HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-06-2010 - 7aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 6, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. ~ - Q
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance -Approval and Certification of
Annual 2010 Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. 2010 SAPFOTAC Annual Report
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
2. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
(CHCCS) Comments
3. Staff's Response to CHCCS
Comments
4. Memorandum From Staff Outlining
SAPFO Components and
Implications of Pre-K
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Shannon Berry, 245-2589
PURPOSE: To approve the 2010 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical
Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report.
BACKGROUND: At the December 7, 2009 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the
Board approved the November 13, 2009 actual membership and capacity numbers for both
Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). Additional
approvals/certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO partners
MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding).
At the March 2, 2010 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2010
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 were sent to all
SAPFO partners on March 8, 2010 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and
inviting comments. Comments were requested for submission by April 8, 2010.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC report to the
CHCCS Board of Education at the March 18, 2010 meeting. The board did not recommend any
changes to the report. However, the board did have comments on the projected need for
Elementary School #11 and the time frame for approving and implementing the updated
Student Generation Rates. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools comments are included at
Attachment 2. Staff's response to the CHCCS is provided at Attachment 3. The Chapel Hill
Town Council received the 2010 SAPFOTAC Report at its April 12, 2010 meeting and had no
comments. In addition, no comments were received from the other SAPFO partners.
The exact pages of the 2010 SAPFOTAC report that 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
Re ort
Building capacity 11 through 16 Building capacity and current year
with CIP changes membership was approved at the
December 7, 2009 meeting.
No Chan a from revious ear
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
onl . 37
Student Growth Rate 38 • Orange County Elementary, Middle,
and High Schools
• Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
(Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools
Student/housing generation rate 43 • Orange County Elementary, Middle,
and High Schools
(No Change from previous year) Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
Middle, and Hi h Schools
On a separate but somewhat related matter, the Board has asked for additional information on
the Pre-K issues both school districts are dealing with and the implications, if any, to the
County's adopted Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) and related
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). Staff has provided at Attachment 4 a memorandum
outlining various components of SAPFO and the relationship of Pre-K to SAPFO.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: CHCCS has projected capital facility construction needs as follows:
Projected need for:
New Elementary #11 2012-2013
New Middle School #5 2016-2017
Expanded High School 2019-2020
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:
1. Approve the 2010 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and
Report detailed in the summary table above; and
2. Receive the CHCCS Memorandum and County Staff
certify those aspects of the
Memoranda and discuss as
necessary.
Attachment 2
4
Date: April 1, 2010
To: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director ~/~ /
From: Todd LoFrese, A~sistant Superintendent for.Support Services ~ 1,,,/
Re: SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments
On March 1 S, 2010, administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC annual report to the Board
on work session at their regular Board of Education meeting. As requested, Board members
shared their thoughts and feedback with respect to the draft report. A summary of that feedback
is contained below.
First and foremost, Board members expressed concern about the projected need for Elementary
#11. According to the SAPFO calculations, this school is needed beginning in the 2012-2013
school year. To open school that fall, will require us to begin the deconstruction and recycling
process later this summer. Furthermore, to allow time far bidding purposes and to provide
adequate notice to the Community School for People Under Six {currently residing onsite), we
would need to know if the project is funded later this spring. Board members also expressed that
CAPS requests may need to be denied if our enrollment continues to grow and adequate space,
as determined by SAPFO, is exceeded.
Board members also expressed concern with the process for updaring student generation rates.
This concern is echoed by district administration. As you know the recently approved updated
student generation rates will not go into effect until the November ~15, 2010 system update. This
is well after the 2007 TischlerBise report that developed the recommended changes. It was felt
that this process was too long and that recently approved developments have had a greater
impact on student populations than is currently being calculated during the CAPS process.
Board members and administration recommend that future studies recommendations be
circulated to the respective SAPFO partners more quickly to allow for timelier implementation.
Please let me know if you have any questions and thanks to both you and Shannon for leading
this process.
CC: N. Pedersen
K. Morgenstein Fuerst
Lincoln Center, 750 S. Merritt Mill Road -Chapel HiH, NC 27516-2878 - (919) 967-8211 - vtinww.chccs.kl2.naus
Attachment 3
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 5
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Memo
to: Board of County Commissioners
Frank W. Clifton, Jr., County Manager
From: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning Director
Shannon Berry, AICP, Special Projects Planner
oats: May 6, 2010
Re: Response to Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools Memorandum dated April 1, 2010
On April 1, 2010- Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) sent a memo to Craig
Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, providing the comments and concerns of the
CHCCS Board of Education with regard to 2010 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. The Board did
not have any recommended edits to the plan. However, they did have some concerns
regarding the projected need of Elementary School #11 and the timeliness of the
incorporation of the updated Student Generation Rates approved late last year. Below is
staff's response to the memo.
CHCCS Elementary School #11-
The Board of Education expressed concem about the projected need for Elementary School
#11 with the 2012-13 school year and the time frame associated with completing the
development of the school. In addition, the Board expressed concern regarding the denial
of CAPS (Cert~cates of Adequate Public Schools) requests should enrollment numbers
continue to increase and additional school capacity is not available.
Staff notes that the SAPFO anticipates the timing of both new residential development and
the timing of new schools may need to be adjusted to comport to a financially feasible
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Therein, residential development may be deferred until the
timing and opening of new capacity can be achieved. This is the premise of synchronizing,
to the best of the County's fiscal abilities, both student projections and school construction.
New residential development. in the CHCCS School District may be affected by school
capacity in coming years. Increases in enrollment will be accounted for when the CAPS
system is updated each November with the actual membership data provided by the District
(continued)
~~s°4E ` ~obQrp
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 u ~ Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) P O Box 8181
www.co.orange.nc.us ~'`'4 Ea=a`'~~ Hillsborough, NC 27278
6
(i.e. replacing the hypothetical projection with the actual realized enrollment). However,
when making application for CAPS, residential developers may request approval for a future
time certain when new units would be occupied, such as expected Certificate of Occupancy
(CO) dates, versus time of unit or lot approval. This permits development approvals with the
understanding that adequate school capacity will be available at the time residential units will
be occupied, potentially by families with school age children. Phasing of developments is
also permitted to ensure adequate future school capacity. CAPS approvals can be timed to
coincide with Elementary School #11 coming online, if necessary.
Updated Student Generation Rates-
The Board of Education also expressed concem with the process for updating the Student
Generation Rates. The memo states "that this process was too long and that recently
approved developments have had a greater impact on student populations than is currently
being calculated during the CAPS process." The Board of Education recommended that
future studies be circulated to SAPFO partners more quickly to allow for a timelier
implementation.
Staff notes the concern of the Board of Education. However, the process by which Student
Generation Rates and other SAPFO components are modified is established in the
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) which all SAPFO partners are party to. The MOUs
require changes to the SAPFO components, including Student Generation Rates, to be
approved by the BOCC prior to February 1St of the year such changes are to be
implemented. Following the recommendation(s) of the SAPFOTAC, the MOUs require the
BOCC to provide an opportunity for the SAPFO partners' governing boards to comment on
those recommendations. In order to shorten the process for implementing changes to
SAPFO components, all parties to the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) must
approve and execute a revised agreement.
The BOCC adopted the new school impact fee schedule in December of 2008; based on
the 2007 TischlerBise report. At that time, the Board requested the SAPFOTAC proceed
with updating the Student Generation Rates identified in the TischlerBise study. The
SAPFOTAC discussed the Student Generation Rates at the February 2009 meeting and
proceeded with the recommendation to update the Student Generation Rates. Following
the procedures established in the MOUs, the updated Student Generation Rates were
approved by the BOCC in October 2009, thereby pushing their implementation to November
2010.
The valuable comments and input provided by Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools are
always appreciated. The responses included in this memorandum are intended to
address any questions generated as a result of the April 1, 2010 memo.
Attachment 4
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ~
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Memo
to: Board of County Commissioners
Frank W. Clifton, Jr., County Manager
From: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning Director
Shannon Berry, AICP, Special Projects Planner
oats: May 6, 2010
Re: Overview of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) & Effect of Pre-K
At the request of the Board of County Commissioners, staff provided a memorandum on April
20, 2010 outlining the issues affecting both school districts in Orange County with regard to
Pre-K education. The memorandum presented the Pre-K enrollment numbers provided by
both school districts. There continues to be discussion on Pre-K and questions about the
implications to the County-wide Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO).
This memorandum is provided as a brief synopsis of the components of SAPFO, and what
impacts, if any, providing Pre-K has on SAPFO.
