The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 03-02-2010 - 4iORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Action Agenda . Item No. SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) -Receipt and Transmittal of 2010 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. SAPFO Partners Transmittal Letter Shannon Berry, 245-2589 2. Draft 2010 SAPFOTAC Annual Craig Benedict, 245-2592 Report (Under Separate Cover) PURPOSE: To receive the 2010 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 7, 2009 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board approved the November 13, 2009 actual membership and capacity numbers (i.e. first part) for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). A draft of the full annual SAPFOTAC Report is complete and has been reviewed by 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. 3. Membership Data: CHCCS total decrease from the previous year: (96) students (83) Elementary School 11 Middle School (24) High School OCS total increase from the previous year: 85 students 46 Elementary School 64 Middle School (25) High School ()denotes decrease 4. Capacity Data: There were no changes to school capacities this year for either Orange County Schools or Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. 5. Capacity Issues SAPFO vs. DPI The SAPFO is a local 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. CHCCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service established in the SAPFO at this time. However, projections show potential needs at all school levels within the 10-year planning period. Projected needs are noted below. OCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service and projections do not show a need for new schools in the 10-year planning period. 6. Student Projection Analysis Student membership projections show an increase at all levels in both school systems, except for slight drops in 2015 through 2017 at the Middle School level and 2018-2019 at the High School level for OCS. The projections are shown on pages 36-37 of the report. 7. Orange County Schoc CHCCS Projected needs: New Elementary #11 New Middle School #5 Expanded High School >I Systems; CIP Needs Analysis 2012-2013 (projected overage of 98 students; 106.9% LOS 2016-2017 (projected overage of 20 students; 107.7% LOS 2019-2020 (projected overage of 89 students; 112.3% LOS 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 Following the certification of the 2009 SAPFOTAC report and in accordance with the process outlined in the SAPFO MOUs, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee recommended the BOCC adopt the updated Student Generation Rates included in the 2007 TischlerBise impact fee analysis. On October 6, 2009, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the updated Student Generation Rates, as recommended by the SAPFOTAC. The updated Student Generation Rates become effective with the November 15, 2010 CAPS system update. These new rates generally show higher student generation rates for various housing types. 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 2010 SAPFOTAC report will be brought back to the BOCC for certification at the May 6, 2010 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 2012-13. CHCCS Middle School #5 is projected to be needed in 2016-17, and expansion of Carrboro High School is expected to be necessary in 2019-20. Section 7 of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states, "Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the Capital Improvement Plan referenced in Section 1 above." RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the 2010 SAPFOTAC Annual Report; and 2. Authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained in Attachment 1. To be printed on BOCC Letterhead March 3, 2010 Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor Town of Chapel Hill 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mark Chilton, Mayor Town of Carrboro 301 W. Main Street Carrboro, NC 27510 Tom Stevens, Mayor Town of Hillsborough P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Attachment 1 Anne Medenblik, Chairperson Orange County Board of Education Blvd. 200 E. King Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Mike Kelley, Chairperson Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board 750 Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 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 2010 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. In accordance with the SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the November 13, 2009 actual membership and capacity numbers for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools at its meeting on December 7, 2009. The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County and Towns has produced the 2010 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 2010 Executive Summary and the March 2, 2010 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] 5 The 2010 Annual SAPFOTAC Report is scheduled to be certified by the BOCC at a regular meeting in May 2010. 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 Apri15, 2010. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at (919) 245-2592, by e-mail at cbenedict(a~co.orange.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 2010 SAPFOTAC report with your respective boards. Sincerely, Valerie Foushee Chairperson Enclosures cc: Board of County Commissioners Frank Clifton, Orange County Manager Roger L. Stanch, 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 2010 (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2009 DATA CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON ~~XXXX Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ i Introduction ......................................................................................................................... ~~ Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ............................................ Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) members ....................................................................... ~~ I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service ............................................................................. B. Building Capacity ........................................................... ........... Attachment: I.B.1. -Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09) ...................... 5 Attachment: I.B.2. - Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09) .............. 8 Attachment: I.B.3. - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10) .....................11 Attachment: I.B.4. - Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10) .............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: II.B.1. -Student Membership Projection Descriptions ...................................................... .20 Attachment: II.B.2. -Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2008-09 .................. 21 Attachment: II.B.3. -Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2009-10 .................. 