HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-05-2009 - 4mORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 5, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. -4- - (n
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance — Approval and Certification of
Annual 2009 Report
DEPARTMENT: Manager/Budget/Planning/ PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
A TTA CHMENT(S): (Under Separate Cover) INFORMATION CONTACT:
2009 Annual SAPFOTAC Report Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Donna Coffey, 245-2151
Shannon Berry, 245-2589
Perdita Holtz, 245-2611
PURPOSE: To approve the 2009 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical
Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report as listed in the chart
below.
BACKGROUND: At the December 11, 2008 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the
Board approved the November 14, 2008 actual membership and capacity numbers for both
Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). 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. Additional
approvals/certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO partners
MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding).
At the March 17, 2009 BOCC meeting the Board received for transmittal the draft 2009
SAPFOTAC report. The draft report was also posted on the Orange County Planning
Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report was sent to all
SAPFO partners on March 19, 2009 advising them of the availability of the draft report and
inviting comment. Comments were requested for submission by April 20, 2009. The Chapel Hill
Town Council received the 2009 SAPFOTAC report at its April 15, 2009 meeting and had no
comments. In addition, no comments were received from the other SAPFO partners.
The exact pages of the 2009 SAPFOTAC report the BOCC will be acknowledging and certifying
are listed below. The context (i.e., definitions and standards) of the various SAPFO elements
precedes the data to be certified and is within the full report.
Element
Page in
Certification to be made by BOCC
SAPFOTAC
Report
Building capacity
11 through 16
Building capacity and current year
with CIP changes
membership was approved at the
December 11, 2008 meeting and the
(Change from previous year)
revised OCS membership numbers at the
February 17, 2009 meeting.
Student membership projection
19
Certification that the average of 5 models
methodology
will be used, as noted in #3 on page 19
(No Change from previous year)
Student membership projections
36 and 37
® Orange County Elementary, Middle, and
High Schools Student Projections (row
that notes average only) (p. 36)
• Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
Middle, and High Schools Student
(Change from previous year)
Projections (row that notes average
only) (p. 37)
Student Growth Rate
38
• Orange County Elementary, Middle, and
High Schools
0 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
(Change from previous year)
Middle, and High Schools
Student/housing generation rate
43
0 Orange County Elementary, Middle, and
High Schools
(No Change from previous year)
® Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
Middle, and High Schools ,
FINANCIAL IMPACT: CHCC
Projected need for:
New Elementary #11
New Elementary #12
New Middle School #5
Expanded High School
S has projected capital facility construction needs as follows:
2010-2011
2018-2019
2013-2014
2016-2017
OCS is not expected to have new school construction needs in the 10 -year planning period, but
continued development within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane may impact
future projections and needs.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve the 2009 SAPFOTAC
Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report in the summary table above.
r�l
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, 'TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 2003)
(ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN JULY, 2003)
♦
45
2009
j (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2008 DATA)
CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON XXXX, 2009
Page k
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. LB. I. - 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) ............................. .............................18
B. Student Membership Projection Methodology .......... .............................19
Attachment. H.B.1. — Student Membership Projection Descriptions ........................... .............................20
Attachment. H..B.2. —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2007 - 08 ...................21
Attachment. H..B.3. —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2008 - 09 ...................25
C. Student Membership Projections ....................... ............................... 29
Attachment. H.C.1. —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High School). (2007) ..........34
Attachment. H..C.2. —Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2007)...35
Attachment. H..C.3. —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2008) ..........36
Attachment: H..C.4. —Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2008)....37
D. Student Membership Growth Rate .................................. .............................38
Attachment: H..D.1. — Orange County & Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2008 — 2018 based on 11115107 membership numbers (2007) ............... .............................39
Attachment. H..D.2. — Orange County & Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Growth Rates
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
M. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process
A. Process 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 ofAdeguate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation ..........................49
2009 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding
A. Level of Service .................. ............................(No Change) ......... Pg. I
B. Building Capacity and Membership ......................... (Change) .......... Pg. 2
Chapel HilllCarrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
Elementary
105%
105%
Middle
107%
107%
Hi h
110%
110%
B. Building Capacity and Membership ......................... (Change) .......... Pg. 2
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 ...... (Na Change) ....... Pg. 19
The average of 3, 5, 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
Chapel HilUCarrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
projection was high comp ared to the actual.
Capacity
Membership
Increase
from Prior
Year
Capacity
Membership
Increase
from Prior
Year
Elementaty
5244
5302
129
3694
3165
7
Middle
2840
2697
75
2166
1601
36)
Hi h
3835 11
630
1 (5)
2558 11
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 ...... (Na Change) ....... Pg. 19
The average of 3, 5, 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 ared to the actual.
Year Projection Made for 2008 -09 Membership
Actual 2008
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Membershi
Elementary
5302
5465 163
5129 (173)
5296 (6) J
5273 (29)
5317 15
Middle
2697
3000 303
2757 60
2749 52
2686 (11
2684 (13)
High
3630
3790 [160
3671 [41
3687 57
3648 18
3695 65
Executive Summary I
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 ared to the actual.
Year Projection Made for 2008 -09 Membership
Actual 2008
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2006
Membership
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
Elementary
3165
3185 20
3263 98
3182 17
3170 5
3245 80
Middle
1601
1 1633 [321
1609 [81
1592 9
1604 [31
1617 r161
High
2242
1 2082 (160)
2160 [ (82)
2162 (80 )]
2203 (39)
2223 (19
D. Student Growth Rate ................ ............................ (Change) .......... Pg. 38
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 MOU) 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
occurred this school year.
CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO 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
Average Annual Growth Rate over 10 Years
Chapel Hili/Carrboro
School District
Orange County
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%
1.420A
1.78%
1.44%
High
2.04%
1.95%
2.04%
2.31%
2.21%
1 1.21%
0.92%
0.98%
1.49%
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 MOU) 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
occurred this school year.
CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO 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 Hill/Carrboro 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 1/o).
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.