SAPFO & Memorandum(s) of Understanding (MOU)
In 2003, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough adopted
ordinances addressing the adequacy of public school facilities and accompanying
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) for the implementation of the ordinances. The
purpose of the SAPFO system is to ensure that school construction keeps pace with growth
and need. The system aids in capital improvement programming through reporting and
projections.
The MOUs include standards for reporting the membership and capacity numbers of each
school. "School Membership" means the actual number of students attending, based on
enrollment. "Building Capacity" is determined by joint action of the School Boards and the
Orange County Board of Commissioners and by reference to State guidelines and School
District guidelines. Mobile classrooms and other temporary classroom spaces do not count
toward building capacity. The updated School Construction Standards adopted by the Board
in 2007 address the "capacity generating" spaces for each level of school. At the
(continued)
®`~C4~. ~°y°A
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 n sz Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) P O Box 8181
www.co.orange.nc.us °~~~ ~et~"°~ Hillsborough, NC 27278
8
Elementary level, grades K through 5 make up the majority of capacity generating space,
while classrooms for special /exceptional students, speech language and one flex classroom
comprise the remainder. The County standard for a traditional elementary school is 585
students, which takes into account the 1:21 class size ratio for grades K through 3. The
adopted County standards allot 1,700 square feet for one Pre-K classroom. However, this
Pre-K classroom does not count towards school capacity, per the adopted standards. State
Facilities Guidelines do not require space for Pre-K classrooms in public schools, however
the guidelines include a recommendation of 1,200 to 1,400 square feet per Pre-K classroom
should they be provided by school districts.
The ordinances and Memorandum(s) of Understanding are speck in the reporting and
analysis required annually. At the Elementary level, building capacity includes grades K
through 5 and the membership numbers reported for those grades are utilized for the annual
Certificates of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) calibration and SAPFOTAC Report and
projections. Regardless of .the number of Pre-K students or classrooms in either district,
SAPFO reporting and analysis at the Elementary level includes grades K through 5 only.
Conclusion
In summary, the adopted Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) and
Memorandum(s) of Understanding include specific reporting and analysis requirements for
both school districts. Pre-K classrooms and students are not provided for in SAPFO and are
not included in reported numbers and subsequent analysis. While an increase in Pre-K
classrooms andlor students may impact availability of space at those schools with Pre-K
classrooms, there are no implications to SAPFO, the reporting of the membership and
capacity numbers, or the issuance of CAPS.
Attachment 1
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 XXXXX
Table of Contents
Page
y ............................................................................................................
Executive Summar 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 ........................................................................ 2
Attachment: LB.1. - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09) ...................... 5
Attachment: LB.2. - Chapel HilUCarrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09) .............. 8
Attachment: LB.3. - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10) .....................11
Attachment: LB.4. - Chapel HilUCarrboro 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: II.C.1. -Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09) ..........:... 34
Attachment: ILC.2. -Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2008-09)....... 35
Attachment: II.C.3. -Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10) ......... 36
Attachment: ILC.4. -Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10)....... 3?
D. Student Membership Growth Rate ............................................................. .38
Attachment: ILD.1. -Orange County & Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2009 - 2019 based on 11/14/08 membership numbers (2008-09) .................................. 39
Attachment: ILD.2. -Orange County & Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2010 - 2020 based on 11/13/09 membership numbers (2009-10) .....................................40
E. Student /Housing Generation Rate ...................................................
41
.
Attachment: ILE.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 ......................................................................4s
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 HidUCarrboro
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 IS ........................(No Change).......Pg.17
II. Annual Update to SAPFO System
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) .............................(Change)..........Pg. 1 S
B. Student Membership Projection Methodology.......(No 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 2009-10 School Year -Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
(The number in brackets [n] is the number of students the projection was off compazed to actual membership. A number in pazenthesis
within the brackets [ (n) ]indicates the projection was low compazed to the actual whereas a number not in parenthesis indicates the
ro'ection was hi h com aced to the actual.)
Year Projection Made for2009-10 Membership
Actua12009 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Membershi
Elemen 5219 5196 [(23)] 5385 [166] 5389 (170 ] 5447 [228] 5406 [187]
Middle 2708 2827 [119) 2840 [132] 2772 [64] 2778 [70] 2758 [50]
Iii h 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 off compazed to actual membership. A number in parenthesis
within the brackets [ (n) ]indicates the projection was low compazed to the actual whereas a number not in pazenthesis indicates the
ro'ection was hi h com azed to the actual.)
Year Projection Made for 2009-10 Membership
Actua12009 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Membershi
Elemen 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 Hi111Carrboro
School District Orange County
School District
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Elementa 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 projected overcapacity of 98 students.
D. Effective this school year, the kindergarten enrollment date changed from October 16`h to
August 31S`. 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 COUNTY SCHOOL 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 16`h to
August 31S`. 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 Hi1UCarrboro 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 HiIVCarrboro School District
School APFO
. -- ,.t. .F:k~'ZR~ .s3_?/ ~;-~".i1" F Orange County School District
School APFO
~:'L~" f~ ".17X.,~~t -j 3' _
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
e Y
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
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
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 (Chapel Hill initialization of the CAPS system (Orange
Carrboro School District Apri129, 2002 - County School District Apri130, 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
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
capacities at all levels, as reported by
CHCCS and shown in Attachment I.B.4.
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 in capacity 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.
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 OCS
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 in capacity 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 lof 3)
2008-09
chool District: Orange County Schools
FO C earl; November 14, 2008 -November 13, 2
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14, 2008 =
2. November 15th fells on s weekend in 2008 and 2009, Thaeforq membership numbers provided shad be from the Friday before.
JustlNcation: 1.Elementary schod capacities reflect 1:21 Bass size ratio in grades K-3
Capacity Certiflcalfon:
DI f ?.~pq
Superintendent Dale
. ~ l
BOCC Chair to ~ 1
MembershiQQp Certiflcatlon: -,r '
Superintendent Date B C Chair [
Spieelsl Note(s): 1. For the Novamber IS, 2002 base Ymr the board accepted the superintendentcertified capacities as part of theSchaol Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Cmnmittee Report. These capacities will rcmaiu cffoctiw until
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an aramded version of this form that is certified by the &)tx.
Section I
Attachment I.B.1
(page 2 of 3)
2008-09
School APFO Capacity, Membership erred Change Request Form
c 1 District: Orange County Sc is
P C can November 14, 2008 -November 13, 2009
Capacity and Membership Submktal Datee November 14, 2008
2 November 15th falls on a weekend in 2008 and 2009. Therarore, manbetship numbers provided shall be figs the FrideY before.
Justification:
Capacky Certification:
t ~ Ot~t3rro4
Superintendent Date
B C Chair Date
Membership CertHcation:
~~tl~j.,
Superinten ent Date
Task Face review a~ 2003 Plarmers and School Representative Techoieal Advisory Committee Repoct These esp~itits will remain efiativa until
changed by (1) the Scneol C~ or (2) an emended version of this fa,n that is oem5ea by the 80~.
Section I
Attachment I.B.1
(page 3 of 3)
2008-09
Se oo as Ct: Orange County S is
C ears o I4, 2008 - Novem 13, 2009
Capacity and Membership 8ubmtttal Dat®: Novanber 14, 2008 ~
2. November 15th Palo on a wedcend in 2008 end 2009. Theaefore, membership nwnbas provided s6e11 be from the Friday before.
Just cation:
1. The capacity increase reflects the relocation and new construction for Partnership.
Capacity Certification
-~~_ c a/a~at
Su Inters ant Date
C Chair D~e
Membership/C~ert~Aification
Superintendent Date l3oCC Chair Date
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Repnxeotative Tee6nieal Advisory Committee Report. These aapaoitiet will remain efFedive wail
changed by (1) the School C~ or (2) an amended version of this form tbst is calified by the BOCC.
Section I
Attachment LB.2
(page 1 of 3)
2008-09
c oo s r C: tapz - .an oro C h, s oo s
earn ovzm •er , .:U - ~ ovem er ~, .: .