25 C. Student Membership Projections ...................................................... 29 Attachment: 77. C.1. -Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09) .............. 34 Attachment: II.C.2. -Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09)....... 35 Attachment: II.C.3. -Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle c& High) (2009-10) ......... 36 Attachment: II.C.4. -Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10)....... 37 D. Student Membership Growth Rate ............................................................. .38 Attachment: II.D.1. -Orange County & Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates Chart dates from 2009 - 2019 based on 11/14/08 membership numbers (2008-09) .................................. 39 Attachment: II.D.2. -Orange County & Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates Chart dates from 2010 - 2020 based on 11/13/09 membership numbers (2009-10) ................................... ..40 E. Student /Housing Generation Rate ................................................... . Attachment: II.E.1. -Current Student Generation Rates (2002) ......................................................... .43 Attachment: II.E.2. Adopted Student Generation Rates (2007) ........................................................ 44 III. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process A. Process 1 -Capital Investment Plan ......................................................................as 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 2010 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service ..............................................(No Change).........Pg. 1 Chapel HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District Elementa 105% 105% Middle 107% 107% Hi h 110% 110% B. Building Capacity and Membership .........................(Change)..........Pg. 2 Chapel HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District Capacity Membership Increase from Prior Year Capacity Membership Increase from Prior Year Elementa 5244 5219 83 3694 3211 46 Middle 2840 2708 11 2166 1665 64 Hi h 3835 3606 (24) 2558 2217 (25) 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 2009-10 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 ro'ection was hi h com aced to the actual. Year Projection Made for 2009-10 Membership Actua12009 2004-05 2005-Ob 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Membershi Elementa 5219 5196 23 5385 166 5389 170 5447 228 5406 187 Middle 2708 2827 119 2840 132 2772 64 2778 70 2758 50 Hi 3606 3732 126 3732 126 3659 53 3726 120 3697 91 Executive Summary Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2009-10 School Year -Orange County Schools (The number in brackets [n] is the number of students the projection was ofdcompared 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 ro'ection was hi h com aced to the actual. Year Projection Made for 2009-10 Membership Actua12009 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09' Membershi Elementa 3211 3328 117 3241 30 3223 12 3333 122 3211 0 Middle 1665 1647 18 1618 47 1629 36 1631 34 1628 37 Hi h 2217 2137 80) 2139 78 2177 (40 2224 7 2210 7 D. Student Growth Rate ............................................(Change)..........Pg. 38 Avera a Annual Growth Rate over 10 Years Chapel HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Elements 1.95% 2.03% 1.85% 1.5% 1.72% 1.60% 1.49% 1.84% 1.16% 1.34% Middle 2.41% 2.35% 2.58% 2.03% 1.93% 1.18% 1.42% 1.78% 1.44% 1.53% Hi h 1.95% 2.04% 2.31% 2.21% 1.8% 0.92% 0.98% 1.49% 1.0% 1.38% E. Student /Housing Generation Rate ....................(No Change)...........Pg. 41 SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS (based on future year Student Membership Projections) CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School District A. Does not exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 99.5%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the next 10 years. C. 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 2012-13 by a proj ected overcapacity of 98 students. D. Effective this school year, the kindergarten enrollment date changed from October 16th to August 31St. This policy change resulted in a shorter enrollment period this year and a drop in kindergarten enrollment. This issue is addressed more fully on page 30 of the report. Middle School District A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standards (current LOS is 95.4%). ii Executive Summary B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the next 10 years. C. Chapel HilUCarrboro Middle School #5 is projected to be needed in 2016-17. High School District A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 94%). 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 2019-20. ORANGE COUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School District A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 86:9%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater 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. D. Effective this school year, the kindergarten enrollment date changed from October 16th to August 31St. This policy change resulted in a shorter enrollment period this year and a drop in kindergarten enrollment. This issue is addressed more fully on page 32 of the report. Middle School District A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 76.9%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater 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 86.7%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater 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 HilUCarrboro 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 ld RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PARTNERS Chapel Hi1UCarrboro 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 HilUCarrboro School Board Orange County School Board v Planning Directors/School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee (aka SAPFOTAC) Orange County Planning Department Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner 131 W. Margaret Lane 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 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 Chapel Hill Carrboro School District These standards are acceptable at this time. S. 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 1. 2. 3. B. Building Capacity 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. Definition- "For 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." Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District 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 Carrboro School District Apri129, 2002 - Base) Capacity changes were made each year as follows: Standard for: Orange County School District The original certified capacity for each of the schools was certified by the respective superintendent and incorporated in the initialization of the CAPS system (Orange County School District Apri130, 2002 -Base) 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 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Chapel Hill Carrboro School District 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. 