689 1,731 1756 1774 1,843 1,927 1,946 1,966 3 Year Groh" 1586 -.,606 1,689 1,732 1753 1773 1840 1,525 1944 1964 -Incneac 1• tr-73 7. ,u:-.- 1 •7 1831 1689 1724 1 1 .z 1 1923 1951 i why-100%Level of Service 1,486�� - -- - 2,188 2,166 2,166 2168 CIE;1..'1�� 2166 Number of Students Actual and P •Over U • 100%LOS 38 . - 418`0]x )1 - 1,7%Level ofSondes 1569 IIIIIEE IIIIINIEIMME/IIIMIFZ1IMIUIII•1lLv,E]E{LIi#hSFs7Fif VSissjj]MII1ME:ZyjJIIIE.UC1�,:j11 2318 Number• Actual and Projected,Over(Under)107% ..- 6 102 - 2 '( ••'1.11 61 01 •MiQ}1illfftPJ1llIIIIEIMti.31 Actual-%Level of Service 102.6% 1042% 1113% 1140% 108.7% 108.5% 729 75.: Aver�adgge •%Level of 5ervce Afiftitel SWeem •9001 hats(4) `• 681 2.45% •4,67% 41.19% -0,63% 3.61% -1.211% 0.64%_ 3.54% 2.11% 1.37% 1.39% 3.14% 3.66% 1.49% 1.49%• piddle school e3 opens In fat 2006.rah 700 addennal seats indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service '' 11 is.mportant to note that the reflects the November 15,2007 date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.It does not include CHCCS Students attending the Hospital School. 11 The Tischler Model provides for the"Linear Method"of projections for both CHCCS and OCS.Original projections used in poor years projection models included the'Linear Extrapolation Method-for CHCCS. ''Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000-01 through 2007-08 and average membership for years 2006-09 through 2017-18 High School Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 200940 2010.11 2013.12 2012.13 2013.14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 1 2017.18 Actual 1,672 1.753 1,828 1.887 2.057 2,124 2.184 2.201 Tischler` 2244 2.287 2,329 2,372 2,415 2,458 2,501 2,544 2,586 2.629 OC Planning 2258 2,293 2.328 2,364 2,401 2.471 2,543 2.618 2.694 2.773 10 Year Growth 2,193 2.133 2,103 2,078 2,039 2,108 2.128 2,129 2215 2,253 S Year Growth 2,205' 2,195 2201 2204 2,186 2.286 2.325 2,346 2,444 2.488 3 Year Growth 2.217 2.211 2.223 2229 2.209 2,309 2.352 2,369 2.466 2.512 Avenge 2,223 2,224 2,237 2,249 2,250 2,326 2,370 2,461 2,481 2,511 Annual Change•Increase(D5enase)in Actual&Projected Membership) 81 75 59 17. 67 80 17 22 0 13 13 1 76 43 31 80 50 Capacity-100%Level of Service 1,518 1,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,533 2,513 Number of Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)100%LOS 154 235 i • i 4' C CHCCS Student Projections'1p raj ElpmcnU c::.. 113 13-12,-r'a4442 •.Year 2300-01 '253142 2 024.7 27113.4 204445 20 nnz?n' •. FI,.3rrt,Yt;*rrs:,r az•♦r;usl�FrjisF7rs^sax,f3Q��ErSf3L=Ei'iL'3itafr,craril 0241421 _ - 4444® 4,561 4.x42 2,3030 �n }7 r m2 5.834 31,3,: 6.362 4,1111111.1110186=AM t � CZ:P3l.,, , ©®®��y� 3519 54I11 _}045 6.237 ~ 10 Yaar Csrwtb.__ 5367 i� o'99J 11,633®i 8215. 6276 5 Year G ' �, .-J'f r, 5 412 5 572 5 981 147 FIF 5 Ate-. 5-GJa b 04: 5 Yea3G4+-_... 024 .314' �i.Sx- 5. 3 .739 nr., 5913 5922 549 264^: +* 5 17 447 Annual Cnanye-Inpayp 1 451 534,.,1 B Proynetbp NamLnesnl �j�j 13111'-""155©15 5 100 s< 5974�,j }� 5`: .a !b 115 144- 78 S - �7� ��� ..33,33,.. ,..,,.:_ 0..441S/0• 051s nts,1I or1 Service P4i.led,Over(16,5,0108%X03 3333.... 4112 1 „_4,312 249 h'<ISLSIi:-Y4■ - �� 544 S S ii 5 - 44 S 244 02,55815 180%10341 M MSe(I 0.51 �'�� 0.382 4302 4482 7.1�`!3¢ � i 73(�i_2-r r� 4''4 4573_857 _ t qs.7 5167 t�1Lfl( l©QD 5147 3_333.13( E"•'-�f-2 20 <._s 6 SOS 5 .705 s 2 4 5•M StWer4s..,54 308--44 28143,ft•.rr(.lndq�9cs4;1 05 a I _34 ,_}�9 a`�1�Z2':��j[:� 8 S9dy - •: 7Y- SBB' 447 7a Apes-•- LelO Senn* _.. 