Capacity and Membership Submittal Oate: Nnvt:mlxr !4,'_008'
Carrbdm 60,832 S33 533 533 533 533 1 49.
t?phesua ' 66,452 4dt3 448 .15$ 448 1 43_
F.stes.kTills 56,249 527 527 52 5~7 537 1 'fit,
,
Gtznwo4~3 ~ 50.7b4 d23 423 423 423 423 F 43
F1' C}iriftaiii b6,689 538 538 5 538 .r+38 [ ~~
Mcl7ougle 98,000 SW Sti4 5 564 S I 607
i
iELuhkfs 95,729 38S 585 58 585 Si_. t 557
Scrams ' 40,980 57 575 57 575 5~$ 1 60D
$~pwc11 ~ 52,896 466 46b 4G6 4tib 4 l 54
Morris'~;irove 90,221 0 0 0 58 I 52
Tntnt 724,36? 5,65.. 4.659 4,654 4.659 '.C,~44 5,302
sjseera/ Nota(sJ: 1. Rur the *iavcmber I S.. i0i ~7 G~ie teat the Uo:ud sexptea me strpennrcncen.•cmnr :, cad ncu.,co :r. ;,~ ~ ~., .~,.- .,...,.~„ , :.~.,,.,.-,
ark Fercc reve.a :md ?06? Y3a:met~ ssd Sihikd Repizuntatite Tathnica! Advi~on Cotnmifler RcAort Ttrsc c3paiticc will nmxin cRcalae anti.
ch;vn;!ed by (i) the \chnol <:'tY er i? i mt mncniled ~'ersiun cf cns limn thal is cxrtifcd F~ the 13ci'l"
,~,. NJt'Cnlb,`r l~th''flll. on a weckcnd in 2flftt and ?(N7U 13icrefuro, mcmtxersh:{f num!~rrs pr!tided :,hull hr C-rrm thx 1-nda. Ixliwc-
Justireation: t.Elementary school capacities reflect '6:21 cuss size ratio in grades K-3
Capacity CertiR~ca~t7o»:
Superintendent Oate
Memb,~ejr~~s,~~hip CertifiCat/o/n:
Superintendent Date
f
~~ ..,,~i.,~ f7-~-~~
t30CC Chair Date
~1 .o
BflCC Chair Oate
g
r r
Section I
Attachment I.B.2
(page 2 of 3)
2008-09
Schoo9 APFD Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form
c o r c: - ape t- .arr ro ~ity c oa s
ear: nvem r - : avr:m r . , _
Capacity and Membership Submfttaf Date: November IA, 20ft8 "
Gapaefty Certppff~~atfon:
il'~/s~~.. ll~l ~ ~a~'
Superintendent Date
Membership C~e'`rtfDcatfon:
Superintendent Date
w
,~
-.-" % r-
/~- z~- o ~
BOCC Cha'sr Oats
~-.,.,
Y _ - C---.,~. f1,
J :,t, ~ j~~ 2*1-0~
OCC Cha_ir_ Date
9
Spae/e/ Hote(afe I Far thr havcmber 15, 21N?? base }'ems the hoard acreptcxl the saperirsrcndent•eertifred upacilies rs piut aFShc ~etkvsl PmciLnos
Ta54: Frxce review and TO(J3 P9unirexs and Schrxrl Representusive Ttv:hnisal Advi xy Committer Rrpwt The3z cspacinex wall remain effa:hvr teh[rl
clrsnged h5~%17 the Jchec+I C1P yr i21 an aarrerded vetrnivn utthi5 f2rrna chat is c€mrred hY~ tha E3tK C
.: N<vemher t °.th !u=ts on a weekend in ?IX)4 a.~+d ?iri;A. Chore firm, n!emhcrsi:ip nrrmhcn PruvidrrE slu~fl [+c. fmm the FrdsY bet'we.
Je:stfRcatfon:
Section I
Attachment I.B.2
(page 3 of 3)
2008-09
c oo S c : ape a - art ru rty Sz ao s
can .'osrm er .2C19 -':ovzm zr 1.. _Ot>
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: \nvemtser [ 4, 2008 -
:. Nasxmt~er ! $4: fall3 Jr; n ++•ec'+erd in ~JQli en1 _U!Y 7hc:r«:e. rncmFzesh in m:r~~la-rs prm~rdcd s'~aN he rrom the 3~rr_°a} reti~sc.
Jusfircatiort:
Capac~/i!ty C~~ertitf/i~?ca~~tion:
Superintendent Date
Membership CerliBcatlon:
Superintendent Date
y ~/ ,~.,... ~ ~ ('~- z3-off
BOCG Chair Date
1`~ _
r ~ (Z-2~'-Od
BOCG Ch v ' Date
1~
S/iOC/al /'fot6(5): 1 fcr Ne Nn?•cmher S 5. 2fNJ? base Tenr lilt b?ard GfCt~tcd the supt:rinte^.drniK:rtrt¢~. cor¢ucities uv puts u[tkra Sch+x?I Facihtres
T'-sk Fora recicu• sn1 ~t~'3 P[anneq unJ School Represencsncc Technical Adviwry~ Curm+rllre Repua. T11erc cn~tatiNes+nll remain cit"stne usul
c=::ar.~1 by i 1 4 the School CIN ur!2! un unreolc,7 ccrsinn ne this t:;rn tha: is cMited br t}~e QOCC
Section I
Attachment I.B.3
(page 1 of 3)
2009-10
School District: Change County Schools
SAPFO CAP ear. November i 3.2009 - Nnvemlxr 1 S, 2010
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November t3, 2009 '
2. Novenlbcx C 4th falls on a wcckctxi in 2pp9. 1'hcrcfem, mcmtlwnlrip numhen ptu.ided shall hr from the F: i~Y hcfo:c.
Justification:
1.Elemantary sdiool capacities reFlect 121 dass size ratio in grades K-3.
Capacity Certification•
,~, , u' r3-~ ~
Superintendent Date
Membersh Certification:
Superintendent Daie
11
Special Note(si: t . Fnr the Novcmhcr I S, 21%12 hate ycvr the h;anl acc~tal lire supCnntett0eM-xtttnea eapaemrs as l~n nt the xtnHn rncun:~
l'a+k Fim'c review mttl 2403 Plannps and Scho.M Repn•. cnt.'llivic Tahnical Advi+nry• Committer Rr~A. Tht`e capacili.~ u4i( r-main enbetivc un[il
ehangwi by (I) the Schml CIY nr (2) an am ~rJ vrnion of this form that is a~rtifind by the ROC'C.
Section I
Attachment. LB.3
(page 2 of 3)
2009-10
School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form
Sehool Dist et: Orange County Schools
SA Year: Novcln cz 13, 2 - Novcmbcx l3, 2010-
Capacity and Momborship Submittal Date: I~o.~etnixs I?, 20O<) `
?. hwt~ntk`t' I Sth 1't[ls nn a woekivk! in ZC~J9. TnpcFMt. mrntli^nMp numbm pro~~ick'[I Shall F.c rmm the Friday be[i?re.
Justification!
Capacity Csrtifieatlon:
.~ (~ - ~3 ~-vq
Su rintendent Date
Mombershi Certifi~cJa~ti~on: G
.~ Yl/w~ f~'l3 a I
Superintendent Date
'~y
ry
12
Splebl NOt!(C)e 1. Ftx the Nnetimber I S. 2002 base yc7r the hnanl:a:ceplyd lire suyerinA'ndent-ecnifi~d cupacitia~ ns ~t ofrhe Schcrol 1'acilitia,
Tsxk 1'or::c n'view and 20113 Manner atd ScM>ul Represen(a[ire Tahttieal A<triuny Cuumriela Rc}vrt.. These wpacieics will remain effnti~r unti5
ehangal try U 1 the ScMxd C'IP ur {23 an amrndN ecrsinn of this kmn that is ccrrilicA by the lslX'C.
Section I
Attachment I.B3
(page 3 of 3)
2009-10
ISeho01 Districts (hangs County Schools
PFQ CAPS ear: Novemtxv ] 3, 2009 - Atrncnilxr 13, 2010
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: Novernbcr 13, 2004'
2. \'ovcxttbc[ ISth Palk on a n'itiicecid in 2009. "Iltrnefnze~ mrmbenhip m+ml+crs pmvidvxl shall be Gont the. Friday before.
Justification:
Capacity Certific/altion:
Superintendent Date
Membership Certffication:
-~~ ~~
Superinte ent Date
`~~~
BOCC Chair ate
~D~
!J'~ /~
BCiCC Chair Date
13
SpeWal Note(si: 1. For the ?Vnremb~r 1 S, 2002 base yu`tr the 1>,ian3 accepted site supxintcndrno-c:~atiGal capaciEieS as part of the Scluwl FaciliNCs
Task Fe+rve trview rived 2003 Plannac and S::houl ReprcaetHatiae Tahnical Advtsay Comntittm R 7xm. 'I"heae capteitieS will tcmain cffee-Eive until
changed by (1 }the tictand CIP w (2 i an amrndcd +•casion of this roan that is ccrtiricx! by ills BOCC.