1v
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum
of Understanding (Schools APFO MOU)
SECTION Id
0 � 1 111: -
R, - -1- q1
'k III I , 1 11110, -0-0010-11
wmill 0 .. ii",
I 'IT-9-M
A
1111,11111 1 v a •
i mism
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School APFO
Orange County School District
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
A
A. Level of Service
1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — Change can only be effectuated by
amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOLT) 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
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
5. Recommendation —
No Change from above standard
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
Recommendation —
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 Carrhoro School District Orange County School District
The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective
superintendent and incorporated in the
The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective
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)
Capacity changes were made each year as
follows:
Capacity changes were made each year as
follows:
2
Section I
2003: Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary
2004: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2007: An increase of 800 at the High School
level with the opening of Carrboro High
School.
2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary
School level due to the opening of Morris
Grove Elementary School and the
implementation of the 1:21 class size ratio in
grades K -3
2003: No net increase in capacity at
Elementary level. No changes at Middle
School level. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge
High School.
2004: No net increase in capacity at
Elementary level. No changes at Middle or
High School levels.
2005: An increase in capacity of 100 at
Hillsborough Elementary with the completion
of renovations.
2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the
Middle School level with the completion of
Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of
15 at the High School level with the temporary
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 School 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
recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved
forms distributed to SAPFO partners and
certified upon approval by the Board of
County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2008 -9 capacity is noted on
Attachment I.B.4
year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and
recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved
forms distributed to SAPFO partners and
certified upon approval by the Board of
County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2008 -9 capacity is noted on
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
Elementary Level capacities as reported
by CHCCS and shown in Attachment
I.B.4.
Recommendation — Accept new
Elementary Level capacities as reported by
OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3.
El
Section I
Attachment I.B. 1
(page I of 3)
School District, Orliagge County Schools
96L—PFc CAPS Year. November 157007 - 7ov—e.rnl,,cr 14, 2008
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date., Noverntler 15, 2007
Special Note, F(r the November 15,'.00'- bWqa F-r UIL IjOr aoocpEc(x inc
Force rcvlcw anti 2W-, 11kinni!n and School QIrnmilkv. It(T tt. , I'hL
-se c,.j-djjjas will ;er-,*4,,iln OTL Li LI until ell, i ged
by S1) qtc &Iioel CIT, or (2) an arnndej vvision of this firm thy.1 is =riffled Ity the. BOCC.
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 CIR However, due to continuing renovations within
the school, the full capacity of 614 student seats was not achieved until the 200512006 school year.
The above numbers reflect school capacity vvithout 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 Certifli ation;
?
SupPintendent Date
... . ......
Membership Certification,
Superintendent Date
B C G_ WNrDaIe
C C C nit
52
-599
(H), IN
MW
585
�232
491
527
410
576
$18
50
1
41.8:
622
56, 8
616
Special Note, F(r the November 15,'.00'- bWqa F-r UIL IjOr aoocpEc(x inc
Force rcvlcw anti 2W-, 11kinni!n and School QIrnmilkv. It(T tt. , I'hL
-se c,.j-djjjas will ;er-,*4,,iln OTL Li LI until ell, i ged
by S1) qtc &Iioel CIT, or (2) an arnndej vvision of this firm thy.1 is =riffled Ity the. BOCC.
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 CIR However, due to continuing renovations within
the school, the full capacity of 614 student seats was not achieved until the 200512006 school year.
The above numbers reflect school capacity vvithout 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 Certifli ation;
?
SupPintendent Date
... . ......
Membership Certification,
Superintendent Date
B C G_ WNrDaIe
C C C nit
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15, 2007 - November 14, 2008
"apacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15, 2007
Attachment I.B. I
(page 2 of 3)
Special Note: For the Ntivmb• 1.5. J1102 baso year the board aceepW the sulwintendam-carzified capacities as P.VE Of (Ile SCIM) rr.-CilitieS 7a5k
Force ru%*knv and 2003 Planncn; rind School Advisory Conmittee Rujs',rt. 1'he a cap2eiues will rem5ineffective uwil.ehiftgod
Ly (1) ibe School CIP or C31 an amended version of this form hat is ceriffitX1 by lhtt. I1()(*(.".
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.
Capacity Certification-,
'/r -2') -tom
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Id,
Superintendent Date
�Q Chat Date
13
8 eC h ir
!!)� Date
-"ap tut }.,,.A
LIS
0
1 OWIT.
Special Note: For the Ntivmb• 1.5. J1102 baso year the board aceepW the sulwintendam-carzified capacities as P.VE Of (Ile SCIM) rr.-CilitieS 7a5k
Force ru%*knv and 2003 Planncn; rind School Advisory Conmittee Rujs',rt. 1'he a cap2eiues will rem5ineffective uwil.ehiftgod
Ly (1) ibe School CIP or C31 an amended version of this form hat is ceriffitX1 by lhtt. I1()(*(.".
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.
Capacity Certification-,
'/r -2') -tom
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Id,
Superintendent Date
�Q Chat Date
13
8 eC h ir
!!)� Date
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15, 2007 - Nomiftr 14, 2008
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date, November , 15, 2007
Attachment I.B. I
(page 3 of 3)
Special Note: Rr the Novomber U10I.WROULMMIX'S I OIK
f,owe wview and 200 Pkmw= and Schaal Representative Technical Advisory Committee The3e capachics will --culain effective Oath changed
by()) tWSChoal CIPor (2) an Eunended version of this (•T7n that is c=tificd by &.a BOCC
Justification, Partnership Academy Alternative School (P.A.A.S.) is temporarily located at
Fairview BaDtist 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:
Superintendent
Date
Memb"ship, C ification:
e
tt
Superintendent
Date
Section I
School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
School Year; November 15, 2007 - November 14, 2009
Attachment I.B.2
(page I of 3)
Spacial Note: For the November 1.5. 20DI basc year the btyxxt accepted ed cap'.6des is part of the Schuoll- 'acilitiaTask
Force Tcvimv'znd 2003 Plma-= and Schoul Rc;)rVIenta:ivcTcchnical Advisory Coutiniucc Rorirt. These capituitit:9 will remain cf.-Octivo until uhmiled
by ,11 The School CIP or (2) are mv.-oldo-I version Of this ftmn LIU11 is CMifiod by tire BOCC.