1..,3t '0 r a, 1.59 95.91 LIB' ®® M341a e-e4 level V 5en,-.11 ___ peva aauemur0Wln nate,,af 'to t{ I' •✓8 4111 z.4 d6:4ar1.s 1v lm.642,.lrr•. -13,6 k �-1'CCS P•.res +MW I 333._3,1r 10 14:4216 46 4146 elecutc.1121 year ranted 6/..17.4.1411"A 2415644.4APFOr i ele.32e4 Level al MN 110( aplM^[1331 A.ct.-5'vWh 1*411rY.ww+�h 115 r3/ GX MK/?*.: 8npa.6rr4 NOW PIK 2061.alar4n144 244521.GAlwrabon Wo.l 430451 4(44 103 4211 we mi..Isla 3.4142 5.21 ea(01131111061.6,316601011.114111.114111*,wi4r1.4014433p4 1cLOn cc 314..ua 8111.a,r.l 'It is,305011031 30 6020 33'043 ms 3010.5 2114 NOt 4,9Lc.1$.2507 date of rr e1r5Onl4p as 0 lune0 In by tae 5050044 Adequate Pabec faculties 005506nas..1noes not 135445 CI5CCS sluden15 allnrl9 '1 ,1-n312. 25:C. "74e Trrllwr Mono pn74.1.,tor 010*linear WNW'of 55014450ns k,bulk C41CCS and OCS.Cr3ral 717111102i%4540.1 2,03`363,864144133,mah1$n15,1011110...Oar F-M7132111110P.540130'40r CI-CM ,'633,181 5.451111 1102 06154050 151934:15411,050915,0 V 3035 34175-31 151045'12037-C6 and 201.359.rombo35P,p 144 yeSr5 2635-35;910,18152017.18 ''0346 6149*IV Grades 13..1:23 for school'Ara 2503 m9wg4 23357 45 1 0040-0.1-14e w n 30955443.016,130.3309 W w.C."..T..4.1 06101{30.'141@ 5NRn404603134 of C4C:S En.'nrltary 110 59 500033 5.33122219-09,4-34504.5 sans for%467153 415 7405-09 5150450 1 Middle r.^;.-ear AL1ta _. id-bF7FZ•STf�T�bTL, irlL'L•T.� .' r-'}e!..`:�QLEi';♦FT1�F'ffi9I�T•7S71�PIi�FMP7•TF2�if•FRt`Ee�FLRSK "0456247• - �� ?iP� IIZ:3�F-'gait Pidgin( 33,3 ._ 713503 •� "8 .034 7656 2 41 281 304 ,! !01 5084 1228 3762 O1� --. 2 031. 2,514 7 014 >!3 3„_.L.2.. 313 3 4.4�FJ 3 612 14366 _.._.- 470 1 3 5 2 R< - 2 854 '-o3 I I t• 13/ :783 329. 3'>29 3333. _.. _ 2657 21501!.----2.14' ?'554 3,..c 9 d @.. 1.:' :,144 L'"`Y5 S- �se j35ern 4/14)In 341,053 5 Pr0e0Nd .mborsn• - 214 ®�® 1 i1 �' s ill' 3211 ,- 5 _.'� I I• 3crwcc 2.0002/10 .2646�i>©t © E7L.7 =:'7 ,I :..2 540 2940 7 643 2 845' 2.640 2 805®. ,1 TT'3 - u., 1 u Pr d Oyer tL d x31(0%155 214. 1538, :iae La7e5 54 (1}1 54 1 169- 301: 375 451 4 sal - 7.256 3639 9038 3039 3,539 3035 7034.. E�J 3031 3339 3,839., 31435 9,0 3639 _�_ 511. 1'q<1 4.Ove-6.ear 3V'ti LC..: 73 µ•as, 1431 11.1 4,'9i its 3551 I2111=111133I '115 42` 141- 297 380 342 _ 9'8'.- f2 J yl . 1/11111221 `!!L1U11/1111Rs9tt.s3-_.11,.204» 74.1 MI.3.4.4.:a.•3011 a-4:3,501550r1i11////":I,541 sr4'∎itib17( 2ii:? x:vyr4_Irrapliir_-x55 .12,31111 lrsl yea.'rug 451:9=541 106011$lhosls APPS)re6 slOnerde0:end 01 54-31. ''1l Is inh.1,0130,10 t1Cte 3361:this rolled*ma 115361.14$15,2007 date n(n,0nlborsNp as o1A41,010 by Ihe 5460016 Aikgusto Pub4511a411311114 0,0106040 It 410•3'511:3.380P CHG'5 s^...tetr is allerdrg the 16941121 54rq.1 'he 70(54er Wode11aweak.for'.9r'Ungar Meow'of 01:45011583 131 Colt C7C:S and WA Or5lra!353;9010ns 454311 433431155531134315411413311541 9nM.IS 1356.450 No 1..1.34(641330314n M1el:,rJ'to-CrrCCS. Anr3J5f 8rw15 raleca(atace4 usrg 21:411 lr113n :-hy-31.(4215 2635341 zso.igli 2[•37.38.,,5,..5,5-124 Tr-lr..•--..n1p'^r oars 5266449 4,:5.37.2617-'8 _ � ''�' ®® ""�P'dFaF=661,STESVresFaIIK aK11�pr]"ksir�':.j�sc>♦Frccls 1.2.7•L3iaK.•llitM 1' Pynn�n0 ® 3 623 1 3'1 : 4.4(61 �C441 l 4 192 4 7. . 3 692 MIFOI 3628 1.436 s.'lvti <09 6 4 174 4 53 9434. It.Year(314.113 - _.:t 454 MIK11121 3 720, 731 !,.5.553 £1313, 4 710 4 71 3s 2-610 5 Vmr'GsoodS ---_-- SOIL 3 5174 3 703 3.738 s 833 134U 44:54 4.1;12=mamma 3 Yam G-owt1 - 6552 -497 24 1.82 f Ill. 4 j--tf 3777; 3540. 3959 4045' 41/9 4,231 4 1 �..,, InACGnaIsOr Oa6 1^r : 1K�iul�r_'7C ?:�;N _ 43• 89 86 134"3333__1%2 129_ C?"' 1 3sawce 3033 3•33 llt�>tt�ta�( c� 456 _ 635 M�� !-, 435 3835 3635 3.805' 3635 • 3 Al? y3 r. C'"Z'E :3..?L-�-^. Til: -Or. 10012 Los 14,,3'Po L3 157. 