Section I
Attachment I.B.4
(page lof 3)
2009-10
School AP'F4? Capacity, Membership anti Change Request ~ortn
Schoo strict: Chapel Hill-Car"rboro City Schools
APFO CAP ear. November 13, 20D9 - Novemlxv 15, 2010
Capacity and Membership Sabmittal Date: November 13, 2009''
Carrboro 60,83 53 S33 533 533 53 50-
Aiphesus G6,9S2 448 44 448 44 430.
Fstes Hills !56,294 52 527 ,527 527 52 516
Glenwood S0,7G4 423 423 423 423 42 .33
FP Graham 66,689 S3 538 53 538 53 4 .
McDougie 98,000 564 SN 56 564 S64 564
Kashkis 95:729 3B 5 S8 58: 58 54
Scro~rs ; - 90,9811 37 57. S7 57- 57
Scawtll 52.896 466 466 4 4 5S
MorriaGrove 9D,221 S8_ 98, S9
Total 729,362 4,65. 4,659 ' 4;65 3,244 - 'S,Z44 - 5,2,1
Spetelal noteltijt 1. FM fhr Nmemyer ] s_ ;OOZ ba>e year the Maud acupted 1110 SUperh+lenC~m1-crrti5 W Capacities m pen of the SclwDl Facilities
Task Force nriew and 2003 Planners and Sc;Mwl Repnsentatrv~c Technical Advisory Cunanittec Rrpcxt. '1'hrse capa:,itics will n:main clTeUivr wKil
changed try t l 1 the Sch~xrl CIP or {2) an amrntkd rrn-ilm of this fornl that is cMifierF by dre BgCC.
2. Vovcnlhcr l;rh fells nn a rrrdend in ?009. 'F'hereforc• memhership numtlas ptmidcd shill hr fnnn the Friday ycforc.
JuatMieation:
Capacity CertiticaGom
Superintendent Date
Mo/mjb-a~rsthip Certification:
ice(//~L~ ~~ f ~ ~!~'
Superintendent Date
F~
14
Section I
Attachment I.B.4
(page 2 of 3)
2009-10
School APF® Capacity, Nlenabership and Change Request dorm
Schoo st ct: Chapel !ll -Carrboro Ci(y Schnols
SAPF ears. No••em r 13, 2009 - November I5, 2D10
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: t`ovefnberl3, 2009
Capacity Certification:
Superintendent Date
e
'~•.
BOCC Chair Date
Memberahip Certification:
~/~6-G 9
Su erintendent Date
r~./d~a
BOCC Chair Da
1$
'Task £u:cx rt.iew• end 2(103 tManne=s anJ SchoN R.Tresrnlatie~e Technical Advivny Cnmmiuee Acpon. l"hem wgacitizs will remain cl:'nxivz until
chengtJ ly (1) tlu tichnol C1Y u; l2} an amnul.d rcrsion of Lois Co;m that k ccnitinJ b. lhz 6lzC'G.
2. Novemhcr ISth talk on a ~~•ntkend in 211(}V. '1'hcn:l'urn. mimlXrship num}k;n pruvidnJ 9ha7t M ffom the 1-tiJay befars.
Justlflcatlon:
Section I
Attachment I.B.4
(page 3 of 3)
2009-IO
c 1 Dist et: Chapel ilill-Carrburo City Schools
O S ear: November !3, 2009 -?\ovember 15, 010
Capacity and Membership Submittal DatQ: November 13, 2U09
Cliapcl Hill 241,111 1,520 hit 1.52 1,32 1,520 161
GastChapel_Hill 259,84) 1515 1515 l51 151.5 1,515 1,49!
Cttrrboro 148,023 0 U ti0 SUO 800 76:
TOIAI 649,003 - 3,03 3,035 3.$3. 3,83. - ' - 3' 3:40+
Spoelal Noto{Sr 1. for the NovcmMr l5, 2C02 base yea the baud xccl+ccd the super intrM.-nteenified ca}wcitics us pu; oitheki4m7 Faer3it:e;
'l"ask ~acc rcvicw ar.J ?003 Ph+nncrs etrc! School Rq:rearntatire TeFlmital Adviwry Commit;cc RCporl. Ti:tse calwcities will rwnain c;fali+e un,i3
chmgcd hr (l } 4:e Srix+N ('tP tx (?y an:enended vcrsirn of )his fMm chat is uertifitd by the Ft()CC.
2. Neearber luh raltc nn a axekend in 4`(Ny4. "Iherefore~. numhcr.J+ip numbers }M'M~idcd sheN to ;zom the £riCay before.
Justification:
Capacity Certification:
i~d~~ t
Superintendent Date Date
BOCC C it
Membership Certification: ///
y~
%y~i>i~ lI ~~ ~ r •c
I'1 ~f ~
Superintendent Date BOC Chair Date
16
Section I
C. Membership Date
1.
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -Change can be effectuated only by
amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all School APFO partners.
The Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC) may advise if a change in date would improve the reporting or timeliness
of the report.
2.
Definition -The date at which student membership is calculated. This date is updated
each year and also serves as the basis for projections along with the history from previous
years. "For purposes of this Memorandum, the term "school membership" means the
actual number of students attending school as of November 15 of each year. The figure
is determined by considering the number of students enrolled (i.e. registered, regardless
of whether a student is no longer attending school) and making adjustments for
withdrawals, dropouts, deaths, retentions and promotions. Students who are merely
absent from class on the date membership is determined as a result of sickness or some
other temporary reason are included in school membership figures. Each year the School
District shall transmit its school membership to the parties to this agreement no later than
five (5) school days after November 15.
3
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
November 15
of each year
4. 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'" 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
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.
3. Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Not Applicable
4.
5.
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. Anew Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior
to June 30, 2010.
Recommendation -
Not subject to staff review
18
Section II
B. Student Projection Methodology
1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -This section is reviewed and recommended
by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC) to the BOCC for change, if necessary.
2. Definition -The method(s) by which student memberships are calculated for future
years to determine total membership at each combined school level (Elementary, Middle
and High School) which take into consideration historical membership totals at a specific
time (November 15) in the school year. These methods are also known as `models'.
3. Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Presently, the average of five models are being used: namely 3, 5, and 10 year
history/cohort survival methods, Orange County Planning Department Linear
Wave and Tischler Linear methods. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of
each model.
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Performance of the models is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its
prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the
annual Capital Investment Plan (CIP) updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and
construction. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment II.B.3 shows
the performance of the models for the 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
O
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS
PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIP71pN 1 CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS
Tschler Linear (t)CS 6
CHCCS) MMfrematlcal farrrsrk: shaigM line projection tHl~'b)'X)+~
yeprojeded population; o=tttisbripl annual ohenge; b=bese year; x= projection years Htstorreal growth is roflacted in projected growth
BYM + (BYI+ 6(nJ} ~ EYM EYM • Y~SL = EYIWSL Base year growth reflects 10-year average;
OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear vvWr percent variation among school BYM ~01~ ~ "' membershp, BYlryear student membership inaement
%SL=96 oftotal
base; EYMesnsuing year membership; n=projection year inasam in BYI of 5 every other year re0ec~
(OCS)
bvels; reflects progressing waves ~ rnarreership ,
~~ ~ sdroo! bval (.e. elementary, middle, hph); EYNYSL=rnsuingyaar increases 4r houslc rowth; reflects ~ildout
g g
oonstraufis
rrbrrdrer by sctrod bvel
BYM + (BYI' i5(n)) = EYM EYM' °k3L = EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10•year average;
OCP Linear Wave Mathematical Gnear mth perwnt variation among school BYM= base year 2nd mordh membership: BYl~ear student rtambsrship inaement
9'eS1=96 of fatal
base; EYMxnwing year membershp; n-prof action year dscre~e In BYi of 15 ungl srdvwl year 2010-2011
(CHCCS) levels; eflects progressing waves d membershp~ ,
membership per adwol bvel (ie, elarw,tary, middle, hiph); EYSNSL~nsuhg year reflects decreases In houakrg growth; rdlects
buildout eonstrakrts
member by school kve!