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. Analysis of Existing Conditions Orange County School District 3 Section I The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a system to calculate capacity. Any changes 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 2009-10 capacity is noted on Attachment I.B.4 5. Recommendation -Accept school The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a system to calculate capacity. Any changes 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 2009-10 capacity is noted on Attachment I.B.3 Recommendation - Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported by capacities at all levels, as reported by OCS CHCC5 and shown in Attachment I.B.4. and shown in Attachment I.B.3. However, at the annual SAPFOTAC meeting held January 26, 2010, SAPFOTAC members discussed the increasing importance of Pre-K programs in the schools. The group expressed concern that Pre-K classes are not accounted for incapacity and membership numbers despite their increasing presence within the elementary schools in the district. This issue may warrant further discussion between staffs and elected officials at a future Joint Schools Meeting. However, at the annual SAPFOTAC meeting held January 26, 2010, SAPFOTAC members discussed the increasing importance of Pre-K programs in the schools. The group expressed concern that Pre-K classes are not accounted for incapacity and membership numbers despite their increasing presence within the elementary schools in the district. This issue may warrant further discussion between staffs and elected officials at a future Joint Schools Meeting. 4 Section I Attachment I.B.1 (page lof3) 2008-09 hoot ist ct: Orange County Schools S F C ear:' November 14, 2008 -November 13, 2009 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14, 2008 a 2. November 15W fella on a weekend in 2008 and 2009. ']beret'ore, membership numbers pmvtded shall be from the Friday bdbne. Justffication: 1.Elemerltary school capacities reflect 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 Capacity Certification: Oi~Z~pQ Superintendent Date Membership Certification: Q`~_t ~•~ a(t Superintendent Date BOCC Chair tc.,_ to ~~ y ~-.a ttiptlC17d1 Note(s): 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board acceptod the superinte~ierx certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School ReptesealaHve Trcbaucal Advisory Crnnmittee Report Thee capacities w01 ranaip dfactive until changed by (1) the School Clp or (2) an amended version of this form Wert is ratified by We BOCC. Section I Attachment I.B.1 (page 2 of 3) 2008-09 chool District: Orange County Schools PF C 8 eaw November 14, 2008 -November 13, 2009 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14, 2008 2. Nove.~a lSt6 falls on a weekend in 2008 and?A09. Thaeforc, membwship numbaa provided shall be from the Friday beFoie. Justifications Ca~pC~a'c~ity Cerrtification: / ~. J t~ Ot~tilrf o4 Superintendent ~ Date Membership Certification: ~„~ Otl'lo'M Superinten ent Date 4 ~~ B C Chair Date 3~ 8pecbl Notbstsx 1. Forthc Navembar 15, 2002 ~n year the taano accepcea me snpennw~.n-.:~~.~~...,.~>,..w ~ Y........... ~.,.. ~-..-- Task Force review aad 2003 Planners and School Repcesmmtive Technical Advisory Committee Repot. Thesc capacities wt7l romain e8'ective until changed by (1) the School C1P or (2) as amended version of thls Gam that is certified by the BOCG Section I Attachment I.B.1 (page 3 of 3) 2008-09 School District: Orange Couary Sclioo SAPF CAPS Years November 14, 2008 - November 13, 2009 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14, 2008 = 2. November 15th Palls on a weekend in 2008 a:d 2069. Therefore, membership numbers provided shall be from the Friday before. Justification: 1. The capacity increase reflects the relocation and new cons(ructlon for Partnership. Capacity Certifications p Ot~gi~oq Su tnten ent Date C Chair D~~T Membership Certiftcatoon: ~/ a o:l~/at ~/3/Q~ Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Special Note(s): i. For the November l5, 2002 base year the board accepted the superint~ent-certified capacidas as paR of dte School Fac~itiea Task Foroe review and 2003 Planners and School Reptesanative Tahmcal Advisory Committee Report. These capacities vn71 rwnein effective until changed by (1) the School C~ err {2) an amended version of this Soren that is certified by the BOCC. Section I Attachment I.B.2 (page I of 3) 2008-09 e oo s c : .ape s - .a ro .In . c nrns earn oven er ... - , o~•em r +. _ I Capacity and Membership S::bmittai Date: Novcmtxr 14, 3008' Car1[ioaro 60,832 53 533 533 533 S3 1 ~t9 ~EphesUS 66,952 a aa8 448 I ~ Estes [[ills 56,299 52 527 527 52? 52 t ;~ Glenwood 50,764 - 4 423 433 ;23 42 l ~7 FP Csruhani ' 66.689 538 S3 S3 S38 - 53 1 528 McDOugle 98.000 564 56 564 I 66'1 Rashkis 95,729 585 S8. 58_ $$$ t Ss? Scrod 90,980 . 57_ 57, 57. ,r,'.'." 7 t 6AU Seawell 52,896 4 46 46L 466 4 1 'r'95 Morris Grove 90,221 0 58 I g2 Tptal 729,362 4,65 4,65 4,65 4,6.5 '. 5,2.4' 5,302 SpfW+v NO:Yr7j: I. l oc lilt hocealuer u. [~.v[ cast vcai roc ir+a~u aw yrcv ,.n vuy.o:,:..•:~....,-.......... ...r.., ..._. ... r--. _..._ ._--... --- "tsl: Frrct review vn;!?r~l}3 Ylsmnarx ~.RJ Sclnwl Repre_xn?alive Ttchnital:ldai3on Comminee Re:+ort TY`CiC Crpa:ities Kill rcm+in ci2:tiwe unrl chance-.: fi (? 1 the tich;xtl t'tY !+r i2} em amtnJcti vrrsiau ~ti tteix fium litui is ceriifeJ b~ d;: OfX;C. 2. NAV'Cn1hCr 1 Sth 511c on a a~cekmd m'_IIrNi and 2f1(NJ I Mlellm, s~mhershlp num!+en pr~vided:.hall tx [:um the I~nda. hehxe. Jastifieatio:f: 1.Elementart school capacities reflect t:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 Capacity Certi/feation: Superintendent Date Membershiap CertilllCation: /, ' '~~~ Superintendent ate ' ,x13-aY BOCC Chair Date BGCC Chair Date g Section I Attachment I.B.2 (page 2 of 3) 2008-09 C s c: apc r -Garr nrn an' car s ear. ~ovem er , _ - : Quern er a, . )U Capacity and Members p Submittal Date: Novrnzbcr 14. 2U{ffi - Capac?`ity''Certi~~R~~atfan: Superintendent Date Membership Certlflcallan: Superintenderrt Date BQCC Chair Date r t, -- - ,. ' ~' Y. ~,~ ,~- z~~-oC QCC Chair Date 9 SpgClal Hote(3): I Frx nc~ \nvember I ~. =0~?« s;ase 4.ar the hozrd acczplxd °sr 5mperiel.nd.rt~ecnllir~ enpazitien m pan of 17*c ~nc~rl Fa:1Lt;es T,1+~ Fork fK1e1A' ai4.'~ =1_'tirJ Yiill'Yrft GII~ $~.hfk]I RvrrasrntailFe CC i1rlLr;n1 hd\':Cr1Iy Cnrrim:llC: Iic'Ftiii TheK cApa:111C5 Kill Ct1A21); C(YCIIIiC i:llr~.~ riran;~d by' f t i ~.s Schrxd C1P u t'- i as amcrieJ ~rtair•n of this @~rr.: 1-^.at ix ce~~.ticd Cy rhr U~Ji_C. i. Nn+•.~nhcr 15rh ia;ls on n ..erk~~r6 !n ?[:918 and .iri;y. Charrfare. nKrnc~rs>ip nwanels p.uv ~l:ci Thal i+c liar thr frsdAy hcfixe. Just/ficationr Section I Attachment I.B.2 (page 3 of 3) 2008-09 C CO s C : t, arc o - a ~nro arty S: cu 5 ear: aecm er • . 20 - uvem er ... I Capacity and Membersblp Submf!!al iDale: \rnembcr [d. 200& - Capacity Certlflcation: __~~lef~~ ~ - - aB Superintendent Date Membersbtp Cartflfaallon: Superintendent Date ~~,~ ~.1~..