255 4 .881 - •a 12 710 11 4..110 551,444 3339 334 3339 3335 3.339 9334 3,339 4219 ' _3j] 4 19 16 4215 4219 42219 15 Actual and Pro ectea Over unaw 1101:4_sS 1:24 4 I t't. a�• 83 .7i 162 "4 -4,35, ter. .J �J 1350 .591 Yr41lRO 342 'uc2N f..t r:•INUEEZ/ -'584 1•6 4, o-c _ • 11115.TK-16665 H it vIIIIIiallidlliiiikii=i4bailinkl `...,...*.,, .,', ...-...tL �7F"S:try[:trk17�7k1L'3E71,TA vismka'.t'limes ' •Mm7smaK:y. .. .W.... r2t...azu i•A1,,aa••.i M,/,0100111615 n rd 447 oSI MO.ad-93{solo I •146,1 15 yC-r Md1 0,4 ,543442322 Schwa APFU•Swor•431055 level Cr 50Y06 8Is 7126-narn IS)onto 3/3'IR*S 111403 the Peceom6cr 15 2307 oak;M rn8mb4t4hlp as 0115•415 by 1110 Schools Adequate Pu5s014544111$004106.35* It dons 3071 ly41005 21•002 6613011*5C44dr4 the I-40041801031 O C=' The 7 miler 1.40.<151 1111306171404403630'5-40•Linear Method of proec110n4'u torn 05005 3041525 041 111 21104003.010 17373 in p5,,y+5a1s 91044•"5411=deb 11.4560.4.nr-La r extra/d6:0e 5/314 W'kr C:ICCS. O A7 ':Anrua133146-I talc n.1161llan us,r0 4(5111 56-35014051 3411 yom 160-101 tnrrya0r.71.07-08 2955 aldfa6%'16LV'65C1SS n far 55 1151'^.1..653{5+4.01,2017-IS -4 n O g- oo W C3 V1 r* 1--1 lV CO OCS Student Protections 611 to 21 ti 6160 64-40 SO.1. I 20 1 210122 2002. ' 1903. ' 1620.05 L6166 ]034-67.. SON.... 10010 ]209,6 MOM r 301472 11223 2011144 261421 701112 I 2214-17 219-12 67.19 6243 I 2078 ®" J.. 30)2 ' 6622 Illinmummirrimrrimmemeno 10.0. IIIIIMIIIIIIIMIEtiT^.1111111Ef..7 11=M1 NIIIIIMMIMI 5■a OrwP 7�� ttttttt� ' 1' .- 17tttt1iltt1 !1.11177 • J 4 i.,:;.omw«.Qe .,.vum,.'ai..r Ww.w"�vw'.... , �0� w�ww mow... �0��633y�gS pq ., ... .....:.. ._..._ _. ..__ -{-- _..�!! M1�e•_67.�17 �� 2662 022�iA_:1 �enEm I.J lc..�16r.n T IL 61.64022226226616 ._ .a... ......r..a... i" .1 `U1Mivu .•.204-i�SS 111111 •11122 �JIJ � 34-l�e'.).'a� 40316...•*042.40•. 4040.1.6071105%006 _._ 1N3��6��.3��6},.6 -� ®®�' ®� 14.4.6-166.6 70e% 664-6A+e.2®��®..�� �501� P...%1x.21 S..ne 869+6 97 S% 20% 92.2x1 IDA% r U 616W 7.1.1 6.1170.12) : .6.0661 OZ. 139.1: 2429 -0.33%;. 270% '"%I 14x% . 46'.97 :67059 1.6401 133% 042% 1.18%1 1.1x% r 79. 9412.. 112% Mac66 feel w 666660 x606666 Sch.POPO.ecmv.w.616.6 d Snwe ''86 n66121 we1.016Mea806Narnb615.2006...no..6042266 a by ea 500w44.44 6.164 F.Oce 66646'.166 not ma CMCCS e4dn466..%the Hoy.01. w The 76616'96.16 6.6.E.98vt 0 of lea.*b 6407.41245600 OLS O n g.66.87.66 averl a ona 746/4 81.66166904676a62.166.Ex.d.m Melwr b 222925 14 Amt."my w..,ad uvg 664 mentor...00640001 Ma(9n 20869 67..6 m.ro.a.76 46640 200910 I.ay.AIL 19 x'....6b y6663=1.23 tee 6.66.66AC60rap0400.00 In arc...661.666601 C.... VP.291478164.wMpler.440.,6 of CMGG5 Elo6.1,210461.642000-09,0.3are saes.6121114064 Ae 2006006420 i 21 am6.41 oy oast SI4546c40.e 6141 TNa res.n OCS 4624.786pely mum 1m66l42.d 2_9Mtlo(261..506*4.19 20%40921.4 d...122 i12%LOS..19 22..1 OCS Student Projection0 6.16214 W.I.. 2021 .142 16043 21123.4 2.. 229520 MM 21 2407. 20660 '2200.21 22211 2011.12 2012.13 201114 201415 Mww 2010.17 2017.10 Mi. 644,2 1506 1621 1:•1 1071 1503 1.560 1.560 1637 1601 1 1.dd. 167. 1690 1 1780 17788 1.18 -- 1,71 ) 1 OC Pnwq 1656 17$ 1761 1920 I 1 7',V Gm66 1.862 __i ::. 11S Mwrf 111111.1711 1891 1 101 1.1 719 MM � SV '0.S I'..,6 .TS, ��� Aw71N __. _-t a --1 1 -w' 11 13.___ 1. w' #a ti -It n a 606 21 1,661_.. 1.446}..... 2160. 21« 1160 66 _ x1641 30106_1_ 166 x168 2.210, 122 j{ 0�0 121%ls+aaa.w.a3.46. ∎ 26 _.206 .rv. _ -- 1311 O7.611M02Lt1 ApYM WwM�61u6M 0202166 hWYIRa(6roq M6raE616041_ __1 1- A Milirriallirn .33.0.76.A02tl.d' 0661 100%LO3 -� N ■ 120 700 N9� MI ��4-6k1•� w'e. :1r ���96666����67�� .6071���66� j 1544�A:J� _`•" 2312®�.S3: IMI 2312® litglIIM J 1..54.7. rtl.m Ra w.4066.