MMherratlnl fonrvda that composes the average net
advancement rata overtha prevlcus 3 years for each a =~E t3„ f g,.~)19 Asaurrros a 1'b annual growth rate for the
&Year CohoR (OCS 8 grade level and tlan uses each rate to calculate n~ k'utdergarten grade bveY, assumes the same
CHCCS) Projected membershp by school level; an asaraned b=9 ~ (a) percentage of aludems in each grade level
kindergarten membership a based on birth records K=kindergarten membership; rr`givan school year; G--given grsdes greduate to ~ need level each year
andlor historioal grmtiih rates membership(dher than Idndargarsen); g= pevious grade's membershb; e~ver~e
advancement rate; b=projected membership
Mathemetlcel tonnrde that eomput~ the average ~1
adverrcemerd rate over the previous 5 years for each a ~E G„ t gw,) f 6 Assumes a 1°.fr annual grrnxth rate toc the
5 year Cohotl (OCS & grede bvN and then uses each rata to calculate rr-ti kindergarten grade bveh, assumes the same
CHCCS) projected rnarrbership by school level; an aasurrred b-g ,M (a} percentage of aNdents in each grade level
kindergarten membership is based on birth reoords K~rindergarten membership; n~ivan sdtod year, G'~jiven grades graduate to the ne>d oval each year
anrUor hfstodrdl growth rates membarship(otharthan kbrderpersen): g= previous grsde'a membership; eeevsraga
advanodront rata; b=projected membership
Kn ° k err • (k.t ~ 0.0i)
Mathenutid fomada that oomprass the aversga r>=1
advanoenrM tale avsrlM previous 10 years for each a ^(L G„ f g,.~) ! 10 Assumes a 1°,6 annual gmvth rase for the
10 year Cohort (OCS 8 grade level and then uses eactr rase tb calcrdase ns10 kindergarsm grade level; assumes the same
CHCCS) projected membership by school lerel• an assumed ~9 Mr (s) ' pereerdage of atudards fn each grade bvel
kkdergarten membaaddp lc based on biM rerords K=kndergartan membarshlp; negiven school year, C#~givan grades 9radrade to the need level earn year
anNwtuetorieal growth rates memberahip(otherOrar kindmgarten); ge prevous grades membersh4; ems-average
edvancarard rate; b-projsdad membership
m
n
o'
K
."'S'
i--+
Section II
Attachment II.B.2
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2008-2009 School Year (November 14, 2008)
lementar 11/15/07
Actual
2007-08
3158 2008 Report
Projection for
2008-09
11/14/08
Actual 2008-09
3165
Change between actual
Nov 2007- Nov 2008
+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 Pro'ection 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 Pro'ection is
T 7132 H124
OCP 7146 H138
10C 7020 H12
5C 7062 H54
3C 7070 H62
AVG 7086 H78
n means n~gn L means Low
21
y i
r
Attachment II.B.2
(page 2 of 4)
Section II
Orange County 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 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
t
a ~
Section II
Attachment II.B.2
(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
Elementar 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
Elementar 5173 5302
Middle 2622 2697
Hi h 3635 3630
11430 11629 +199
Model Projection is
T 11722 H93
OCP 11685 H56
10C 11743 H114
5C 11655 H26
3C 11674 H45
AVG 11696 H67
H means High
L means Low
23
r
Section II
Attachment II.B.2
(page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill/Carrboro 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
e
Section II
Attachment II.B.3
Orange County School District (page 1 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
Elementar 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
Elementar 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
i
Attachment 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
Section II
Attaclunent II.B.3
(page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill/Carrboro 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
Elementar 5302 5219 83
Model Projection is
T 5380 H161
OCP 5400 H181
10C 5466 H247
5C 5392 H173
3C 5390 H 171
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
Mode{ Projection is
T 3780 H174
OCP 3739 H133
10C 3664 H58
5C 3638 H32
3C 3663 H57
AVG 3697 H9i
Totals 11 /13/2009
Elementar 5302 5219
Middle 2697 2708
Hi h 3630 3606
11629 11533 96
Model Projection is
T 11887 H354
OCP 11869 H336
10C i 1926 H393
5C 11809 H276
3C 11812 H279
AVG 11861 H328
H means High
L means Low
27
, ~ R
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 f=indin4s
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
`TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
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. Student Projections
1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for annual report certifications.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC
prior to certification.
2. Definition -The result of the average of the five student projection models represented
by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level (Elementary, Middle, and
High) for each school district (Chapel HilUCarrboro School District and Orange County
School District).
3. Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.4
4
Standard for:
Orange County School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.3
Analysis of Existing Conditions
The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued
growth in both systems. Variability by school level and between the School Districts is
also noted. Year-by-year percent growth is shown on the attached table as well as the
projected LOS. The projections models were updated using current (November 15)
memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter.
29
Section II
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Elementary
The previous year (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 unti12003, 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
R
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
r s
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 typical 52 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 ZO10-11 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
OCS Student Projectlona ~+~NI
Elemema
r
mooot
mo
moxm
moa9s
mm-0T mm
mmm
mn-to
mlatt
m1f-1z
mt:-v
mu-u
muu
mlau
m/an
mn-fe
muv
mfe-m
r
a.
A
I som zen zm1 z aota aeoe amz at6e aces azn
We
r 99m 3100 3180 a6m 3691 861 TO amt 3n2 9994
TYUder 8 991T aaap a1Ba a/68 86n 3667 9000 8e81 9T1
~ 991] 860 9mT 3 a318 91m 3161 a1m 3 6m
10 ar CUWI 3 azm 999 a 8mi Im 9K1 abm a6n 9bm
BY 8 8Tn a 1 88m a 1 9HB IN 9616 866a 5m
BYa r(BiavAh
__ .,..
~
9{m 8 em ] 9 a eM eM 1
•t p 9m ]m 1 f
011 n 1 n n 11 1 1118 1L em a Sete JAB a em 1
1 t.wa
lentl Ayer lAB e a 1 18 1 f0 t Om 110 ma aN 1m n eT1 eee 110 aM Lt m1 210
-Ye4 agM,1a n.6% m.T% T6. n.1% m.0% TaT% m.9% m, eB.p%
-K L.w1aB.Mw Be.i% m.6% m.B% n.3% 82.8% 81.6% 86.0% n.ox Be.t% m.a%
~mueilW newew alrPeaa~BUerM
OwIUW vwn BeBiu wryoeue Baimb APFO noumlrtlw Lavtl aervla
ry.reuprr.m ryrarnr..l.e.e.uae.Arprr..u. rY.e.o.rwwerm
M coat Wa epmel a Meem xrW.eNearayetlrynyYenena wmlulMnxaw
WroTAa ryvlay tap a aMAenN a-itlr pwrMW brn aNb LL wm W
m NbknprleMronaeUW wenKbtl.wNperMrt6,TW80w alrwMrebpuou%Mnlyw eNOde AOSgWS PUtlb Fe ilW ONwxe. yenpaarw O.~.nbnp4 wnbmw Mwraplr Wltl.Byextlmr+
naW tlr rv)
m Tne TbdYr kf00tl pnlvbu lrw ^w%er Mtlho1• apropatlou br kob CI1ccB W oce. o6gml prgeuwne uea n plr Yore Praleabn rnoetle YquMtl w'lbly Errepoblbn Mawr br CKCC6.
a Amutl prowb rob ralalebe uekq etlutl m%nwetlp brYere ZWD01 weuah zao4m.~w.y«.w memwun4 r>y.r. mtott Bwup~ mt4m
w CWe etru b B~yy Ki • t:m b cabal yeen mm 0yrph mmm. In exrarlu Wm mmeaapl Campore6m Wok ararV remnmirWtlbn, tlreaYVe w 40069008 etlbd 1w vAN w aprtlnp acKxe Ebnwibn n0 ertl ulnm epgovtl kyw I%K:C aw ]00408 MemOrMlp 6 Cegtlry numbyn enl aylwuuan a w 2o0p
6APFOTAC iaparl faeY B, mm. K-3 Wee tan re 1:41 u 8htlee OY poet Bub bWebBye talon
OCS Student ProJectlanalt~
exaam
m00-01
fm mUTd9 mWL1 m mO
tOT mmm 400
eiY 10 m10-11
mt -13
m1P-1e
mte-1/
mi4/6
mlate
m14fi
mtT-f
m14/B
m18m
ea Yur 1601 1 fin tall elt 1 f 6e0 1680 t 09T 1 1 +em
TbtllM 1888 t n8 1 6T 1 TBT 1 B1B 1818 18m 1 n0 1941 1 BTt
~ 1en 1 1T4e 1m6 1mt 1810 1Bee 1881 1888 T041
t t T19
1788 1 T1e
Im t T1
iTBT / ]fifi Tm
m1 Tb
9 1 ]16 1 Tm
1TBT i 918
imT 886
n0
SY rwM TIT 1 TTi 1 TBp 1844 1 BT9 1888 1 et9 + 818 1 nT 1 B9T
BYer hmNe
'
~
~ ~
~
' -
I >NfY+~ni y
~ f Y ~ 1p 1M t 1 T1u N 1N 1N /u
8
e 9e n 1 1 em ee6 1fia 1 1 a ,. a zee
•
1 t t t + eu ae ae n r e B eu a ae n u m
feTx
Oyr f wo"
MU _. a e: e:. m f 1 eee T of 01 epo m u: 108 aef
a A
tl
-xkeytl ace tax.e% 1a.z% nt. n1, toe. toe.s% n.Bx e% n.9x m.px
A e-%LevMdBrvlce m.0%
_ m.B% 80.8% 88.8% M.9%
.. N.B%
. n.8%
.. n.8%
... 89.z% mA%
. 8 r
~Ytlluioe Mun BbYld euryouu etlbae APFO1aa0nenen6W llvtl aBert
b 641mprWe b mb tlbl tltle rtlMde w %ovlnwr 16, 4WB title a wlrarahip u au%iue b b1 w Babab AOaquw Publb Fealllu aenme..