Justification; 1. FPG 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
Membership Certification,
I ..Y
Za '
Superintendent Date
Section I
School DisiFict. Chapel HillmUtrrboro Cit,,L, Schools
School Year". November 15, 2007 - November 14, 2008
Attachment I.B.2
(page 2 of 3)
spacial Note: For ax November 15, 2002 base year the hozrd z;;;;.p,ed the 5ttrc:TntLmdent-cerltLte,.l C-Apac,11c; P-1 rare of UW xajouj ray.-juics , cs-m
Force rcviawar.d2D33PiUti)ct,& and SchnoI R.-p.t:svLllPli%,cTc4bniczL Ad,,,isL:z-vC1omjW-iT1RC.)r.aL
by (1) die. Schcol CIP or (2) zaawnended vm. jon or this forTn L�jpt is cetrified by the BOCC.
Justification: 1. Square footage at Culbreth Increased due to auditorium expansion
Capacity Certification".
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification*
1Superintendent Date
Section 1.
School District. Chipel Hill-Canboro City Schuols
School Ve—ai. November 172007 - November 14, 2003
1,51
Attachment I.B.2
(page 3 of 3)
SPOCIal Note: FnT the November ti-, 20]12 ha:e you the board iccc:)It!Lit%t:SuPerititcr.dcnt-c=tir2cd capacities as part af LhtSehcol Facilities Task
Fn.ce review and 2003 Phnnm and School Rcpresmative Technical Advisory Committee Repi-t. I'llese capacities will ramairt effective und] changed
by fl) the School CT or (2) an amended vmiolt of this form that is =dficd by ehe SOCC.
Justification; Carrboro High School opened August 25, 2007 with a design capacity of 800
Capacity ,Certi I 't , n:
Superintendent Date
..........
Membership CetVfi ation;
Superintendent Date
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14, 2008 - November 13, 2009
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14, 2008 2
Task Force review and 2003 Planners 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 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.Elementary school capacities reflect 1:21 class size ratio in grades K -3
Capacity Certification:
"�� a Ol� i OR L)
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Q� t a Ot'yo�oa
Superintendent Date
Attachment I.B.3
(page 1 o 3)
J
i -r •
��3
11
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPF4 CAPS Year: November 14, 2008 -November 13, 2009
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,200S 2
Attachment I.B.3
(page 2 of 3)
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative 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 HOCC.
2. November 15th falls on a weekend in 2008 and 2009. Therefore, membership numbers provided shall be from the Friday befbm
Justification:
Capacity C� Certification:
�.
� t l/,'�m+��,, otj26jo4
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
-6 Qry� Ad., Ol Atl-i
Superintendent Date
"90CC Chair Date
31
12
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14, 2008 -November 13, 2009
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14, 2008 s
Attachment I.B.3
(page 3 of 3)
Special Hotels): 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent - certified capacities as part or the school reentries
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until
changed by (1) the School CIF 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 firm the Friday before.
Justification:
1. The capacity increase reflects the relocation and new construction for Partnership.
Capacity Certification:
oll2nloq
Su Inter ent Date
Membership Certification:
01 /A/OR
Superintendent Date
31 v�
13
Section I
School is r e : C: ape t -Can' oro C ity ; c pots
SAPFO CAPS Year. November 14, 2008 - Novem rer 13. _009
Capacity and Membership Submittal bate: November 14.2005'
Attachment I.B.4
(page 1of3)
Special Note(s): 1. For Elie Nuvember I S. N!42 base year the beard umplcd the superintcndcnt•ccniiicd capmdtics as pan ofibe 5chnool Fnciliries
T%A Force review end 200 Plarmers and School Representative Technical Advisor, Gamminec Rcpoa T1':e3c crpacilics will rennin cl'cctive until
changed ht t,3) the Schaal CIV or (2) art amended version uRhis fion t< ". at is cenifed hi the BO 'C.
2. Mwemhcr 15th falls ,m a %veAcnd in 21103 and 2009 Therefore, rcmfr_rshtr numbers provided shall be frum the Frida} bdfure.
Justification: 1.Elementary school capacities reflect 1:21 class size ratio in grades K -3
Capaciitty� jCertification. r y
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
7_01- Superintendent Date
BdCC Chair Date
BGCC Chair Date
14
Section I
:5chool VIsfrich-4 ape tit -C:arr oro City Schools
gAp7j5 CAPS ear: Novem er 1-4.2008 - NovCt:t Ter 13, IMP
(Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14.2008
i
Speeiai Note(s): I. Fur the Nnvenbrr 15.2002 base t•+ a.* the hacrd accreted the supertr ennera- cerinoa capacnws us pu
Task Pnrcc rewesv and 2!' %Ji l'icn:xr6 r:nc Sehn:d Rrp:rsrnta :i+c T'rchrical hde!sory Cammat �• Hrpor, Tha;a a�prriucs. uaI remain rl:rcti:r until
ehan3ed'.ry i 1 } tr:c Scher+1 C1P o: i'_i an aatcrdcd sr ;;icn nrthii Earn: list is ccmiicd bt Elie [tCx_C
?. No+•en:bcrl4dt:bls on a+crrket,din'_IX15 and ?UUr9.'rherorurr.n:cnthers *ip numn:n p: aeidrd sh:dl b, liam The Frday before..
Justification:
Capacity Certification:
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Superintendent Date
r'
BOCC Chair Da•.e
J
OCC Chair Date
Attachment I.B.4
(page 2 of 3)
15
Section I
School is rie : C ape Hitl.carrbora City Schools
Year- : ovemn cr I .3008 - tvovem ier 1 ?, 21HP
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14, 2_008'
241,111
1;15 1;515 1 5i�
R 0 h01!
a
Speclal Note(s): I For the NIVCMb-'T tz.2O0? bur}rur the b ord rccopied the SU pcnnlcndcm- errphrd CupacIUes us part. urthe ScliuC,I FBcihtjc9
Mask Force rceimand'_U4? Ylunne:s end School Roprewntntiee Technical Advisnry Committee t cpu:t Ttn:sr eapackics will remain cllbatitc until
changed hy Mille } the scnnnl CH, u: {^ I un untended s•ersmn of this lbrm that is certified by dtr DOCC.
'. Narumbe: t5ih lulls un a u�^e >:cnd in 2i1gH and 1CN4 Thr;r6cre, nrembarship nembecs prar,ded snail be iium the Friday beiuze.