~. ~ R-z3-off BOCC Chair Date f ~': BOCC Ch Ir Daie 10 Speelar Nole{s)r 1 For the Noeem*_sr C5. ZfAiZ bsse yr:r s^.e ioaN acre^ted the supcnnte. neat-cert:vc: c~pacmrs ms par Vl'dtC xnw+ ~.~ •~••~-` Task rc~rec tec~tew end ZuQ3 Ytarnrs unJ S.nUUI R~prrSCn!sn se Tcchnha7 Adt•i~ix}~ Camr.:nlee Rcpun Tlnrsc ~•ax;h:ides u~Jl remain e2lntnc tr..ul ct~npcd hy~ I1 { the tice~l CsP ur (~ I CIt ztraa>,!NI'•:er5inn orlhis fore thec is cenBiri b~' the DCK•C '_. Rnt~estbee LSth fulls on a ••;:~kend m Z:~i1S rnc: Zl'-04' Thacr~era. mtn~rchi~^ n~:mhcr; pma~dcd shall he itum the I'n::sy~ l+ciuee. .f LSl1~Gal/On: Section I Attachment I.B.3 (page 1 of 3) 2009-10 School District: Urenge County c is SAPFO CAPS ear. Novem er 13, 2009 - Novcmlx;r I5, 2010 Capacity and Membership Spbmittal Dates November 13, 2009' 2. Nortatba~ l5th falls on a tvcdtcM In 2009. '1'hcrofnre, memhnhip nu[¢bass ptuvided steal l be fjont the. FriAay hcfora. Justification: 1.Elementary school cap~ities reflect 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3. Capacity Certificat~iona .~. tl[ 1 i' /3'~ l~ Superintendent Date Meetl:bersh Certification: Superintendent Date ,~ ~(~. ,,i~~ BO air Date 11 Special Note(slc L , Fa• the N(+acmha I S, 2r~t2 leaec ywr the kx+artl twzepted the supainlenderA-caTLficd cakx[ckics as part orthc ScFnx+l f aceli[ics Tm:k Porce review xtid 2003 Pbaags amJ SChoaL Ricp[r:sartative Toch¢iral AAviu+ry L'[nnmettee t2vpacL That capacilics wi0 remain cn~ctivc until cha~t+A by (I) the Scb[+ni (;IP or (.) an amr[[dd venwn of ibis tuna flt¢t is cMitial by the liOC'C. Section I Attachment I.B.3 (page 2 of 3) 2009-10 School Distr is OrartFe Coutny Schools SAPFC CAPS Yeari Novtxnlxr 13, 2009 - l~ovcmbtx 15, 2010 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: Novemitcr l3, 2()f)) 2. iduvembec l $ih faits nn a u+ee7tt,c~ctd is 2804. Titacfixc, mcmhecship mtmbecs pcC~ida1 sla'fll hr. from Chc Friday ltefotti. Justifications Capacity C rti8catton: ~~- l3 -oq Su rintendent Date Membershi~jC~erti/fi~c~apt. ion: Superintendent Date 'dy ~y 12 SpacialNgte(s): t.F'ortheNnvanbcr15.2C1026xscycarchcbnvdaccgtedticesupaintendcrl-ecrtifiixicapnciCieansptutottncScnm:t~netnuaa Tzsk F"urx cev i~ and 7p03 Planners and Schawl liepcrsattat ive Ta:h»i~l .4elvisury Canmittw Report. These caPacicita will tgt:,vin elCoclivc untii ehsngpt Fnr (11 the Sc hcwl CIP ur (2) an am<rded vgFAm uC dtis kxtn that IS <atlfial b!r the IiQC:C. Section I Attachment I.B.3 (page 3 of 3) 2009-10 Schoa District: C)caage Ceunty S+:iwnls 8APFp CAPS Year: ~ pvet:dfcr 13, 2009 - Tti'ovt:mlxY 15, 2010 Capacity and Membership Submittal Dates Novenfb~7 13, 2009 2. \~wemlx-r 1 Sth ra11a tm a axeltettd its 2069- 'n~rcfnro. mrmbtxship numbers pmvitled slwll br rimn rho Friday ~~ Justification: Capacity Certiflcatfon: `~. ~~ ~•~ 1 ~'r-r3-v~ r~~~y Superintendent Date BOC:G Gtlair ate Membership Certification: l ~-~~ a~ ldy Superinten eat Date BOCC Chap Date 13 9psclal Nate(s): 1, Fortho T:nvemb~T I5. ?OfIL base yror the board atxeptrd ihr sup~xintend^nt~.crtiGrat capadtits as part of the Sclawl Facilities Task Fntrr review and 2003 l'Ixnttax and Schcwl 2ep[CSCnlati~t Txhniral Adviaary COMnthtec Rrpon. '11twe upacifics will remain eR'etait~e tutlil clanged by (1 }the tichtml CiP ur (2) an amtndcd vczsiun uCthis form that is eerlifird by tlx BOCC. Section I Attachment LB.4 (page lof 3) 2009-10 School District: Ghapcl Hill-C:arrboro City Schools SAPF CAPS Year. November 13, 2609 - Novemh[x I S, ?610 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13, 2664 Carrboro 60,83 • 533 533 533 533 533 50 Ephesus 66,952 44 448 448 448 44i 430 Fstes Hills 56.299 52, 527 527 527 529 316 Glenwood 50.764 423 423 423 423 4 435 FP Ure}iam 66.689 538 53 538 538 a9 141ct7ougle 98,000 56 56 56 564 56 Kashlcis 95,729 .. 585 58 585 ..- 585 344 Scrods 90980 575 57 57 575 . 575 568 Seawell 52,896 . 46f d 46b 466 SS9 Morris: Grove - 90,221 585 .58.5 ' 598 Tntal 729,362 . 4,65 d;659 - 4,65. 5,244 ' : `5,2 5,219 8p6ga1 p10Lal(S)i 1. YM ilM IVmemhra 1 ~, LWL Di15C cent inc nova euzpteu u.c su[w..n~~n:..n.-~c...un. enyo.....~ oo ,.........._ .._...._...._-.... 'Task F'~rrce rcriew and 2063 Planners and Schad Rtprestn[a[i~~e 7xhnical.4dvisexpCommittee RcpM. '['heax capCCi[iC5 wiN remain effix:liva uneil ehae[@cd by (i) tho School C1P or {21 ao alncndcd ~•cncum of [his form [hat is eenifi«l by dx QOCC. 2. Xroern[Lcr 1$rh fills nn n aedafd in 2009. 7hcrcfvrc, mernhershep ~wmbas prodded shell hr fn~n [he Frida9 bclbrc Justification: Capacity Certification: i~~/~ ~/off Superintendent Date Mem~be9rsh i p ~C~ert ificat ions i~/~G~'~--- 1/ /~- s~ Superintendent Date 1 L '~,(~ BCC Chair D to BOCC Chair ate 14 Section I Attachment I.B.4 (page 2 of 3) 2009-10 School district: Chapel lli .arrboro City Schools SA O CAPS Year: l~ovemher 13, 2009 - No~•ern cr 1 ~, 2010 Capacity and Membership Submittal Dates i:oremlur l3, 2009 Capacity Certif(cation: Superintendent Date Membership Certification: ~/-/~. G f Su rintendent Dato `~. /~--- r~? ~~y BOCC Chair Date ...... ._ . ,1~ ., .... .... ~.t.-.. ~""~' 2 rZ. j,~a BOCC Chair Da 15 Spacial Note(s): 1. For the \evpnber ] i, 2~ base ytar Ehe hoard a~roepled the superntendenl4ehiikn capacvues ux p<in M:nc scnca r awmies 'task }bcu rEsiew aid Zn03 i'lanne.-s and School Repmsentativc Technical Advisruy Comm•Uee R¢ppr, S'hese capacities K•in remain ¢CCitilere until chanted t}• (1) the SeT.nd L'lr u: {2) an a~Mnna? version of Lhis Conn tlup fa mrti@nd by the 6QCC. 2. November I Sth ti:lh: on a.vxke~ in 2(NY9. Theafu.n. membership numbeas provided shatE be fmm 1M: t'ruhry befwc Justification: Section I Attachment I.B.4 (page 3 of 3) 2009-10 School District: Chapel hill- .arrb[uo City Scho[rls CAPS Year. November 13, 2009 - ?tiovcmb~r 15, 2010 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: Noveanber 13, 2009 z chapel. Hill 241,1 i t 1,520 1,520 1,52. 1,52 I,S20 < 1,36E 6esl C7[a(rd Hill 259,86') 1,575 1,515 1„575 1,51_ 1,515 1,47E t^.arrboro 148,023 0 U S00 SO S00 767 •1'olal G49,003 3,03 3,035 3,835 3,535 3,83_ 3,601 SpeelAl Note(s)t 1. Cw the N[wcnstcr l5, 2CrJ2 bnse }'ear the baud acccp;cd the superintesWesst-certiHsxl capsci:ics es pui Of the School C:scilil:es 'f[uk Cosa scv~• and ?0071NOnncsc and $ch0p1 RgxGCrntsOiro Technipl Ada~sory COmmittcc It[~atrl. 17stsc capacitid ar7sl rcmam cffecliac Osxs, [Jsassged by (t) [ate 5[:ho01: CIP a (i!) an asnendcd vsss:ssa of this form rhu is certified by [he F3UCC. 2. November 1 ith rolls nn a ueeke[sd in 2(M19. Therefore, n:esnbsnhip nOSrJxrs ys'oridcd +hel l be from [Is. Fridq• be[urts. Justification: Capacity Certification: ~ ~%~~~~ It~~ D ~ == ~ Superintendent Date BOCC C Men>~ership Certification: ~~f //r ~~~ k J•~l ~ ~ f r ~/ U/ // Superintendent Date BOCC C ~~ • Uy air Date 1_._ ..•-.._ e.. .._ i~/~G 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 far: 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. S. 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 1. 2. 3. A. 