{ 2_w7%LO3 � wx©©�_ emu _ ®® ��® .4x.•%L 0.44. 11<e% 1111111112171il{3iM --- - ®i3Z39®MICEME111111111112=11111M:3111111111111EM 461.66616666■61280.667.... II •ica..wa 0666.6.16a6 16.A.60..mica...6.d 56646 1.Ra 66616161u66u6w.d.a 4614.0615.203$4646.3660666..Ea by06564e 04.q.SFW4c F2w,.m 066ence 0061M*_4.CMCCS...60'00052.146456. 7.16.1AW 6661es...Law 6170d 405666666 b 94/0911205 600 O.65660660(41 .2 n 4•b 6..pg..mad.2a.40.'L.9.616.6.68 b CMCCS. 674266.666.;s9.61e 00019624 41.69.4'c b 666200001 Maya 40609600. t 21..66024 yarn 200-10 044.40 71619 OCS Student Projections'A 240 940ed'rear 1 21014 2224. 220964 226665 20042 0006-21 7. '2100. 1600.10 r 2110.11 911.11 221913 r 221116 221413 41 916 I 221617 I 417,6 201410 94. IIINEMIMEaMllMnllrEl 2..7 2.1.■313111111111110311111111111721 7... �EN=�� 2111 {8 1711 10 0y0600 ��� 2288+--_2.-2112 2255 2 . 2161 S Ve064* .._ 130 x.53 22)31 1523 2383)_.. 24<'2 2_,471 -_-3401_0 .-_. �� 2223 6 - -2256 2Vr Gm.O. - I12 2321 .316.1 x811 2 2_02 &Mir 4_ 2,710 __/241 10 2>70 2)66 >M 920 i>N 296 .44_ _x186 _�_iB6,� j_a6' imp*e1N66.0wN$.114. In h2a6RWMOIM..Or61p1 s = 6 _ M -21.666,....1 9 18 1 21 f.. w(% 1 x MSS11661.6.6s.A4Mtl.N 0.01.400,0466 N.M 100%706 _._.. 120 m®� 22■'. 121%4.21400212. 6611%i y- �w�►.r1 � x,s e' R ��z m11161i xm m z.5v z Wm..aSO ..AO.and Ra600.Ow N0wn111.1.06 � ��� .42, j_ 520�Y.e11_��� L,, 541 I •- 1611 N A.%166 6.6e iH01%i 1156% 7060'.... ...,.. -- 'e *0* A x121 56x2 ,MSS q 8�..7606 �®_may. - a>». h. 701 65066 0 ,,... - .• ®i3�Ll S 1 .r.:.,^.:. •217tkr"'s 11226. 0.20% ._p yFn�j�6� CDw ,aw M�l.W 2160 rh 4.62140704 x1061620_-..��.... ren m.ad.�r ne raznw..w�Y. .. ++„p= • 1 2 CD 01 ..n cams 16.1x...1.6...5..66.010,.1.0 ....61G.x V.66.1 N j1'l.nry62412....Is 46 No..15 2006 026 4 mnb.66 6,2.E.by 14166.2.6.11617.80.0.660.le m6 m069.6 569GS.6tl.e6.........66610.1 96.1 i 0'7147640442102 64006 b 021414..60014 at(.706(36..26 Wee 211495 6.005.OaOlS 5606.46. d n 60 was 6.pbn.4466006E I041.w61.69.66 122.6 C.S. 9.1 1 44.12.2.04.12211.6 47.6660761.184 2744.90901 06.2006.00 an are.mem..140 6rs 2006-19006(91201619 h W • • • i I * 0 4 • cn (0 n CHCCS Student Projections i11Q EWwYry 1 ti W.V 14 '330446 3.306 1200601_1300740___,..300400 120010 201011 ]011-0] _t.13 201314 1201415 201618 250. 1017.0 901010 ®�,.� 4892 46(3 4319 4500 5,131 6302 _ 13dYr•° .' � __.1741�t■. � OC H...• .-. - 051 -333 tt� •t�� __5:1 5:::� m r Oransh 5'.4 1� 5 631 010 0000=W 5919 _-_-_ s(9 549���� 2 873 ieal 313 G 6390 6i 5651 t 40.1, ., ..___`__ 5.%17 t a 200 .t4 392 4416 4133. 5„ 1 3s 1 -� . ® '_ --- 1 ;;' 1 141 s, _ to 11 __ hi ?t i � 031 4. . -33.43.144 52411 244 6.24 5'4 IN 6 3 N _134 344 C 1460!3600 q �. � 4.1 306 310��. 611 __. 230 AaM Ov.uny 1400 t0a . los .'i��.t111�1.130=IP .. 000 f.:.r� f08 �331 3303' 3.6*�� N q 040..1 ..a. Ov. 9,139 10!%•00 =IPA 1111111111111=1 f.. - 20 444 Seri. --. 333.. ..'i 346 4 3+41 1058%', DS.]x1111EIVI®' M®® 3®' ��{IIIIIIIISCII21111lMIIS=IIIIIISVI®IIIIIIIIIEIZI� ....+a.. ..:. „ ..::..�. ..,:, 7,. 0 Ewa..=33,:��.ro.g..a41) ___...� 113.43.u.nmom 1.13160.3.aamea+e..3.4n.e.0.wwwtosm.a r.... 5071055 036$05.$..0 010..34440449107303? 4s07rNd5arwr Wwrrrr gwr 1.M1.....a... d w)wl-- 5:13. I1 s ft..33.03. .3....16 3706.2.3.123.132 roc..3 2,...4.41436.2.114 2.334 O..S.11.43.42..132 11CCS 3.617331.Ingo 1.10.School 32.314406.4.33.29'!1333 h..4'of.3344.433 W S.C11CCS.0 OCC Cr..dW3..44.04.33 13 365,.3....1111560.14,40751144.n75 S..'.CHCC4 013364......40..03.12 323.4.134360.3.30 07 33.112100 9406...9...43...w.3(.612 063600 30160 C4.3533..3..33==95,3.34 3a4.033,32(0346 42 06445...ID]f 5d.0 fdMa.6 W.Om.3.9620..43..24464 a CMCCS 5.3.43.10 4$0104 w 346300,935 4,44.1auno0 w•3008.16.02 301%16.441 21 as MCW 030 port 51.13332.