m ll%Tba1r%a6tl Pleybee lorw'lllreer YWbtl" apreley0ene kr koN CIKCB W OCB. ontlatl prgeNme uue b prior Here pmJuWn nbaw Imba.a w'IMSV Ftlrepatlbn MtlM1' Yr C11LCe.
a Amutl BrBn/h rob Yla+,l,e uekq eta W lrwnMrWp M pen zopool BKrgk mm-1o en1 eyuepe wmkrtlYp W lore ratan ByouBh mlam
OCS Student ProJecdons It1
M n
nemW
f
t
mofm
T59
mnm
me
sot mo
ten
m mm
zo6~
aB
ztzl
zfa
mBTm 4ao
xmt
am
~ zxu
to mt4a
zzr
4
ma-1s
zzm
xn
a-u
Sze
raters
zam
sou-fe
zlzl
rate-u
zIn
Tof4n
zsn
ran-fe
z
mf4u
sal
mfam
zeza
~ zn1
ztn z to
zr zmt
zmz
z z
4471 /m
zzm z6m zmT
zam zmz
z n ze91
z99z
to verobwm 2 tT 2266 T 2 4bm 21m 4608
e Yer Orablh 223e T3eB In6 4191 21m 2198 46m 2811 2618 TBW
3Yw tarwN
~ ~.. ~ ._ ;...
.... ....._ -. ~,.
lp + e r 4 u y. ,.., a
B ~ em ~:.
_.
4 bee
~w em e9 of e Y t aT +w +ee fa
- a ... t
+ae m e ne Tro u 1 11 ~ Te 1 eat : 1 n1 a zn1 1
1f t.ytla
Aam oyr nox k.0e az e1a 1a bn m m eTT e1o sm ue n1 -: eee am _... me 9+e e1
A<wrl-xleytla .t% tt6.bK nsx I.B% e.Tx e1.1x mrA ee.Bx .e% m.Tx
0
%
A -%l.wNaerylm n./% BB.p% me% 2.6% 83.8% B1.B% D].6% BB.A6 m.b% m.9
meenq lyhepserrilAm Ybm TOm OMMktlN M1W tlMM MWeeMeetlnde APFO rswnruMe6lwa a8MMu
~~
`.^I
\~"
N h b kriPortenl b rbb IN1 eie nAWe w Tkwrrar 16, 4oDp Ben amem6ertlllp p ou8rue b pw Bawd. AW Web PukBc FeW We QMrm.
w Ths TbtlYar BAO1e1 Proylln exw Llyur MtlkaC'apn}olbne it ken CHCCe ela OCe. OriBbel pl0ledbu ueee b Ater Yler pro}dbn mo0tle Indrle8 w'bneer r~ar.pdtlbn Mewl b CI+CCe.
% Annutl porlK ub celapebe ueklp eautl numOenlYp ler yeen 100601 eyoyph IIW410 rd oy«pe mwlBtlaMp bryeen m1a11 Byaeh mIB-m
CHCCS Student Projections u~pi
vWnwry~q RlwB, W~awavrbw vs l]I~ir Jisbd9~W1 ~Y~tlN MIm 0.M 20De&MaCWEaNbnWM~lv4r~v~BCn, MeeYVa NS200&xWBWno1WrWNhapvipaCNCCB EWnuJeryetOWupon Vpa'+IMMBOCCaew 2006W wrnMMptCVV]NnuMVrWwNAwlbnalMZWB65PFOTAC
CHCCS Student Projections iti
^~~ -01 m Blm »oean -0a »o oaB 2ro4fo axle-n n na: n u-o Iola-u :BU-1s »»aa m] a.n »1]
u
nwaw
zme
261o z t 12
zeeo
z zroz zexz
9ro7 xiro - n a» » a.»
z l 2eu zeal xuo x s son aD» ala s W a
to rBrr z »a t 1] z zB1s BB3 aofo obe arol 91w
6YVr
z»]
z o
xBla
area
aloe
9118
a e
s a
ami
a x
3Yev OraxA z ]1e ziao z z aoa3 xBn aa1 afro n aala
t»x 2)58 a]» 2 tBSx xB ]pap 2 91Bx a1B]
... ,.
.
. y-
~.. ~ 1 ~
%
9 ,
.
e ze mow
1
~t
Y
~
-~n
~,
r
1 aawle.
a
a 9 t w
] ]e»
', 1w a/ ~
a MwNM1 2aWINtlP Ov9r 101%LOe
»
I» p1 .. ui
1»
tai M n area on n
-% of _.
-%L8W a6vvk8
110.a%
ro./% 81A% Bt.O%
80.1% I1]
W.w/ H.a% 82.9% M a 1 20
86.0% 0.5.1% a fa 100 ]] a6 n ~
88.6% nA% 1ro.a% 103.8% 106.8% 106.8% 10i.)% 110.0% 1113% 116.1%
~Narwr wlmn aaBa aDmrlla. Bmbtl1 irFO nrommmtlltl 1avN a 6.D1m
19111r NmwloMb nos M80~ nflv0 M HOinnibar 16.x008 a.bamrmBNalp» ouNrtlN M em 6amae MbOUar Po88c Feo0tlw 0lanrnm. 0 tlosr ml btluA CHCCfi Ibdrnro etlenan8 am Hmpaa etlw01.
v TMibtlder Yoea galbr ror Ne •I.01W waheC a BroJeetlene ror aon CHCC6ntl OC6. 08p6m1 peen wW In gbryln garabn motor btlu8e08m lame EMnpoYtlm MatlmC MCHCCB.
A MNW VuuN 1W ultul9bE mBm aolurl IMnNVtl2p br Mve a0ro01 tlrwyi x0041DW 2'ivaW mmD0mr100l0ryrne n10.11 tl0^0Bh MI10.»
CHCCS Student ProJectlona ~fi
2ro1-09 300t-0f fOn-01 1001-06 28 08-0) ]801-0/ n01-08 280-f0 9010.11 201 1-19 2012-n 281111 901416 » /6
18 28
T8aY1r
2818 2Ae]
182
2122
a 11
810
a 95
8 - 1411 30n-1B n141 2WB-90
~ aen ai aen 9ero aeao Irol ltot In 1xa Iola
tOYwr Gmxlh ]0/ a]bB aBn a ]BIB Oro 10ro 1190 1180 1 81
b Yev Girth ] 0 2)18 8]M 2852 aB6] 18)1 1 I9 IaB9 1
9Yw rrIMBI 38n ]808 a1)b 811 9888 8 10& I1W 1182 2)B
V .. ,. _.. 9 9)02 918] )Be 2868 2818 ro 1019 1110
-f00%leYaaevvM /W I
a 2aDwnw - o1v ~ we
uB 2
In.
. an
m
1n ]W
2 ,i
»5
: 2 ]e 2 e M a ]
11 Iswa ~
~
8 9 a 1w ) a:
a 11.Bw.Da o1.r... 91. 9n.
2n
m
u
1n
1
6u 8 8 HB
- f H 8 + a 8 1
-%lewaswro.
. x 9.YxaemYro.
van
ez3x B7.e%
Iw3x
Iro.i% 11a.e%
11e.8%
I1 .o%
w.ex eeB
a.]% eo a)
e% os n ]e1 ae 1:1 » 1x a
88.6% W.I% WB% 1002% 1ro.B% t .a% 1ro,p% tro 9% ire ]% 112
/%
.