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: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Not Applicable 4. 5. Orange County School District Not Applicable 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. Anew Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior to June 30, 2010. Recommendation - Not subject to staff review 18 Section II 2. 3. 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: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District 4. 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 II.B.3 shows the performance of the models for the 2009-10 school year from the prior year projection. 5. Recommendation - Eight (8) 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 N O STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIPTION 1 CHARACTERISTICS ~ FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS Twchler Linear (OCS & CHCCS) Mathertadiad tomwla; straight line projection y=l(c~b)"x)tb y=projected popuhtion; r~historical annual change; b=base year; ~ projection years Historical growth is retbcted in projected growth BYM + (BYI+ t>f n)). EYM EYM' 96SL = EYM15L Bose year growth re0ecta 10 year average; OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among ached BYM= base year 2nd nsorrth membership; BYlarear student membership inaement inaease in BYI of 5 every other year reAeas (OCS) levels; relMcta progresabrg ws~vos of mambersh~ bate; EYM=ensuing year men>bsrshiP; n=Projectlon year; %SL=9o of total increases U housing growth: reflects bugdout membership per adwd bust (Le. elementary. middle, hiph); EYMISLaensuing year constraints member by sdrool level BYM + (BYI ~ 1li(n)) = EYM EYM • °/.SL = EYMfSL Bass year growth reflects t0year average; OCP Linear Wave Mathematical Gnear with percent variation among school BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYl~esr student membership inaement decrease in BYI of 15 until sdwd year 2070.2011 (CHCCS) levels; reflects progressing waves of membership base: EYM~srsing year membership; n=projectbn year, 9651=% of total membership perschool level (i.e, ebmentary, middle, hiph); EYMISL=ensufng year reflects dsrreaees in houaing growth; refbcls member by school level buiktout consfrairNs Mathematcal fomtula that computes the average net ~ . advanamerrt rate overthe previous 3 years for each a ~F ("a,r t g„ s} 13 Assumes a 1% annual grovNr rate forthe 3•Year Cohort (OCS & grade bust and then uses each rate to caNukte n~ kindergarten grade level: assumes the same CHCCS) Projected rrmnsbersirip by school level: an assumed b=g ~r {a) percentage of students in each grads level kkrdergarten membership is based on birth records K=kindergarten membership; n=given school year; G--given grades greduafe to tlrs rrord level each year arrdkr histories) growth rates membership(ofherthan kirMergerten): g=previous gradek membeshQ; n~veroge advancement rate; b=projected membership Mathemetlcai formula that oomputas the average n=t advancement rate over the previerrs 5 years fa each a ~E G„ 1 g,M) 15 Assumes a 1% annual growth rate forthe 5 year Cohort (OCS & grade bust and then uses each arts 1b eatedete n=<5 kindergarten grade level; ~sumes the same CHCCS) projected membershp by school bust; an assumed b=g Ms (a) percentage d students in each grade oval kindergarten membership a based on birth records K~cindergarten membership; n=given ached year; ,C`-given grade's graduate to the need level each year andlor hstorical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten); g=previous grades membership; a=avaroge advancement rate; b=projected membership Kn = k o-r + (k,,.r' 0.07 ) Mathematcal formula that computes the average n=7 advancement rats over the previous 10 years for each a ~f G„ I g~.r)110 Assumes a 196 annual growth rate for the 10 year Cohort (OCS 8 grade bust and then uses each rate to cabrrlate n=7p kkrdergarten grade bust: assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by schod level; en assumed peg ~ (a) percentage of studords in each grader bvai kindergarten membership is based on birth records KGcirrdergartsn membership; n=given school year, G=given grade's graduate to the ne>d level each year andlor historial growth rotes membership(otherrhan kindergarten); 9= previous grades rrusmbaship; a=average sdvancemant rate; b-projected membership ~o o~ ti a r~ n i--~ Attachment II.B.2 Section II (page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008) 11/15/07 Actual 2007-08 2008 Report Projection for 2008-09 11/14/08 Actual 2008-09 Change between actual Nov 2007- Nov 2008 Elements 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 Hi h 2201 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 Elementar 3158 3165 Middle 1637 1601 Hi h 2201 2242 6996 7008 +12 Mode Projection is T 7132 H124 OCP 7146 H138 10C 7020 H12 5C 7062 H54 3C 7070 H62 AVG 7086 H78 H means High L means Low 21 Attachment II.B.2 (page 2 of 4) Section fI Orange County School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) 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. 22 Attachment II.B.2 Section II (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008) 11/15/07 Actual 2007-08 2008 Report Projection for 2008-09 11/14/08 Actual 2008-09 Change between actual Nov 2007- Nov 2008 Elementa 5173 5302 +129 Model Projection is T 5305 H3 OCP 5317 H15 10C 5367 H65 5C 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 Hi h 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 Elementa 5173 5302 Middle 2622 26g7 Hi h 3635 3630 11430 11629 +1g9 Model Projection is T 11722 H93 OCP 11685 H56 10C 11743 H114 5C 11655 H26 3C 11674 H45 AVG 11696 H87 n means reign L means Low 23 Section II Attachment II.B.2 (page 4 of 4) Chapel HilUCarrboro School District School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) 'TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 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. 24 Section II Attachment II.B.3 Orange County School District (page I of 4) School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009) 11/14/08 Actual 2008-09 2009 Report Projection for 2009-10 11/13/09 Actual 2009-10 Change between actual Nov 2008- Nov 2009 Elementa 3165 3211 +46 Model Projection is T 3234 H23 OCP 3221 H10 10C 3200 L11 5C 3206 L5 3C 3196 L15 AVG 3211 accurate 11 /13/2009 Middle 1601 1665 +64 Model Projection is T 1670 H5 OCP 1617 L48 10C 1608 L57 5C 1619 L46 3C 1628 L37 AVG 1628 L37 11 /13/2009 Hi h 2242 2217 25 Model Projection is T 2245 H28 OCP 2272 H55 10C 2175 L42 5C 2198 L19 3C 2159 L58 AVG 2210 L7 11 /13/2009 Totals Elementa 3165 3211 Middle 1601 1665 Hi h 2242 2217 7008 7093 + 85 Mode Projection is T 7149 H56 OCP 7110 H17 10C 6983 L110 5C 7023 L70 3C 6983 L110 AVG 7050 L43 H means High L means Low 25 Attaclunent II.B.3 (page 2 of 4) Section II Orange County School District School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 15 students low to 23 students high. However, the average of the projections were equal to the actual student membership. • The membership actually increased by 46 students between November 14, 2008 and November 13, 2009. Middle School Level • Projections were primarily low, ranging from 57 students low to 5 students high. On average, the projections were 37 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 64 students between November 14, 2008 and November 13, 2009. High School Level • Projections were mixed (low and high) ranging from being low by 58 students to being high by 55 students. One average, the projections were 7 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 25 students between November 14, 2008 and November 13, 2009. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were primarily low, ranging from 110 below actual membership to 56 above actual membership. On average, the projections were low by 43 students. • The membership increased in total by 85 students, which is the sum of +46 at Elementary, + 64 at Middle and (25) at High. 26 Attachment II.B.3 (page 3 of 4) Section II Chapel HiIIlCarrboro School District School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009) 11 /14/08 Actual 2008-09 2008 Report Projection for 2009-10 11 /13/09 Actual 2009-10 Change between actual Nov 2008- Nov 2009 Elementa 5302 5219 83 Model Projection is T 5380 H161 OCP 5400 H181 10C 5466 H247 5C 5392 H173 3C 5390 H171 AVG 5406 H187 11 /13/2009 Middle 2697 2708 +11 Model Projection is T 2727 H19 OCP 2730 H22 10C 2796 H88 5C 2779 H71 3C 2759 H51 AVG 2758 H50 11/13/2009 Hi h 3630 3606 24 Model Projection is T 3780 H174 OCP 3739 H133 10C 3664 H58 5C 3638 H32 3C 3663 H57 AVG 3697 H91 Totals 11/13/2009 Elementa 5302 5219 Middle 2697 2708 Hi h 3630 3606 11629 11533 96 Model Projection is T 11887 H354 OCP 11869 H336 10C 11926 H393 5C 11809 H276 3C 11812 H279 AVG 11861 H328 n means High L means Low 27 Section II Attachment II.B.3 (page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • Projections were all high, ranging from 161 students to 247 students higher than the actual November 13, 2009 membership numbers. On average, the projections were 187 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 83 students between November 14, 2008 and November 13, 2009. Middle School Level • Projections were all high, ranging from 19 to 88 students higher than the actual membership. On average, the projections were 50 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 11 students between November 14, 2008 and November 13, 2009. High School Level • Projections were all high, by 32 to 174 students. On average, the projections were 91 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 24 students between November 14, 2008 and November 13, 2009. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were high, ranging from 276 to 393 students. On average the projections were high by 328 students. • The membership decreased in total by 96 students, which is the sum of (83) at Elementary, +11 at Middle, and (24) at High. 28 Section II C. 1. 2. 3 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 II.B 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 i Section II Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Elementary The previous year (2008) projections for November 2009 at this level were overestimated by 187 students. The actual change was a decrease of 83 students. Over the previous eight (8) 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, with. the exception of this year, student membership has increased by over 100 students per year. The projections show the need for Elementary School #11 in 2012-13, versus 2011-12 as projected last year. A site has been identified for Elementary School #11 and permitting is nearly complete. 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 previous statewide policy date of October 16th. Effective this school year, this policy change resulted in a 45 week enrollment period as opposed to the typica152 week enrollment period. Consequently, there was a substantial drop in kindergarten enrollment. Enrollment for 2010-11 will include the typica152 week enrollment period, which will significantly increase kindergarten enrollment from 2009-10. Based on projections for 2009-10, 859 kindergarteners were projected to start the school year. However, with the enrollment date change, the kindergarten total for 2009-10 is artificially low and should be adjusted for 2010-11. The 7 week reduction in 2009-10 amounts to 112 students based on the 859 students projected for kindergarten in 2009-10; those 112 students would then be added to the projected 2010-11 kindergarten membership. The projection models have been modified to address the additional kindergarteners that should be entering the school system next year. Middle The previous year (2008) projections for November 2009 for this level were overestimated by 50 students. The actual membership increased by 11. Over the previous eight (8) years, growth 30 Section II decreased precipitously from 214 to 68 to 4, to -52 and then has seen modest increases of +12, +20, +30, +75 and + 11 since 2004. The projections show a need for Middle School #5 in 2016- 17, which is three years later than projected last year. High School The previous year (2008) projections for November 2009 for this level were overestimated by 91 students. The actual membership decreased by -24. Over the previous eight (8) years, change has varied from a high of 199 students to this year's loss of 24 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 projections indicate a need for additional capacity in 2019-20, which is three years 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 (2008) projections for November 2009 at this level were accurate at 3211students. The actual membership increased by 46 students. Over the previous eight (8) years, this level has experienced erratic enrollment which changed from -185 to +8 to +44 to +71 to -10 to +66 to +86 to +7 and +46 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 31 Section II 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 previous statewide policy date of October 16th. Effective this school year, this policy change resulted in a 45 week enrollment period as opposed to the typica152 week enrollment period. Enrollment for 2010-11 will include the typica152 week enrollment period, which will significantly increase kindergarten enrollment from 2009-10. Based on projections, 525 kindergarteners were projected to start the 2009-2010 school year. However, with the enrollment date change, the kindergarten total for 2009-10 is artificially low and should be adjusted for 2010-11. The 7 week reduction in 2009-10 amounts to 68 students based on the 525 projected kindergarten students for 2009-10; those 68 students would then be added to the projected 2010-11 kindergarten membership. The projection models have been modified to address the additional kindergarteners that should be entering the school system next year. Middle The previous year (2008) projections for November 2009 for this level were underestimated by 37 students. The actual membership increased by 64. Over the previous eight (8) years, growth has varied widely and included an unexpected decrease of 78 students in 2004-OS with smaller decreases each year unti12007-08 and then increasing 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 (2008) projections for November 2009 for this level underestimated by 7 students. The actual membership decreased by 25. Over the previous eight (8) years, growth 32 Section II 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 the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not issue CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools). In recent years, development activity and platting of new subdivisions increased within the Orange County portion of Mebane. However, changing economic conditions may curb this activity. 