+elm_ CHCCS Student Projections"1 M.I. _Ywe 350041 200142 200340 2003. 306443 300500 180047 ]00)40 110046 200610 13010.11 "mit 1201213 201114 301415 061610 3018.11 3011.0 301619 AO. 3.321®' ��® . .3 ..♦ 3333. MIIIIIIZINIIIMIEETIMME.9®' IMIIIIPM1t ® IIIIIIIIM OC horn. IMMINIFICIIIIIMMIIIIIIMMEM11111111.1MI 111=-M rw 5 INIFIMMIPMUMINFIMINIEMI 30121 3 119 M 455.14.-- _ 3: ,,V.id'�s Z; 5" '"i ,.,. __-s ' ¢ 7.209+1''.44:Y%n-0 ���..��'I�.J�'1 t` �. M ... a6'$ R "3 1.0010.3-. Asa.Intl n. 44 0..91_,.._7 HMV.5 ^ _011' ® �® .. 191x gawa E ' I m1w ID42x 120117 t,00x .� 36,3,0. 6W..1..C..13a 0.067.•0.3(9.3110.•03 �� 11183. 36 03445..7„ - tto 3+� ��'En 7® 131x 1.,7, •16:¢ A..J6.1.1GmY1W. 920% 36. 015%, :4.34 9. 9.}33' ' 1.19% _23% 241x, V.% .x 31694 ' 3:, VD. 14. '•143x1 1 m33r x,.I w m3a.er14w5...4 5,22017.;,1.0=.oaN4.,..d 1.«..d 53+37. 3 5333.15 note 136 Sus,436031.204315.2036410051554 'Q.0.314534S004344(02 1.005x...OW..11...30..a..CHCCS 3423.....4..1037.641. 313 14 6743 5%4S9.034 for A.'U33.33%00 q..1.e....5,4647 CHCCS 3.47:5.03933.334.4.36 4..3..053000.46.6.16.012314.3 7.,7402.03,54.050'70 CHCCS. W 45350 55 caeca.3..9.0».36..5,,7 la 36.300401 203.41,3000061 a.0a4 rner..04 7..200.0.3.0030'1619 CHCCS Student Projections"1 14017 . 180041 2.142 1300343 300304 200405 206306 200001 100141 100840 3000-10 '201611 1301.2 30100 201614 35145 20100 331617 201746 1.410 A p1w Y 11111rM� 3,63 1130 3.43 11111111113111111111 1111111•SMI■11711©MIIIIIMI 7IIIIMINEf1•111111iD1111MISFfIIIMS'J tea, 10 Y4a G13.N ]684 19 .4.•.. 818 38 31 4310 �� 3631 462 3 477 I __ ]836 4 a, 115 ♦I. te'-1 3iL ;1]10' 330 rout' ... 1 " 3 ' 3061 1i� 9b 4000 h 94 ��a .. __ ._- 100 N ■.111111111115111111W 17.:„^x0' 115 3 3235 q5 - 0353 3_?5 ] Vii_ 13 r- .C�4 _. � 3041 1,ACM P.a..4.O36 SOM I ..-400 .... JSM )300 )]Bt_ 3 ': 39 'i A 3i 1 f_ 0�,- >a _ :r 4 13 0'. 64 A 119 4 319 9 10 H ,4 .904 ., 001x1 9143) T3 4. 21 ^ a .a 1530.57.5 o.3i_e.y 9236® 1 .. 2 630x® O � ,x ,61 5x�®®® ff 3333. s5306..3.910n, _-. ,,"3154'.1...34446 '?7° "1 .... _,. _..v _3 333 O O oo pa .4333R3.Iw034.2061a30rw Schools A1.t0.....0 il.d S34. I..5....39.404 v.r33a4a ons tJ J9420.55.6541004 m.w1..0.r..,.316.:ro0B 443.+3=,.n 35,.- '...:.:.n„1.52020.Aa.w101336.:90.550-.An.3..am.I.lay.4cl.ccs.4..,1.,m.m91736l..pu:>4ma. l ,O ll M 430a469..35w33001.'U103M.6wB'd 5..0.331.4:0 CHU,etc 45 3 34.n111.3.one 14.n P....V.R40'.4061..4..3043E7114.6..47.5..SCS 11 Annum gr..100414100,any.443.43.1.497 4.2000401 1.31 30.36 au.aaa•e 117. slwror 44.10044.40 163.1,aa1619 r) Section II A Student Growth Rate 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) each year and referred to the BOCC for annual report certification. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC W prior to certification. 2. Definition —The annual percentage growth rate calculated from the projections resulting from the average of the five models represented by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level for each school district. This does not represent the year-by- year growth rate that may be positive or negative but rather the average of the annual growth rates over ten(10)years. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment II.D.2 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis of Existing Conditions The membership figures and percentage The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show growth on the attachments show continued continued growth at each school level growth at each school level within the within the system. system. Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years: Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years: Year Year Projection Projection Made: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Made: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Elementary 1.79% 1.95% 2.03% 1.85% 1.5% Elementary 1.68% 1.6% 1.49% 1.84% 1.16% Middle 1.91% 2.41% 2.35% 2.58% 2.03% Middle 1.5% 1.18% 1.42% 1.78% 1.44% High 2.04% 1.950/o 2.04% 1 231% 2.21% High 1 1.21% 1 0.92% 1 0.98% 1 1.49% 1 1.0% 5. Recommendation Recommendation Use statistics as noted. Use statistics as noted 38 • v c • N Z. O• 2007-2008 Orange County Student Projections Elementa s�,� y 1,r01 ttt,V,. i t!z. 3 '0. I ;!!:4 2.102 {1,,., t a. 0 .' ' '01,,2 :14.1...t Q 2016-' 0 -� s `•7`2``, 1I , M i # .fin;.,E '-^. an, },, -. .r' z,. c' ,4 u s h 2 rt, „4, ate- ,.r Members!'. 3 158 3 245 3 333 3,385 3,464 3,556 3,604 3,650 3,696 NM 3,790 Average%Increase 2.76% 2.69% 1 1.57% 2.35% 1 2.64% 1.36% 127% 1.27% 1.26% 126% Middle f i -' ^•s ,I ,C� t i , i,,. y. I}f �{ 6,hro 01', 14 µ,{, t �, I . I 0 3 0 *'., 114-201 t: 015-,!,y,.. 2016- 2011 18 ;4`k: G `_Z-a HI r e . ."; X;1 s,vw.,.• . a ,,,...,,L,.,:-,fat: -- ._< r g+" ra,,+E —4w.h rc v ,.. r "',` ts r.. wa.<, Membershi. 1,637 1,617 1,631 1 1,689 1,724 1,748 1,772 1 827 1,895 1,923 1,951 Avers_ %Increase -1.20% 0.84% • 3.54% 2.11% 1.37% 1,36% 3.14% 3.68% 1.49% 1.49% jHi.h School d�� � 3. L d' ,1,+�av yn {.�r t,1 ."41,:%'4,.:« l r �`..",1: l I 1 is { ,r} y r t4,'12 3 t'0�,3a,.,r 9. ' 0. y;1Gt, .206-1 '„20 8'' . `witt, Membership 2,201 2,223 2,224 2,237 2,249 2,250 1 2,326 2,370 2,401 2,481 2,531 Average%Increase 1.77% 0.02% 0.58% 0.56% 0.03% 3.40% 1.87% 1.33% 3.32% 2.02% 1 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections Elementa ""'.t"-7,(7 t : sy tj t iQ _t i ¢e r} `' ..1, a tx Wit c 0 . 1 79.-7, 1 X 0 t 1 ,- '.20., 2 m 4. - : 0 1814 4+----: ^`,,.:.`� ,L`:AY_t11'1�1, -�, -'',` ie- ., 2” .4,'�., 'IlL 1r.L , A,<a e"'..�ti '`' �:.,'s ,. .'`,�h:s". .sx. '0 rva, r: - Membership 5,173 5,317 4 5.447 5,603 5,718 5,817 5,895 5,974 6,052 6,130 6,215 Avers_e%Increase 2.78% 2.46% 2,85% 1 2.05% 1.75% 1.34% 1.33% 1.31% 1.30% 1.37% Middle ( q ^s z f¢ ''r 1 t/ 1 s'09--.1 I b J7i 1 { r 1 :.4,"1 .X1,,,,,,,,1._ t I t ' T!i ,k04. -''M of �. ..,.:... , EE.,�[^fL?'�J�-'��..t�,..�.„..t��.a ,.>__�,..� . �.': Membershi 2,622 2,684 2,778 Wil 2,924 3 003 3,131 3,219 3,291 3,339 3,381 Average%Increase 2.36% 3.49% 2.47% 2.71% 11131EM 2.83% 2.22% 1.45% 1.27% Ht'h School 'i � - ,o 11 x,01. o r F 6 016-.,¢ 0715 > n;! t r' v «'1 ra . w a`I R r s , ),,,., -..,,,,,,:::,,I, * . "\,,- ;.•,'...,.,,,,-!',-,,.,, r- - o P Membership 3,635 3,695 3,726 3,777 3,860 3,959 4,045 4,179 4,291 4,421 4,566 N �.' Average%Increase I 1.66% 0.83% 1.38% 2.20% 2.56% I 2.16% 3.32% 2.68% 3.02% 3.28% • oo 00 ei- , Source=Orntse County Budget i Mede1 Compilation(runt PSTAC members to determine average botud on Kov iubor 15,2007 meinbec trip minthms rn.l huioncni d d W •Draoge County Manning runt Inspections Department Extraction of annual Growth Bute km Menges VD > f0 n 2008-2009 0n Orange County Student Projections ii Elementa I a i q1 y,fl I� r^U?. ill`' € !;llt Dilig.:Ir�:.cV 7 .� Xlklc ,✓'I `,' N ;�_lf i 'Nt ?'II i� I�(I�iv sl Ejr , r}I_,I_,r�C�'Xi`i� u�:,.9 _.� ,�� _ :- r f ,S �:d�t tl1'_,..i ,lsa_ �,I � 'I � G ��� `�i 11 .v,._. � _ ..lL � , +�y••. -, 3,165 3,211 3 234 3,287 MEE. 3 360 3 398 3 436 3 479 3 514 3 553 Avera,e%Increase — 1.45% 0.72% 1.64% 1.52% 0.69% 1.13% 1.12% 125% 1.01% 1.11% Middle � �7 I ��?1,,II Jvlll ,,'.� �Yill,.�vairSl, XISE,Vir C_.liitr3j7..{F,, br� din s .