ObamwamD ewwm.F.rr1e eaw61r,5PFO mmDaDr6tlrtl le]+I a Bmvb
10 e b Nmvbrtlb IIOY MNro 19brL M NovrnNV16, xOrooLb anlvMYa118 x OlYlletl N 1Nem Btlmar eMgnb NNIO FinaiW1 Cetltirra. etlml nolNtluW CHCC810deW eWMgM NOr88a 8aioar
m The T%tl0v 40011 geri01a 1ofM •lbwnr W0m]Y a w9N9tlanr br OON CHCCe rM GCB. Gtltlnrl nDlmemr u11e b Btlrrrr9m polxem mo0Y1 Ntlutlrtltlr YOmv 8+6mBaaoD w1uvT bCNCC6.
w Frrbw BioiMlaluloeeled DrBe BOba nvmarWp rorlw x00001 e08up8xOD0.108n88wp1 mmMxNlp/vyun 10/0118i01DBh 401030
C '~
\/
\A1-
- 1
win. iim2mr wotla em1'w11 roan-9BmIrel.NDtl• aorgwuoDr rore6NCI1cc6.Dtloce. o,IBN+wekaensur.tl N wlwrws welram moaw Nawea w •un..r F~Drwaum wemr Nrclace.
w timm Bbm m Wa1ar0 Dwq amw mN1Ym912vrvYemr 100D01 tlev~2ro0.1o W 6vm9Be mmba2wP rorr.m.zololl Nmighnl0.»
c~
W
CHCCS student Projections in w
a.wxwrabm.ar a.n,act.are..n.fxmoeerdrr.m.+c.w«.ana»swlm..aw~nuzFw..awr;. nm..ra.xawcnccs.xd.w m'nrw a. na.w+n..im.
wn.rsa+.amwwa«<w a.na•u.c aar.r dp.a..llu,b W mncr,ccs.n acs. oapd cnc+a,.rnwommw.awaawrrrwme.,w.er.urex+wxa w+er W u:ccs.
°' N.p/pwM,r~o/unFGwq sLalrmEbtly fa Iaa.3D00-0I t.uga ADlNnswq.rn.lsYy bNn2YP,p Saega A10.1p
CNCCS Stutlent ProleGior~s t'i
o'
N
O
~ ~
R
b
n
lV
pwwN,m bm. M x.. edru.ns Nedrlw,i. XAS Yad~emwwanp M aY W swam Aanurc Pnk Fccm OrOUmw. it au.ma'dria aIM;CS.ugcu Mu+'p MHapw SWd.
:tiiitli.rlinn iwtl.. prab•Wrc YMni"dpycbr.lwad. LeiCFikaap Oyax fACmwrrrf npriw Y.w. Pgcmr meMabWwsEMR.v.r ENrcoldm MeeaafW aw:afi.
"' MuYpMrrw <.b.b.0 mp cW mmOS4yfw ts.Sp6p1..w9a 2W W9NSw.p. mfn6wMW ,wy~.AW w wwgn ~Dio-10
n..wm.un~e..we.rslcb..H>,.rv,e.awoaram..o.xa+.wa.eo;nWb•sam.h+.w.rvrc.c F,rxr..asao. ua..ra..ce.cHCCa.nmr.r.era pa«a.aaa warm
wralbixrrrm.lww«..rwn.iar...bw.rdam..+m•aan nxlcs.ra as anwrbr~+ar.w.a.rvw sr.or.s+ermaew'cwarw~... Fxr.m.~mawm•wcwccs.
'r.mwpwrorr~e.iw.rvewq..urmMMbb wa.1D0p0, arlw3l uanw.a..oarma.rnprwwa. moa,p xawm'amaw
nr tlc. rrs4pW I(J.IAb.bM M]Qlt Mega IDDi-0S. ur swJwurM]WSSCMn Cdtmmnwm a,wwb.com.wnpemd mvpd GNLGS Ewnwlwy Nlpb mrm W IDDBDa.ICJ Gb..a.lw rrotl pia plJ&OaMwpn IDtt.la r.n.y 12t rdecu.tltry p.uSwbvard'7eum.
CHCCS Student Projections "~
ocs s~a.fle r~.ll.,1;;~
_ s-t~fe~!s~~.^.~ .... ^Yflts~ra~s~E-~a!~~ratrEl~f~~~f
i ~
sr
srn~mn~s°~~~~[~.
~~~~ ss~m
-
~
.~ ..,.
N °°C': "'h .L3F'.-. ~ - - - ?°i4 :'91~:i2"a'T."!6urci°9r:,dT•ri:9dC+w."T` at'~"r9 671~~19;IR1
'1~'7®iC3~?!'1~-"7~f•'I~~f1~T?7~7~.!'1~7 .. ~7~!'!1 _ ~!:'.II~T'_~~1'11
~.aza:~,"!A
~'^I
..._ ... ..... ~S~~R*1~1F'r[!~:`1!!A~1~1 ~~!~11~f"°I~!'"1 _ _ ~'A~"1 - ~'3~:~
~
~ ~!'r
!~:'1!1!:4~R!l1R1lY!11lfS1
:R
,.1~T7~7~r7~T~'1
1~7
1!'SE1~'L^l„~~
T~'. ~41
.
~
r
1~''Q7~~3~i1'
~
ID
3
ID~~' i~
.
.
~C
~:
.
""a °iL o.Z'"?. yW~E~e'S'l.s . :": ,)"`1F :t`IET"1 ` _, W°"~.
I.rayyFria MVMM•ipw •Y.IwY IMflIYM[Iw.Ml;wa/:..i.4lwifawaw.plMCi WSrpWwaw
mTwly.y Y~wlw/.[hn.'NMYYIMfMMgtbwYM.(nJGanIX.1 YVYY/4riw[[MfY wnlgwYw.YOFY Ye[lelwLr ViN[in M/W 4GiQ
M..WAH.sws4a.Y•I[YYra/rr.wM41.w/.flYrO'.YM )OHI:/r YrrN lwMNaf W Ywa SYLII«eglA4L1
W
NLW.Wr64wnJ. rTf YrW AlfbMfryYmflO1 b/[s!F!arFlptf YUq Oi/nYb MW[Oy 1YfY11\YMtYN]JiF:JMlsMI1+M[tw[{wYyIGKF6EYw•YIIIt. [.l [.wYwwltlrirYeN WIF.alplAwsM.
OCS 84WM1 tlt
•^M1[iwhM•hl.••M4141.•rvW'YMMYYYWCN'~CLN OfF il/~YIMM/.w1[•svMPW[w ws. w•Y StYWLtM/Y>•YrKfVglOiA
~.YVM m•Ya`M•YN{YVFFnwaYl-Y•wniN~Ol FY[ flM fl Ww.ynr[MUY IwYKYHI Wh~.fNHL
his $(Ya111 MOjYCtl011Y 1Y•
mLWTa[wKh/rMYM1'l/rrY.YY/sVUlwban G¢yrIC4. hq.+Y N/Y~wrn MwY[w[Yywls wM.aa~Fnl.9.•W f!/YN.Y1•MRnO• W 4LL1.
HeMwwlt•h:iMaMn.Y rfAMfN14•MlKC01 RM•bt0'ON MW FnlwMi W n. qt[ •.l lµifl'~ia
~.
0
ti
I1
w
I
0 ~
v ~
r*
H
H
W
/Y/ywacC r/aMMIVrwY~wwriw ~A flOYrrw.reonswsurx[1hGNi+1w./~Mb+r~w4s..a.
CHCCS 9tadml PrnjpYbro mw
a]Ym
a»2
d :m». n!•H n
"°"` 1 nan• mwv na
w
sns
[ua sa] aas em
Yad um . ~ 1 ! In
frnn ...... _ s K, stn
~ na lN.
~
nr«cnls •n
axl• s
.. eis. sns ea`~'r_ .
Si ,
60Sa n
eH]
r. a a ~ S ~
.,9Y4CM YM ~ M. .M eV
~[ S
~ JM aal
f
S fns ISS-
' r - .1i ~4. i.
! J _~'O7Z
-
NWUR ~. s.. t I.i.
•-KL4.IMnsY. S2X •MN tl)Mi, q]a df M.Y .n. 'n „1%~ NW. n ~ N
nmi a
nne•.