Justification:
Capacity Certification:
2fC`�� / C7eP
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Superintendent Date
Attachment I.B.4
(page 3 of 3)
-7 f /�
JI G�r�.•�.. � yam, +-�. �z- z3�o�
BOCC Chair Date
- _ t
BOCC Chair "—" Date
16
Section I
1.
2.
3.
C. Membership Date
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.
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.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
November 15
of each year
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Standard for:
Orange County School District
November 15
of each year
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`x= day" membership may be suggested in
future years so data can be analyzed earlier to assist in school CIP
needs assessment.
S. Recommendation - No change at this Recommendation - No change at this
time
time
17
Section H
II.
1.
3
9
5.
0
r� r
I+ACILITIES ORDINANCE SYSTEM
Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
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.
Definition — The process and resultant program to determine school needs and provide
funding for new school facilities through a variety of funding mechanisms.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Not Applicable
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Standard for:
Orange County School District
Not Applicable
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.
Recommendation —
Not subject to staff review
WIV
Section II
1.
3.
0
B. Student Projection Methodology
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.
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'.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Standard for:
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.
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 H.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 pertinent 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
Section II
w
z
0
O
CL
CL
X
22
IM
Z
a uj
M
I Attachment II.B. I
KC
w 'E
0
75
A
-6
46
Ja
tes
Lu
Lu a.
ff
-aE 5
a
tm;a
21
9 -
g yea.
l.:
.1 E
A
*?H!
in
ia
2
—g
ru
o
8
J.
it
I pr
ea IF
c
>*
IT & I
7r
z
u :E
E
� Q ,f&.F Ll
-9
w L,
Lm
oE sc,
O
Ea
8
.0 al
ii
C�
Lm t
N
Rt
L" ti
G
LL
it :E
w
-
w
m
9
IVA
41
o
M'!
19 Q
IS
-q
E- .5,;
H R
-
-
B1
o
O-
c b :Fj :a =
ws
4=9
ts
19 E
E
At aY
]5-
m Cl.
LU
0
13
LU
:2 0
0
x
A5
a,
el
CL
CL
12
0
0
m
cD
KC
Section II
Attachment H.B. 2
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2007 -2008 School Year (November 15, 2007)
H means High L means Low * includes hospital school
21
11/15/06
Actual
Projected
11/15/07
Change between actual
2006 -07
2007 -08
Actual 2007 -08
Nov 2006- Nov 2007
Elementary
3072
3158
+86
Model
Proiection is
T
j 3130
L28
OCP
3119
L39
10C
3120
L38
5C
3144
L14
3C
3137
L21
AVG
3130
L28
11/1512007
Middle
1576
1637
+61
Model
Projection 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
Projection is
T
2226
H25
OCP
2247
H46
10C
2138
L63
5C
2167
L34
3C
2146
L55
AVG
2185
L16
11/15/2007
Totals
Elementary
3072
3158
Middle
1576
1637
High
2184
2201
6832
6996
+164
ModelProjection
is
T
6962
L34
OCP
6978
L18
10C
6843
L153
5C
6916
L80
3C
6880
L116
AVG
6916
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
`TISCH LER' LINEAR (T)
10 -YEAR COHORT (10C)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP)
5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
3-YEAR COHORT (K)
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
Section II
Attachment II.B. 2
(page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2007 -2008 School Year (November 15, 2007)
H means High
L means Low
* excludes hospital scho,
23
11115/06
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
5C
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
11/1512007
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
11/15/2007,
Totals
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
AVG
11363
L67
H means High
L means Low
* excludes hospital scho,
23
Attachment II.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 A BBREVIA TIONS
'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.
N9
Section 11
Attachment H.B.3
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008)
H means High L means Low
PAI
11/15/07
2008 Report
Actual
Projection for
11/14108
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
1596
L5
AVG
1617
H16
11/14/2008
High 7
22
7o7l
2242
+41
Model
Projection is
T
2244
H2
OCP
2258
H16
10C
2193
L49
5C
2205
L37
3C
2217
L25
AVG
2223
L19
11/14/2008
Totals
Elementary
3158
3165
Middle
1637
1601
High
2201
2242
6996
7008
+12
Model
Projection is
T
7132
H124
OCP
7146
H138
10C
7020
H12
5C
7062
H54
3C
7070
H62
AVG I
7086
H78
H means High L means Low
PAI
Attachment 113.3
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.
FOY "I
• 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.
PT 81
Attachment IELB.3
Section H (page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008)
H means High
L means Low
27
11/15/07
2008 Report
11114/08
Actual
Projection for
Actual
Change between actual
2007-08
2008-09
2008-09
Nov 2007- Nov 2008
Elementary
5173
5302
+129
Model
PMkOqRj§j
T
5305
H3
OCP
5317
H15
10C
5367
H65
5C
5295
U
3C
5299
L3
AVG
5317
H15
11/14/2008
Middle
2622
2697
+75
Model
Proi Ae clion 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
PmLqction is
T
3728
H98
OCP
3692
H62
10C
3684
H54
5C
3684
H54
3C
3688
H58
AVG
3695
H65
11/14/2008
Totals
Elementary
5173
5302
Middle
2622
2697
High
3635
3630
11430
11629
+199
Model
Proection is
T
11722
H93
OCP
11685
H56
10C
11743
H114
5C
11655
H26
3C
11674
H45
AVG I
11696
H67
H means High
L means Low
27
Attachment 1I.B.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 A BBREVIA TIONS
'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.
04-11
Section II
1.
0)
3.
C. Student Projections
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.
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).
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Standard for:
Orange County School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section 113 The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.4
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.3
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 31st 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 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
31
Section H
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
Section II
111
oil
f|
■
E 8 R R
\�
k�
i a
0
ass
IG
99
R
|�f
�d
�2
Attachment 11I.C. 1
(007-08)
|k
� �)
BE
Is
(�§
I
(�|
� §�
U
34
Section II
u
u
Y
9
29
\k��
V
M.
2#;
.9 a
7S
!:
E
O=.
Ru
,2
f p
M
I-E
go 2
L
J
-F , rg
Ga
Affachment IEI.C.2
(007-08)
z R,
\?g
air
UH
s\ so
-g-
R
$ \/
'U 2.