(I1�1 �i'�r�l I�al,: I' I j11'! ,3,ili( !f'li K' `i� 1r��1�'ilaltil}`iI °� �'''a.rr�� Member 1 601 1 628 1 679 1 696 1,708 1,723 1,754 1,788 1,795 1 820 1,847 Avers: %Increase — 1.69% 3.13% 1.01% 0.71% 0.88% 1.8% 1.94% 0.39% 1.39% 1.48% Hi•h School �e : [.79.5..� ,t=: I i I '1 , l I '�F I'i'q!)"'g ,1 t wF t ('plat} i� Sil;';5'i�i}f��I"`T' r�V1J `v`Yi ✓I1i4''1I Y I ✓ i,9 1 t 7;1 sett fl�-, „�''�'. '� �.., '�'�� �,. �p 1 � I .,{ �C`t Q��'?s p iy 't�� ��.} 't-1'7 's 2 242 2,210 2,208 2 238 2,254 2 318 2.344 2.366 2.422 2 435 2.474 Avera_- %Increase — -1.43% -0.09% 1.36% 0.71% 2.84% 1.12% .94% 2.37% 0.54% 1.6% Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections Elementa j yy �nm ?' t K 3 ry 1� 517�Y1-:d I`I�F'�' ' Ali I. t9�F r �IJ Y �3��'j' ,;y 1? I'31 Iwi I ,r ':i 7P 7a1 -O l- I1 ''l�l ei�5� /Ir V � r� M1`a ,r �I im V' 1I/4i YI .4 7 tl, t'll i h 1 J> l I 'J I - f r� :�7 rr r : r a r �t rh i[ ��- S P I .1 t :;N 1 '�( ! jv i �. .. .�.-. ,.�.I .,.. 'J�. ur. ....1.>,n.r; ' r. ..I� {... ., �r,�l,.. � �,>�',.. t. .. 1� E1 a�t>1,.;79 Membership 5,302 5,406 5,533 5,623 5,703 5,755 5,848 5,921 5,994 6,073 6,153 Average%Increase 1.96% 2.35% 1.63% 1.42% .91% 1.62% 1.25% 1.23% 1.32% 1.32% Middle 6 ; . f..1 - 12.;_ „ 7 ..� .,,171I, : Tk'7TU J x, jJ , 97 �! ; uI.FV-T-` r � AT' °C , 4 ti J�uf ..i1 (y C i i� {p i ,a Yji,` 3 r[ m� , 4F . J,. � 7 IG b' r1i i + 4 i I. l ai r i � r S Membership 2,697 2,758 2,826 2,885 2,960 3,059 3,123 3,176 3,219 3,258 3,298 Average%Increase 2.26% 2.47% 2.09% 2.6% 3.34% 2.09% 1.7% 1.35% 1.21% 1.23% Hi•h School - c"S f 'i`'I -�IIIN7.,' .I I ! t • - ;y)I :,if;I. ,T.!ic�'°�`: Iii .-:1 ..” 5. ISs7': �Tiy,'v`�'%: '1 y if"!0. I,�Cr : z I... ..: 7},.5,t I a } Yy . ..E .5r....� ��`�l.�.��ff_. . �<. ��, k;...{I.�ll;:A ,r.,.�:r.. ��- 4>�� >., t� i1 ..�.1 ly rl.�>_>-: w�y�;'S S_v_..,.. 7�iy.;av,L,.&L, Membership 3,630 3,897 3,752 3,861 3,930 4,004 4,124 4,217 4,323 4,436 4,515 Average%Increase 1.85% 1.49% 2.91% 1.79% 1.88% 3.0% 2.26% 2.51% 2.61% 1.78% o P co 0 Source:Orange County Budget 5 Model Compilation from PSTAC menthe's to determine average based on November 70.2008 membership numbers and historical data -Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Extraction of Annual Growth Rate from Averages [J ,�,O O __ O d N • w Section II E. Student / Housing Generation Rate 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by Planning Directors, School Representatives,Technical Advisory Committee(SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for certification. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition —A projected number of students that are generated from two different types of housing, "single-family" and"other". Single-family also includes double-wide or greater manufactured and modular homes. "Other"includes multifamily and single- wide mobile homes. The standards were created during the Tischler and Associates School Impact Fee Report of February 2001. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.E.1 See Attachment II.E.1 41 Section II 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Orange County entered into a contract with TischlerBise, Inc. in 2007 to update the student generation rate analysis and impact fee levels. In December 2008, the BOCC adopted revised impact fee levels based on the consultant's work. Additionally,the BOCC directed staff to follow the process outlined in the SAPFO MOUs to update student generation rates as they pertain to SAPFO processes. The current adopted standards are shown in Attachment II.E.1. The recent student generation rates from the 2007 TischlerBise report are shown on Attachment II.E.2. Also, note that students are generated