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 W ~P ^ a.Mwwe~v. rawnrw,. w~e+~+4 xa e.rs m.rc~++a. eatie.~, h~.aeeiaa.+~4+~ rte.. a-~.v. n m..b ndaw acn ww.rm,ec mMw+w,mi.: ~":It~TIwNk Wdd/e~MM'{i.~alr~f.Np~~wtri~cflCC6wa 0C3.WY^~Dai~+w/h o~trl~v~1~!~^of/~vwrrrl»rC~6Rd+a YwoTbCNCtS M. NV~JVM'~4cI0NMYM~~1~9Pt1w~TA00tnwV~YmGiN+~'V~niw0~1M10fr T~sT4bfM1nPAtblp 0 ti O O c1 O ~ ~ '+ F+ ots Swa«u Projx:tbns ~ N° ^awe.n.wwrtiwn~rwww~.e.u.z~drru+d+v..uw~~y~.~ca.~sw~rwerew we.c.ar.awaacnccswwrr+~rv~. ~-wws~va anr7ywr MStrwrw M...ti~.wr.+.r.rr.hii~s.~c+~cn.raa.~+r+~~.~.aFar,..rr+~~ee..awwa.ew.vA.. e.~W.. ~~.r sw. a~c~a ^.l~e+AC~'e~.rW~e~+o.eai.~+.~ht bl~d%604+wMEO06w..ar4~e+dtiMO+a rn SOPq mpyn alSLn : OCS 8tud~nt Prolsctlons m A W k'.krMprM~apaN/MwYiNMS4f4S014YN/wMei'4wwMW MAf/I~hMM~M1lFMRIief~ufrQl~!~kO~~M MiY CXG'~YdMY1YNVMMUW6bi d7R1MW1itli/~~WYY11rr.WWf MprywM to MCNLV aifCOCS. GyMwW~M ~rln{ab YkaMA~mM~MIM~dIV liY kb4YpKT lM[lbCMCt$ R.VMD'uM~~WMtli+YO+~Y/r~cwH-0#1~3440.~b~{IiY)OTOOW M~V~~Mib N~YYtDIKeW IDtkti ^' Clraivafr Tapes K..3.1L#tlmlY~a.'GMM9f~~OTOA M ae:uk~p ~ SO6 WdG/tv~'n Wu1 tYpgdcEda rtl~ PK~f~p?fk9 d CNDCS F]m~M1~y/f0 h Kledr 210py9, K.t [1w Ms. h-adsd NpabgM T~Mi~2V41.ik Kb 1:T7 ~ pMCltl b/ W K t~jal0+cam. rung-ta..we..~ w.;:~.w tll '~Pi gv~len>Iiplw npacla awib~wlt.IDppdaw?aw6eYlp ~aMWnOM-eMdaNy.~YPJK laapbfM~w kd~rmt'a~UCIfLGJW4w ap Y+lk+(lY ldal. -0"I~141r11oHPwtl~bMYkr Wp~~Y~rywkw#Oel CFIGSaNOCb PYbpPMa'~+r++aMV~n^P°1'~d„•veopftlcadnYY~r EdF~Nma.WwTbagG'. bMr~TM rwawarlpk ua9swinwd.aupawnaoooar+..~A~waca..l.rw°.~4rm waaarm v,oyn le+s~6 n r 0 .Z' ~ A ~ ~ fY~ N CHCCSStudentProJealons~»w '. co W ocs sala«Ita~opxaa~.~SiO nixlr Mw{ W el rxixxr lelw~ YMwww~M11 Nw M Iwo ~^,1 • a V 0,-nx w w h wfq.r f rrw 10. 7o14wr wx~w~liY uNr. q n.wlrwwK,.a a m rrww aMrra `°TMTYwxwW/IwwYr'LLwrlMhfwlxirlxxYIMCMOG~tlOfi pr~Wy+warnr.aMWMwrrlxMiwMl hr/wM VwxViMrw.wW bC.CCd. 'wnwl~xwi mr~nlxl Illixa/ nxrwrlrbwn 177DJ~ aeOMiMirarriir xa/MSalw lraso~lliw/IM~xA MaM www~hMl rvar+JKV S1 /ISOnurV rw u~w xsxwl ni ~1• aYxarxrrw MMM~r IM.h IAaiNrwYx.rr.anr.IxsrYnl/h Wa+•Mµoww.wxwVl«l~ 'w n.Twwxwrwuabrvr IYaw~YrrltlxxYMf fAFC4w OCA OMbIrMlwwwMa,x,v T.P'Ix4r rY. eLLYY rlixxCarxaYw WlrfbfilRi '~ M.Ix4'r,AM W W W ~iKSY wwai,Y blwrilMT NwNii10 NMwwJ•w~w~Pw~OYM/r CgI1wM1r1iD OC8 8tuUMt P-oJoctbin ~' 'x filaTrwMW Iwlxlxh'Ywx Yr/wrlMr1w W arw6KOtl K4. Er{xlwMxwxlxa/•I AYrw+M'Iw Iw/rw rWNwla.:rwfnp.wn h/w•b 4CL'1. `~lMSd~w4 NaoMwwlwN+Y wwWwtl'Ixw111001!'fM aIM'GNmnwa wxnnFOFr Y.bii,F•.~ aw.a1 /i'1A ~. 0 ti ~ 9 N O ~ A 1 HI P' H l l W w..w.rw wwh wxn r xa..ww n,m ai1a,~*...w..~u.~wn.s....+..w•wswnsl. as.,r.. JI i1PIM~MO.rN.r•ilYaewYYrwi1NMMIiIR01 FwMfMwnr,]%aWW01waMNlwONrx~M rYawlhAMifOr wlwllw.lNM/'~I61[OllMYx'/wi, ai.aliwatll w.aYeAW 4aKYlwwW. OCS Swa.ru aro~caofarl CHCCS ~hidoa P/OjoCtbllt alw c~ n ti. 0 .Z.' sl Cxl.urliiaW KJ•I:Rb.•ewrl ilel.1.01:lRG nY1•tl>r.-PRfiM C•INrrVia/Gwi.rer1..36w1.1MR:1rrr//r.ne.gwiJYtliLT/•nrxryv111Wrf.aNl]]Y..rW./.rItlNM.«. Rl.. CHCCB $1lnl0a P/OjOE[IOlIS t9 xrmw..re..Y xr.1..x/wfrMfO~eow' rm1..YYIRr. _W V "'II..IwbIM.YICR>w Yhvlf.o-unrl'f mll.wY/MrefirrMxt/l.arweix-M,lrS~Y.M.t1.rRVn ,rusY.•..CFF'ri.M.x Mr. .Mh.i1!«I.e. '^Two.Y1.YM.v.J./xwtr..IMle••%IIIIIwI..roraOdG...WL. dM.R\.•.~.uN+Rr'M.4iYlw Mlle Mt.MfnixwNM.M I.IS'1>[110[4 he i..x Ye1u.ilwrpal.Irtror>Y W wr.20RJ1 r+sylano-le.Y r.'o.rr../arolr.>alo-n n>gM/1Bw CHCCS Sludant Pro~ocilorls w /•My,7•• .,..~. .. a Iw,eL !ul.a !n] aslw: RIa1] mu-w mvae r1.u1 swaa case amr. lr.J] 9!Q >MI ~ SIR ]Iw I ' ]U' wt Y.I~Mr i!, ,~ I • 1 I ' ~ y~µ~ ~~r ' 1 1 it 1 j1~ r ! tIR I I ~, •,p„~~ ! !n. 1 !M/ r . ~ I I I , I v - I -~ ti ul 1 MO.M. ~. b i 1 i1 IM 1r+ r • R ~ 'sl. VA sow ~.-!!S ( ....-iL~[ 111 1R 1 .R1I~,,,, 1 ~ ' ~° .. M! nl ni' w s •1 la •Mn 111.E I.l M' I'•M MM I. 1 ! w•. wrr. l.sY-%lMll, a •A ~n1I N. r.V u•% 'M1h •M Y +».. +ii IsIP' I11v'. iIYMOwNi.Y /b .rv.u ..~.,.::..< ,,.. _.,e»... ,r v..wr ; :.:=~ h . +l.h.wlnJ%wlx~MMlINpIJGOlw.xd4Y'.M Y:.r.. •" n..nyxrs owM.x+vrw>s M.I.x. ii I.Nr.YM.h. ow.eanr.ti«Im. r..xae.r<vx....pn.v.. Ilsa..YrlY. cYmc r.Ir. Y.r,/ /.»RVrwwl '^ 1M~Me,IrM.wr. W Mt.ww r1aM'JlpglelW W rx CetlSMOW.:!91JiWYnewtx>/ R.. Yrltp'.+YwMf.v3A<x 9r..6n.elm Mas>MEFG. 'vkh!>..s+xra.NfNU•:a>~m.Mw*4N.RRn.~1n~.u~.Rast:sl a.w..llwwh.blm.'pN~I hay R+1-N N O O A 1 N rM FN H \ I ••x..>.rlr..aacw.usl.rw..r,sae0oavrR+n.aron.,wrx./Mewrrfvwluw~Y..e.ororaa .a.x.a~arucc,rl.x...r-1.wy~.aYr ••nr-«r.YRri.l•rhla. tx..rJrY-RRIIa%wrowaOYCCla. on olwwRwir...wrn.ll...R.siwnaua,wuwlM+..w:..~wi,..owx.rx,ei,c:c. A..wi-wN W.erl.rlwpa>•nw•.IIraT.si)w U>.a~/•mrs•r a.l vv.•.vli'.1I.n wl-11aa./~M'A:JY Section II D. 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 maybe 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 growth on the attachments show continued on the attachments show continued growth at growth at each school level within the each school level within the system. system. Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years: Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years: Year Projection Made: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Projection Made: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Elemen 1.95% 2.03% 1.85% 1.5% 1.72% Elemen 1.6% 1.49% 1.84% 1.16% 1.34% Middle 2.41% 2.35% 2.58% 2.03% 1.93% Middle 1.18% 1.42% 1.78% 1.44% 1.53% Hi h 1.95% 2.04% 2.31% 2.21% 1.8% Hi h 0.92% 0.98% 1.49% 1.0% 1.38% Recommendation Use statistics as noted. Recommendation Use statistics as noted 38 Flemcnhw 2008-2009 M 3,165 3 211 3,234 3287 3337 3 360 3 398 3436 3 479 3 514 3553 A %Increase 1.45% 0.72% 1.64% 1.52% 0.69% 1.13% 1.12% 1.25% 1.01 % 1.11 % W Mirlillc Memb 1 801 1628 1 679 1,896 1,708 1,723 1 754 1,788 1,795 1 820 1847 Av % Increase 1.B9% 3.13% 1.01 % 0.71 % 0.88% 1.8% 1.94% 0.39% 1.39% 1.48% Ninh Crhnnl M~mb 2 42 2 210 2,208 2 238 2 254 2,318 2344 2 368 2 422 2435 2 474 Av % Increase -1.43% -0.09% 1.36% 0.71 % 2.84% 1.12% .94% 2.37% 0.54eYo 1.6% Flnr..enrsrt. Orange County Student Projections Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections - 5302 5 406 5533 5623 5 703 5,755 ~_ 5,$48 5 921 5,994 6 073 6,153 Avera e % Increase 1.96% 2.35% 1.63% 1.42% .91 % 1.62% 1.25% 1.23% 1.32% 1.32% Menlbershi 2 697 2,758 2,826 2,885 2960 3 059 3,123 3176 3 219 3 58 3 298 A e % Increase 2.26% 2.47% 2.09% 2.6% 3.34% 2.09% 1.7% 1.35% 121 % 1.23% Middle Hinh Srhtxll M 3,630 3 897 3,752 3 861 3 930 4 004 4124 4 217 4,323 4,436 4,515 A e % Increase 1.85% 1.49eYo 2.91 % 1.79% 1.88% 3.0% 2.26% 2.5i % 2.81 % 1.78% Soiaoe: Orange Cotmty Budget 5 Modes Compihtion fiom PSTAC members to determine avenge based on Novambe 10. 