Hu
Pik
35
Section II
a a E
I
Diu
Attachment H.C.3
(2008-2009)
36
0127/2009
OCS Student Projections (1) (4)
Elementary
School Year
2000-01
2001 -02
2002 -03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008-09
2009.10
2010.11
2011.12
2012 -13
2013.14
2014 -15
2015.16
2014.15
2016.17
2017.18
2018.19
Actual
3,078
2,893
1 2,901
1 2,945
1 3,016 1
3,006 1
3,072 1
3,158:
3,165
2,201 -
3,308
3,385
3,432
3,467
3,501
3,536
2,404
3.571
3,607
3,642
Tischler al
,. ,.,. ..,•... ,.. ,..
,_ ,__.._, •,_. �,e,,,, _,..,� 166 _,,.....,� ,,, 8..,__,
3,234
3,221
3,200
3,206
3,196
a. _3 211
:._ ...,... . , ... ........... , ....:.... 66 ._......,......_. _,,...x._.. i_ .. „...,... ,_,...,46..._....
_._.,_,44 . ,...... „._,._71. _,� .. _ . 10 ... ,__ .. ,....... . _.80.. .... 7, ...
OC Planning
3,278
- 3,195
3,202
3,186
. �r,._ .., 3 234..
.�.. .32
3,335
3,241
3,246
3,227
" . "• .:.3 287
�. <..,..._53 .._.
- 3,392
3,290
3,298
3,273
.,
,., ::., �.�, 3 337
_ ....,..._ _,.50
3,450
3,303
3,305
3,273
, a, ,. 3 360
, ,_..,.- , ,.33
3,507
3,336
3,338
3,306
, .. of . "'3 398;
... <. 8,...,
3,564
3,369
3,371
3,339
I-.�8
, _. - � 4865
3,621
3.403
3,425
3,373
, ,3 479 -
., ,
3,679
3,437
3,439
3,406
3,736
3,475
3,473
3,440
10 Year Growth
5 Year Growth
3 Year Growth
Avers e,
:. <_ � _ ,_
AnnuaLChan e, ",- Increase: Decrease 'An'Actual &:P,ro ectedMembershi . - _,...., �. -:," a_.
Capacity - 100 %Level of Service
:3820
:3820
`.3820
3,820
3820
3,920
3922
3,922
3922
:3694
3,694
3,694
3,694
-3694
'3694
3,694
422'
3,694
:3694
'3694
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
742
927
919
875
804
914
850
` 764
757
483
460
407
357
334
296
258
'2533
215
180
141
105% Level of Service
4,011
4,011
4,011
4011
4011
4,116
4118
4, 118
4,118
3,879
3879
3,879
3,879
-3879
3,879
3,879
295
.$879
3,879
3879
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 105% LOS
933
1;,118)
(1,110)
(1,066)
995
(1.110)
1 046
960
' 953
J6671
645
J592),
542
519
481
443
2,786
400
365
326
Actual - % Level of Service
80.6%]
75.7%,
75.9%
77.1%
79.0%
76.7%
78.3 %
2
83
87.5%
89.0%
90.3%
90.9%
92.0%
93.0%
585 )
94.2%
95.1%
96.2%
Average - %LevelofService
. , ,.,.
-...
.,,, .. °
.,.. :c6.01/°
- "' "' 0.28/°
" �.. " x.1:52%
. ^:'2.41/° ...,.,:,
" ..: ,
... -0.33
: , ;3. /°
.,... ,.,. ..
,...
86.9%
, , '- , . , ,
Annual:StudentGrowth Rate (3)' :, " , :. � � ._..;
. „ ., :.;. 1.47/°
.:: ,. ",..._
_., ..,..0.70%
, .: 1.64/
..1.53/°
,,
, .1.0.68%
: +. :. 3
_,,.1.1 �
.... 2
_.11 h
_
_; "1.25 °°
/
• ,,,_„ ;:.7.M./d,
.1.13%
additional 100 new seats @ Nlllsbomugh �ementary
Indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
I'I It is Important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2008 dale of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
m The Tischler 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.
rn Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000.01 through 2008 -09 and average membership for years 2009 -10 through 2018 -19
I <t Class sizes for grades K -3 =1:23 for school years 2000 through 2008 -09. In accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction, with planned opening of CHCCS Elementary #10 in school year 2008 -09, K -3 class sizes for school years after 2008 -09 reflect 1:21 as directed by past State legislative action. This results In OCS elementary capacity reduction (district wide) of 239
seats (decreasing from 4,118 [105% LOS @ 1:23 class size] to 3,879 [105% LOS (d 1:21 class size]).
OCS Student Projections(1)
m0lcales nrst year mat oistnct surpasses ounoos mrry re -111 -1 reeu Levei u, oarvrca
I'I it is Important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2008 date of membership as outlined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. it does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
m The Taschler Model provides for the "Linear Method" of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Odginai projections used in prior years projection models Included the "Linear Extrapolation Method" for CHCCS.
o> Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000.01 through 2006 -09 and average membership for years 2009 -10 through 2018 -19
OCS Student Projections (1)
High
School Year
2000-01
2001 -02
2002 -03 2003.04
2004.05
2005-06 12006 -07
2007 -D8 2006 -09
2009.10
2010.11
2011 -12
2012.13
2013.14
2014.15
2016.16
2016 -17
2017 -18
2018.19
Actual
1 1,672
1.753
1.828
1,887
2.057
2,124 1
2,184
2,201 -
2,242
2,284
2,324
2,364
2,404
2,444
2,484
2,524
2,564
2,604
Tischler IZI
2,245
2 272
2,175
2,196
OC Planning
2,294
2,160
2,189
2,114
2,318
2,191
2,233
2,124
2,371
2,189
2,247
2,101
2,425
2,267
2,334
2,160
2,481
2,286
2,354
2,157
2,538
2,292
2,363
2,155
2,596
2,355
2,427
2,206
2,656
2.348
2,411
2,198
2,717
2,381
2,440
2,230
10 Year Growth
5 Year Growth
3 Year Growth
,..:
Annual Chan e:- :Increase: Decrease 9m :Actuate &.P.ro ected:Membershi
:�i ,.,,, ..�:
., , , .,
�,,,.. .......