from new housing as well as from existing housing where new families have moved in. The CAPS system estimates new development impacts and associated student generation but it is important to understand that student increases are a composite of both of these factors. This effect can be dramatic and can vary greatly between areas and districts where either new housing is dominant or new families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock. 5. Recommendation —Adopt updated TischlerBise 2007 Student Generation Rates The SAPFOTAC discussed the most recent student generation rates included in the 2007 TischlerBise report. They recommend the BOCC and other governing boards accept the new,most current rates and adopt them as the standard for SAPFO and the CAPS system. In addition, the SAPFOTAC recommends the definition be revised to include all of the housing types included for both CHCCS and OCS, as shown on Attachment II.E.2. The SAPFOTAC intends to take these changes through the process defined in the MOUs in 2009. 42 I N ( ., c,• O E.` ti . .. ' . Tischler student Generation Rates. ., . . . .. , 1 -., . ' . .i ' . - -I. Orange County Schools , , , , Elementary Middle High All Grades Single-Family 0.150 0.075 0.084 0.309 Other 0.084 0.033 0.030 0.147 All Mousing Types 0.140 0.065 0.07 1.284 Chapel Hill-Carrbaru Schools Elementary Middle , • High All , Grades Single-Family . 0.168 0.095 . 0.123 0.386 Other. . 0.094 .0.042` 0.043 0.179 All Housing Types ' 0.134 0.070 '0.086 0.290 ; A 1 Source: 2001 Student Generation Rate and 3 �. ' School impact Fee Report by Tischler& b•Associates f to ,t x,•, r t,.}:,,. ,_ . • • m a h N. ``, TischlerBise Student Generation Rates - 2007 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Elementary Middle High All Grades Single-Family Detached 0.263 0.143 0.197 0.603 Single-Family Attached 0.158 0.077 0.115 0.350 Multifamily 0.038 0.015 0.017 0.070 Manufactured Homes 0.141 0.066 0.061 0.268 All Housing Types 0.149 0.078 0.105 0.332 Orange County Schools g tY Elementary Middle High All Grades Single-Family Detached 0.168 0.090 0.126 0.384 Single-Family Attached/ 0.066 0.022 0.034 0.122 Multifamily Manufactured Homes 0.096 0.041 0.049 0.186 All Housing Types 0.145 0.074 0.102 0.321 1 E. Source: School Impact Fees.-Orange County Schools,TischlerBise,December 31,2007 ir7 is.) 1 • t W Section III III. FLOWCHART OF SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PROCESS Abstract: The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance process has two distinct components: A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Process 1) Timeframe: In November of each year, Student Membership and Building Capacity is transmitted from the school districts to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for consideration and approval and used in the following years CIP (e.g.November 15, 2004 membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June, 2005). Process Framework 1. SAPFOTAC projects future student membership from historical data, current membership and hypothetical growth rates from established methodologies. 2. School Districts and BOCC compare projections to existing capacity and proposed Capital Investment Plan. 3. SAPFOTAC forwards data and projections to all Schools APFO partners. 4. School Districts develop Capital Investment Plan Needs Assessment during this process 5. The Capital Investment Plan work sessions and Public Hearings are conducted by the BOCC in the spring of each year. 6. The adoption of CIP that sets forth monies and timeframe for school construction (future capacity)by BOCC. 45