200g morn5enhip numbers and hia~ -Orange Conroy planning and Iaspatans Dep~ment SsUaeSoa of Amoral Growth Rata fry co ti. o~ ~~ o ~~ e•n w--i d i--• dernentarv ~. Zoos-zo~.a ~ ~P O co Orange County Student Projections ~ s ~ ~ cols- ~a 2o~a-xo,~ls ~oi ' , ~~ ~ ,. , zoln ao>~ soli-mis ,?olssols L2ai~2DZ ' , s _ , ,; ~~ . M~nbershi 3,211 3,254 3 304 3 355 3 373 ? 3 408 3 495 3 538 3 581 3,625 3,868 Aveta % Increase 1.34% 1.54% 1.54% 0.54°k 1.04°k 2.55% 123% 1.22% 1.2396 1.19% . ~~ 1_ 12D1,~201i ~ zoa~gls~, 20x4-''015 ~ ~ R` m1~-io~~~ za17=~o1g~ tors=z~]s. zo~9-zoao .-l .y. v. i Y' ~ -rv .. - , Membershi 1865 1711 1732 1,751 1,787 1,827 1,817 1,816 1,836 1911 1937 Avexa e % Increase 2.7896 12396 1.1 % 2.08% 2.24% •0.55% -0.06% 1.1 % 4.08% 1.36°.6 Middle Hlah School ` 18, , 5.2014' • 20142-015 _ 201 ~6 2016-2017 1A11-2,018 2Al$-2019 K2419ra02U i r, ~. c. - x Mcrslbershi 217 2 236 2 274 2,298 2 388 2,400 2 425 2 494 2,518 2,494 2,540 Avexa e % Increase { 0.88% 1.T% 1.08% 3.05% i 1.35% 1.04% 2.85% 0.96% -0.95% 1.84% Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections - + ' ` I. 1 ~~ . ~r ~,T0~3.2014 , F`-?`` ,2014-a015 2015.?AT6" 2016-2017 2017_-2018= 1AI8 2019 ,2Q14-20~,$ t~ ~ferribexsh' 5 219 5,381 5,503 5604 5,884 5,772 5,915 5,980 6,045 8118 6187 A e % Incrcasc 3.196 2.27% 1.84°.6 1.43% 1.55% 2.48% 1.196 1.09% 1.17% 1.16% Elernenta Mlddle a ~aciiui - psi'-zo14 ~`~~' io14~~1s, x~._ ' - o1s. ]s .,016-2o1T ol~iols, zors-ze 9 zol~-.,oz.. Membexshi 2,708 2,742 i 2,791 2,848 2,939 3,008 3,004 3,059 3.124 "- 3,243 3 278 Aver % lacrease 126% 1.79% 2.04% 3.2% 2.28% -0.07% 1.8396 2.12% 3.8% 1.D8% Hi h School S0~ Y IQ- ~ 201: 20~¢ ' 13 2Dy3-281a 2D14.2D15 "2013-ZOi6 2D16-2D17 Z0~7-2018 2018-aD19 1AI9-202(J~' Membershi 3,608 3,662 3,724 3,792 3 848 3,867 4,000 4,098 4,193 4208 4 307 Ave ' e °h Increaac 1.559'0 1.69% 1.83% 1,48% 0.49% , 3.44% 2.45% 2.32% 0.31 % 2.4% Source: S Model Compihtion 6om PSTAC tnemben b dnoemiine a.,er~lx hued un Vuvemhcr i3.2U0„nwibership cunil:crs tod Nuoekil dnU - Orange Co~mty Planning °nd Iwprcdon~ Ckpnrtmene iiarcceion of.4nntul CrowIIi Rue fi°m Avraapcs o~ ~ ~ , r+ O ~ .~ r-i ~-i d N • J Section II E. 1. 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. 2. 3 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. It should be noted that housing types have been disaggregated in the newly adopted Student Generation Rates that go into effect November 15, 2010. See page 44 for details. Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District See Attachment II.E.l Standard for: Orange County School District 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. On October 6, 2009, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the Student Generation Rates as recommended by the SAPFOTAC. The newly adopted Student Generation Rates become effective with the November 15, 2010 CAPS system update. The current standards are shown in Attachment II.E.1. The newly adopted 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 - No change Implement the newly adopted Student Generation Rates with the November 15, 2010 CAPS system update. 42 ~. Tischler Student Generation Rates Oran a Coun Schools Elementary Middle .High All ..Grades Sin le-Famil 0..150 0.075 0.084 x.309 Other 0.084 O.a33 .0.030 0.147 All Housin T es 0.140 0.068 0.076 0.284 Cha el Hill-Carrboro Schools Elementary Middle High All Grades Sin le-Famil 0.168. 0.095 0.123 0.386 Other 0.094 0.042 0.043 0.179 All Housin T es 0.134 .0.070 0.086 0.290 Source: 2001 Student Generation Rate and School Impact Fee Report by Tischler & Associates a ~ ~ co ~,. 0 ti TischlerBise Student Generation Rates - 2007 .p 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 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 Al! Housing Types 0.145 0.074 0.102 0.321 Source: School Impact Fees.-Orange County Schools, TischlerBise, December 31, 2007 co ~. 0 ti ti a i~ N 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 CII' 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 Section Ill School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 1-Capital Investment Planning (CIP) CIP Projection Method (Historical Membership' plus Hypothetical Growth Rate T Approval (Proposed New Construction i.e. School Capacity Added by number seats & yeas Actual Adjustments (Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year Membership Projection) ~ ~ CAPS System2 (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) ~ F 1Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1) pre-existing/approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2) existing housing stock with new families/children, and (3) newly approved housing development (in the future this component will be known as CAPS approved development) ZThe only part of the CAPS System (i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking) that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual membership (November 15 of preceding CIP year) and new school capacity amount (seats) in a specific year pursuant to the CIP. 46 Y n a a y 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 maybe assigned to "Year l," l O 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 ~ t Section Ill 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 1 (for CIP 2009 - 2019) November 2008 -June 2009 (using 2009 SAPFOTAC Report) Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2009- 2010) November 2009 -November 2010 48 Section Ill School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 2 -Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation 2008 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2007 through November 14, 2008. The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC/School District joint action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2007. This information is received within 5 days of November 15 and posted within the next 15 days. This CAPS system recalibration is retroactive to November 15, 2007. CAPS Allocation System 1. Certified Capacity 2 LOS Capacity 3. Actual Membership 4. Year Start Available Capacity 5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity (includes available capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by year) 6. CAPS approved development a. Total units b. Single Familys c. Other Housings CAPS System AC2=SC2 - (ADM2+ND 12+ND22+... ) AC>_0 -Issue CAPS AC<0 -Defer CAPS to later date 'Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate. Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1. This estimate only captures new development impact, which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate. ~ ZAC - Available Capacity -Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system. SC - Certified School Level Capacity ~ ADM -Average Daily Membership ND - New Development; ND 1 means first approved CAPS approved development ~ 49