,,, ,;,; , ,
.,.. ,..
. ................
2,159
D.
,._ „>
,,; , s„ ._,,..:; „ -:..: _... „, .. , . _..,,.: , ,:.. ._ , . :: . _..... . ,. ,:.
,.r ,.... ,. . ,. _....„ ,__.. , _. ...... _6.. ,...,.._., 6D..,. _<...., .,,_17.. _..w ,_ __,.41 _. .....:... ....3.92
,.. ,._..�_81 .. _....... -„ _,75 .._. , _...59 .. , .170. ,.__... 7.
_.....,_ �, ..I2
, ....
„.........:.30,
_ , .,. „._,
., _.. 16
., .,,..�.�., 64
„ 26 ";
422'
.`:. _, �,.2 `435
:; , 2 474,
Capacity - 100% Level ofService
1,518
1,518
8
2,618
2518
2,618
2,518
2,533
2,633
°2533
:
2,533
2,533
'2533
-2533
'2533
-2533
-2533
2,533
''2533
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
154
235
690
631
461
394
334
332
291
` 323
325
295
279
215
` 189
167
111
98
59
110% Level of Service
1 670
70
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,786
86
2,786
2,786
2,786
2,786
2,786
2,786
2,786
2,786
2,786
2,786
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 110% LOS
2
83
942
883
713
646
586
585 )
15781
1548)
532
468
442
(420
365
351
312
Actual- % Level of Service
.1%
115.5%
72.6%
74.9%
81.7%
84.4%
86.7%
86.9%
87.2 %
88.4 %
89.0%
91.5%1
92.6%
93.4%
95.6%
96.1%1
97.7%
Avem e - %Level of Service
AnnualStudentjGrowthRate(3) ". ' ':
-
' -- -.
`- - .::4.84%
... °
-, :x.,4.28/°
e
"..3.23/°
.: °
- . -9.01%
- .:,.,.
..::.3.26/° =;...2.82%
„
,.
0.78/° ,.1.86/°
0.0%
87.2 %
::,.
_..... 44 %...:
.:. '..
,._e
-0.07h
,,_:., ,,:
.. ..1.35/0
_.
., :::.0.73 %...
,., :
.,,3.82/°
'.
,.:, ;, ,.,1.94%
-
- <.- 0.94 %_..
'..._..33
_2 /°.,
, -. :'.0:57°`,
Y
/
cedar drip high opens with 1,000 seats In fall 2002
Partnership Academy Alternative School capadiy added
Indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
I'1 It Is Important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2000 date of membership as outlined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
nt The Tischler 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.
nl Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 20OD -01 through 2008.09 and average membership for years 2009 -10 through 2018 -19
a
w•
CHCCS Student Projections (1) (4)
CICn116111Cn
School Year
2000.01
2001.02
2002.03
2003.04
2004.05
1200&06
2006.07
2007.08
2008.09
2009.10
2010.11
2011 -12
2012.13
2013.14
2014.15
2015.16
2016.17
2016.17
2017.18
2018.19
Actual
4,444
4,474
4,551
4,692
4,695
4,879
4,980
5,173
5,302
5,497
5,614
5,730
5,847
5,964
6,081
4,272
6,197
6,314
6,431
Tischler t2)
5,380
5,400
5,466
5,392
5,390
-, °5408
,.. , .. . ... .,,.. .,.n' . .,,.
„. _e3 0 .
s& °; _ , , . 9
OC Planning
5,503
5,654
5,512
5,497
5533
5,581
5,782
5,582
5,557
�` 5623
< �
5,657
5,881
5,640
5,609
5703
.
5,733
5,858
5,689
5,649
6755
,. -.1... . ..
5,808
6,017
5,746
5,705
5848
5,882
6,078
5,803
5,763
t* 5921
.... .=. .
.. ,.
5,956
6,138
5,861
5.820
- 6994
. . a.. T3
6,055
6,200
5,920
5.878
6073
., ?.
6,155
6,262
5,979
5,937
6153`
10 Year Growth
5 Year Growth
3 Year Growth
W U ,.: - .._, _ _. ?
,,. .... .....
Capacity - 100 %Level of Service LOS
4,302
4,490
4,211
4.302
4,302
4302
4921
4,921
4921
4,921
4,921
5244
44
544
5A44
5,244
5244
5"
544
..:. .. .__.. ...
., .... ..
n r . - N _. r ,:, ..,.148 :.,.i" . � 199..
5"
5,244
5,244
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
_... :
.__.
.,, 87
- � '
142
172
249
229
226
42
59
252
'. ?58
162
289
379
459
511
604
677
'3035
750
829
909
Capacity -105% Level of Service LOS
'8835
11617
4,517
- 5,167
5,167
5,167
5,167
6,167
5,6 06
5,506
b
" 5.506
5,506
5,506
5,506
5,506
479
' 5,506
5,606
'' 6,506
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 105% LOS
83
43
34
47
472
288
187
6
204
0011111
26
1 17
197
249
1 342.
1 415
3,339
'. 488
567
647
Actual - %Level of Service
103.3%
104.0%
105.8%
95.3%1
95.4%
99.1%1
101.2%
105.1%
101.7%
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 110% LOS
105.5%1
107.2%
8%
1 109.7%1
111.5%1
112.9%1
176
114.3%
115.8%
117.3%
Average - % Level of Service
, . ._:
:' ",0.68%
...
' 1.72 %.::
,.
- ,8.10%
° o
� ",0106,5
..< o
- ;:8.92k
. ".� ..2.07%
..;; _.e.:., .; .. o
-:: ._.3.68/s � ..:z.49/o
103.1%1
,. .:
AnnuaiStudent Growth Rate(3) "' ., '
o
"." "1.95h
,;,' €: ..
_. 2.35%
r:. .. ::;1.64/0
., "i;.
.. 1.43%
: ,, .. "e
_... ,...0.91 %
-; 6
",�" ` �._. 1. 1%
` 1.26%1
`° '° � ` .,
„`1.23%
- . ".
E-E r 15, 2005 Certified Capacity Calculations, CHCCS projects Elementary #10 opening for school year 2008-09. In accordance
Elementary #9 opens in fall 2003 with additional 619 seats opted School construction Standards, elementary school capadry totals 600 students.
Indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service ots: Per 2005 egreomentofschool Collaboration Work croup, Grades K -3 class size reduced from 1:23 to 1 :z1
mentary #30 opens (to allow for prior Lagisladve Action re: reduced oleo size)
in It is Important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2008 date of membership as ouNned in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
iz! The Tischler 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.
n/ Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000 -01 through 2008 -09 and average membership for years 2009 -10 through 2018.19
I4i Class sizes for grades K -3 =1:23 for school years 2000 through 2007 -08. in accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction, with planned opening of CHCCS Elementary#101n school year 200 &09, K -3 class sizes for school years 2008.09 through 2017 -18 reflect 1:21 as directed by past State legislative action.
CHCCS Student Projections (1)
Capacity -100 / Level of Service ` 2,1081 2,840 1 2,8401 +2 840 2,840 ' ` 2,840 1 2,8401 2,840 1 2,840 ` 2,840 1 2,840 1 2,840 ' 2,840 1 2,8401 - 2,840 1 2,840 1 2,840 1 2,840 1 2,840
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over (Under) 100% LOS `218 300 232 228 280 268 '248 218 143 (82)1 `14 `. 45 ' 120 219 283 879 -018 X458
107% Level of Service 2 256 3 039 3 039
3,0391 3 039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3 039 3 039 3 039 3 039 3 139 21 039 3 039 3 039 3 039
- -n rnasx 1- 1e0o1 1 1AAni 1eanl 1-1171 .1 nta 9 11 12a11 121,411 1154il 17911 29 1 841 1371 180 1 220 1 259
116.1%
Indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
lit it Is Important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2008 date of membership as oul fined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
al The Tischler 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.
i'I Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000 -01 through 2008.09 and average membership for years 2009 -10 through 2018.19
CHCCS Student Projections (1)
nnyu
School Year
2000.01
2001.02
2002.03
2003.04
2004 -05
2005-06
2006.07 2007.08
2008.09
2009.10
2010-11
2011.12
2012 -13
2013-14
2014.15
2015.16
2016.17
2017.18
2018.19
Actual
2,815
2,963
3,162
3,330
3,422
3,514
3,520
3,635
3,630
3,862
3,798
3,719
3,662
3,944
4,026
4,108
4,190
4,272
4,354
4A36
4,518
Tischler xzl
31760
3,739
3,664
3,638
3,663
-." x`3697
OC Planning
3,860
3,849
3,777
3,964
3,918
3,838
4.048
4.011
3,898
4,132
4,184
4,031
4,217
4.326
4,115
4,302
4,490
4,211
4,388
4,687
4,318
4,474
4,814
4,375
10 Year Growth
5 Year Growth
3 Year Growth
3,718
3752
3,853
's �° 3
3,904
3930
3,957
4004
4,082
X4124
4,155
4 17=
4,257
4323
4.350
.: 443 6
4,396
- r.'
Avera a „.< °� ' °` ° >' • -- = -rw.
_.
. .. °.;;:, ...,. „.;
_.:,
-: bershl -< . . . .. . ..
e, increase Decrease In Actual: &?Proected Mem
.....,
, ..
... . ....:
..:. .. .__.. ...
., .... ..
n r . - N _. r ,:, ..,.148 :.,.i" . � 199..
,- .. ".
.. ... ..
,: ,. ,..+..,,168
,. °..... -:.
, .,., „...,_ 92
,..,_.
.... ..
, ,. .�.:.., _. 92
.. ... „_.
,...., .. , , 8 , -., , ,
,.._„ ;...P3,8353
_... :
.__.
.,, 87
- � '
° ._,.
....,. ,...._55.
_ -�
',: ,.
..., ,'..
_. , ........109
.. :.., .,
_, ,,_.. __...
.....,... _ . __89
.; -.
..,_
_ _. _...74
-.;93=
„_ .,_.,,119
.....,.
Ca acit - 100 %Level of Service
'3035
'3035
' -> 3035
' 3035
3035
'3035
8035 '
+3835
'8835
"3835
3,835
"8,835
` 3,835
:8835
' 3,836
3835
3,835
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
220
72
- 127
295
387
479
485
200
205
` 138
83
26
95
169
`289
382
' '488
` 601
'. 660
110% Level of Service
3,339
3,339
3,339
3,339
3,339
3,339
3,339
4,219
4)",
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 110% LOS
524
376
17
9
83
176
162
584
(589
- 522
467
358
289
214
95
2
104
217
297
Actual - %Level of Service
92.8%
97.6%
104.2%
109.7%
112.8%
115.8%
116.0%
94.8%
94.7%
97.8 %
100.7%
102.5%
104.4%
107.5%
110.0%
112.7%
115.7%
117.7%
Avera e- %Level of Service
`'."6.28%
:- `8.72 %
=. 5.31%
:2.76%
` -2.69%
"r '0.17% _` ,-
,,,
3.27%
. ,,...
-' -0.14%
4%
Annuai Student Growttr':itate(3) ? "' .. '" _ �` ` "_ '-"'
":1.84°
'1.49%
...
. -. e"2.90%1:-
.x.1.80%
_.1.69%
, 0
.:2.98,6
,.
]- 2.26 %.
° °` 2!51%
Indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
I') It Is Important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2008 date of membership as outlined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
iz) The Tischler 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.
�I Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000 -01 through 2008.09 and average membership for years 2009.10 through 2018 -19
high school #3 opens In fail 2001 with 600 additional seats
Q
a
�i1
Section II
w
s
o
Attachment JI.C.4
(2008-2009)
37
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
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:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
See Attachment II.D.2
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
The membership figures and percentage
growth on the attachments show
continued growth at each school level
within the system.
Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years:
Standard for:
Orange County School District
See Attachment II.D.2
Analysis of Existing Conditions
The membership figures and percentage
growth on the attachments show continued
growth at each school level within the
system.
Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years:
Year
Projection
Made:
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Projection
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 1.95%
1 2.04%
1 2.31%
12.21%
High
1.21%
0.92%
1 0.98%
1 1.49%
1 1.0%
5. Recommendation
Use statistics as noted.
Recommendation
Use statistics as noted
W.
7
Section II
I
xpp
Lei
.0
u
Attachment II.D. 1
(2007-2008)
is
O
I
39
Section II
o�
N
O
N
•
1
•
`J
i
•
Attachment H.D.2
(2008 -2009)
6
�Q
zQ
bo
�U
b
Nu
W
�a
'J
DO
.G
E[C
Section H
1.
2.
3.
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate
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.
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.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
See Attachment II.E.1
Standard for:
Orange County School District
See Attachment II.E.1
41
Section H
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.
M
Section II
Attachment II.E.l
e
ra
•
!
!
f
r•
•
i_
Attachment II.E.l
b
y�
U
of
�a
d
d �
� W
N E u
N �
O O
� ,Y N
e
!
!
r•
i_
b
y�
U
of
�a
d
d �
� W
N E u
N �
O O
� ,Y N
Section III
0
0
ll�
V
(D
U)
sum
IAttachment H.E.2 I
0
a)
04
00
04
CR
a
C')
O
C14
CO
N
Cf)
C)
X
1-
0)
r
LO
V-
117
I-
V-
to
W C)
U)
0
0
0
0
C:)
C,4
(D
"D
C,)
p,
LO
to
CO
00
102
0
0.
(D
co
CO
co
(D
co
(3)
to
4-
E
C:)
C:)
9
0
fu-
C)
00
CO
CD
E
0
cv
Ca
E
3: 0
g
(D
E
Ca
E
'm
E
E
U-
a
—(no
r
:03
LL E
Ca
0
IAttachment H.E.2 I
O
O
0
44
04
00
04
N
Cf)
C)
0
0
C:)
C,4
O
O
C)
CD
0.
(D
co
CO
co
(D
co
(3)
to
4-
E
C:)
C:)
0
fu-
E
0
E
Ca
E
'm
r-
LL
LL E
Ca
0
O
O
0
44
Section HI
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
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.
G"
i
i
O
U
J
44
4.4 " 4-J O
Qn Cd U
�Cf)
U�
I1
H
V]
V
® U l
•� �O P4
M
rn
rA Cl
O
Cd
U �
4
Attachment 1H.A.�
o
��
8 0
o
Cd
o o �
o
Cd
Cd
a
Cd
a 5 Cp
CC', o
4-4
O v d
i
Cd
x U
N
*p y 0
bA 'b O O
Cd
O
m rn P1 O
x a�i U N
o
�
cod
a
0M
U
H
V]
V
® U l
•� �O P4
M
rn
rA Cl
O
Cd
U �
4
Attachment 1H.A.�
o
��
8 0
o
Cd
o o �
o
Cd
Cd
a
Cd
a 5 Cp
CC', o
4-4
O v d
i
Cd
x U
N
*p y 0
bA 'b O O
Cd
O
m rn P1 O
x a�i U N
Section III
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Update (Process 2)
Timeframe: The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the
school districts report actual membership and `pre- certified' capacity, whether it is CIP
associated or prior `joint action' agreement. `Joint action' determinations of changes in capacity
due to State rules or other non - construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the
November 15 capacity and membership reporting date. This update may reflect the Board of
County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects
capacity and addition of new actual fall membership. The Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year
— (e.g.: November 15, 2005 to November 14, 2006).
New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated, each
CAPS projection year is `absorbed' by the actual estimate of a given year. Later year CAPS
projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For
example, if a 50 -lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 lots may be assigned to "Year 1," 10 lots to
"Year 2," 10 lots to "Year 3," 10 lots to "Year 4," and 5 lots to "Year 5." When "Year 1" is
updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The
students generated in "Years 2, 3, 4, and 5" are held in the CAPS system and added to the
appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated.
As was discussed in Section II.C, The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not
issue CAPS. However, residential development within the Orange County portion of Mebane
has increased dramatically in the last two years and over 1,000 residential lots are currently
undeveloped. Increasing development within this area of the county has the potential to
encumber a significant portion of the available capacity within the Orange County School
District.
47
Section III
Please note that the two processes (CIP and CAPS) are on separate but parallel tracks. However,
the CIP does create a crossover of capacity information between the two processes. For
example, the Schools APFO system for both school districts that will be established / initiated
certified each year in November and is based on prior year created and / or planned CIP capacity
and current school year membership. The SAPFOTAC report including new current year
membership and projections are to be used for upcoming CIP development as noted in Process 1.
CIP Process I (for CIP 2009 — 2019)
November 2008 — June 2009 (using 2009 SAPFOTAC Report)
Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2008 — 2009)
November 2008 - November 2009
u
i
9
0
U
t/
-N
V
Le
r•v
00
O
O
N
d�
�bA
O
0
O
N
N
H
•U
4a
N
00
0
0
N
tn
.O
v� 'Z' N
cn
U
0
poq 5. o
V �
b p �
C o
0 cd
4;
� U
Cd
U � �
F� N ca
rn
co
Z
� o�
tn
� U
O
M o
Cs3
Attachment IH.B.l
a�
W
a�
P4 o
,-El a>
� o �
o
a, O
a
A O
cd
a3
o
cod
U ti
"' U
Id
b a 4-j
En 0
00 C's
U 'd
ElEn
Cd
o
ai
N
.mar
.r
N�+
N
N
+
a--'
� O
C4
�N
�
O
N
�
U
�a
H
Q
N�
Al
V
U
U
Attachment IH.B.l
a�
W
a�
P4 o
,-El a>
� o �
o
a, O
a
A O
cd
a3
o
cod
U ti
"' U
Id
b a 4-j
En 0
00 C's
U 'd
ElEn
Cd
o
ai
N
.mar
.r
N�+
� O
�
v b
V
®
v �
" c
Cd �j
U
o
s o
a� t�j
to
-t
a
b
b
18
L�
U
a
2
on
Al
0
��bn�
J.
4 1
^p,Hc
O
o�aa
O v
>,U
cd4 o
wi
�16
Attachment IH.B.l
a�
W
a�
P4 o
,-El a>
� o �
o
a, O
a
A O
cd
a3
o
cod
U ti
"' U
Id
b a 4-j
En 0
00 C's
U 'd
ElEn
Cd
o
ai
N
.mar
.r
I )
50