____.. __..~r.n.w ~ .- w:si~YLU.r..-aa)s.elnn.rrr.nc [.-.w.rl..~w,. r.o..r...
~F;::6'n«..,,n iido-..;_ .-_--~ ~ •y..,.,uxw..w.an...,. s...-n<.~,~.......r^.ww..r.
iw.w.m.nw.,..nPrlw.aq'W w[dnrerMWg9.rrw [.~~~..rawniywp.MVlrr.,r.rerrr.r.M~i.~rrr4Yer ~~p wxJwlnwlrtN.rro
II •.Ygwlb+aa NY•9w rJwU2waq.rnnl47109JpMrw.sgy YNY.[n4 ti4m[a al.e>/.rµ4, r..4.Owrr [en.n.rdbU<Lf gNYY.YMapYwnnrri/grt
^• u.rr.vbrr2es/.N.. an.zY.gnu/e•amprgY. wwnuL=rr[xt. 4brrv./er...N [wr).nmerwr.we.s4mJn ,:»w 2oY.9]4 w.Lrr<I.w.
'^ M+.e YVx,nhaR[.MwesArnnMVli-Oy.[u7>pNV/.r4n->Ne~YN r'+Arw.YVaY4r mn aW rrE•rs[,4azna9
^CYr..w IYYNYYA•I ilwgwmnm96 Yw. :9NG NrNtld/rwald)S2rv.C.Y[[rrw M'aq G4.u.M.w>Y[w JwJl[nE%1W..W M4 wv.MY4eaquiC9 rnwryYr0.L:.Y.u[m[n 1:2SrerW 4rrnr.vnkpe>.. a,q.
~H(ic$ $t11dOM PfOjxNM4 W
•r•• a, awdi !two u masse !mrr.n as sa].,
[ nnen .mrsm
Yu °'"_~.. 2..a. aN•^ a :n >w! >en Na'
f R1 ~ >Aei
Yf•~ ~-),br
>
:,a I IR
I ) 'q
JM
qra OV.f) Rd
r ~
> ra ] a
e.n» zur - - x:rr
-
.
.
.. ~. .~ -. ~ ~
~, anti
.•4:.w.rBwva ~ ,..14.1 M.4 f. [% R.% is. 6,v /ela ai:i d4\
%l.rr.rWK• .mA• ry. ,rasa
egr.a.+nenn rarq.ax].orq•M•e[au..naw rrrgfwNd
(./.~
J
9 [ rvrwl4.a%[`LY.44[4 Narw.w'i 1e4)[nrrwnw+inwbnntr>e6tlwM nkMA.~K i.wX.4xarY. [MUnsYa[p UrLLi J4YrY/Yr.+i lNheMe4'.Mw.
'^llrt'YMYYaMevWr]4Petlrs NrlWblpq[Ng4wwrw.U•LLi r[eC•+- Opepn.lw].W..1.4 W.pNfWrnrw.Ya.MM4M+r LrnM.M.Y.ew.'IS CM:C9
Menn[a.rbA.rMweYMn«[w/r W MwtdmN n>qa tlOSlo sd.re'4rnneeN9!bxwa mrannMtPmreQ4
C.~i$ $OIfIOaK PaoJtlGQG76 0)
i~ "~ ~n~sa~nn~Et~t~ r+~a~!t>lran~~s~r~~?sa
.:: _._ . .,~
~iit ~ti r~s* ~ ma
~:-~1n !~7~ ~ ~ ~ ii~e~s
~ ~n~~
r
-
~
~
~
° ~n~n~.*~ ~~a~ent~t~
.,~.a~*~~*e!!r,---r~r4--n!-tr~-~~ orrt~l ~.~o
r
~~®i1711~'F3~I'~ID
ir•j^!,^wi_,._I._~~ `: ,.. ..,-,- ... .. Y_ ~'f"~I ...:k~~. ..'a _...-T'~'. ~.....r?'._„ ;'.Y~"? r. .. r.,, _Y. ..:etw >
a[eNaMn.dMVlw.uwyim/.AKO n#nnHN:d,.Me.rw
Il.frwwlYW.NrµnM4i.atw..n re sProan Mrv[9rnnnaVxNnY/1Yi44'[[dq.rtP.N [.y.ar Ln},r4[ 1:1v. rN [bM.CXLUtnMa Y[Mry 2.'IwsY'Yev.t
twN,wanmati,w ivlrNO[y.2ra..wNC COxswx.:ro.rwn.rrr..wnr•4n«[.ww,mN+..iwwtNVUnnwr4awvo-cu.
Is.ns<4s. ns..o/rr..a4a.rr..4w~Y.xr.sm:s rwrlmror. el.4N..rgarrw.w n..7rd~lr enrr sis4»
m
~..
0
ti
4~
W
I--.
~ ~
M
H
H
n
~.
~_ ~ n
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 may be positive or negative but rather the average of the annual
growth rates over ten (10) years.
3. Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment II.D.2
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis of Existing Conditions
The membership figures and percentage The membership figures and percentage growth
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:
Yeaz Projection
Made:
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 Yeaz Projection
Made:
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Elementaz 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% l.o% 1.38%
Recommendation
Use statistics as noted.
Recommendation
Use statistics as noted
38
Orange County Student Projections
Elementary
2008-2009
Members ' 3165 3 11 3 234 3 87 3337 3,360 3398 3436 3 479 3,514 3 553
Ave % Increase 1.4586 0.72% 1.64% 1.52% 0.B9% 1.13% 1.12% 1.25% 1.01 % 1.11 %
w
Middle
Memb 1601 1628 1679 1696 1708 1723 1754 1788 1795 1820 1,847
A % Increase 1.69% 3.13% 1.01 % 0.71 % 0.88% 1.8% 1.94% 0.39% 1.39% 1.48%
High School
Memb 2 42 2 210 2 208 2238 2 318 2 344 2,368 2,422 2,435 2,474
Av % Increase -1.43% -0.09% 1.36% 0.71 % 2.84% 1.12% .94% 2.37% 0.54% 1.6%
Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections
Elementary
MembeiB ' 5,302 5,406 5,533 5,623 5,703 5,755 5,848 5,921 5,994 6,073 6,153
Avera e%Increase 1.9B% 2.35% 1.63% 1.42% .9i% 1.62% 1.25% 1.23% 1.32% 1.32%
Middle
Members " 2697 2 758 2826 2885 2960 3 3123 3176 3 19 3 58 3 298
A e % Increase 2.26% 2.47% 2.09% 2.6% 3.34% 2.09% 1.7% 1.35% 121 % 123%
High School
Memb~shi 3830 3697 3,752 3881 3930 4004 4124 4 217 4 323 4436 4 515
A e % Increase 1.85% 1.49% 2.91 % 1.79% 1.88% 3.0% 2.26% 2.51 % 2.81 % 1.78%
Somee: Oraags County Budaat S Model Coayaadoa floor PS1'AC mmube~ m detemoiae averagabased onNowmbar 14.2008 mernEuahry aumbms and hiss
-Range County Phmning and I~peaione Ilepaftrnmt Sxtraetion ofAmual CrowtL Rare P~
co
h
o'
Na
~~
,~
o~
~ ~
M
b
d
2009-2010
c~
o'
~P
O
~y
N
Somcc: S N.odc1 Campih~ina from PSTAC nwndm~ w doleimu~n a~crege based cm ~inen:rer tX, YIi04 ua•mbcrship sumbna and hiuorical data
- Onn&e Coung• Planning s~ Inaln;clions Ckpanme.t ISair: Wins of.4~wre1 Geowili lisle from averages i
~..
O ~
,+
d
N
Orange County Student Projections
Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections
~ ~ ~
Section II
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.
1.
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. It should be noted that housing types have
been disaggregated in the newly adopted Student Generation Rates that go into effect
2.
November 15, 2010. See page 44 for details.
3.
Standard for:
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
See Attachment II.E.1
Orange County School District
See Attachment II.E.1
41
~ ' J
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 1S, 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.
S. Recommendation - No change
Implement the newly adopted Student Generation Rates with the November 1S, 2010
CAPS system update.
42
r
Tischler Student Generation Rates
Oran a Coun Schools
Elementary Middle High All
Grades
Sin le-Famil 0.150 0.075 0.084 0.309
Other 0.084 0.033 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 8c
Associates
a
.'~
C=7
~--.
~0
r7
r.
O~
ti
TischlerBise Student Generation Rates - 2007
.rte
-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
Ail Housing Types 0.149 0.078 0.105 0.332
Orange Counfiy Schools
Elementary Middle High All Grades
Single-Family Detached 0.168 0.090 0.126 0.384
Single-Family Attached / 066
0 022
0 0
034 0
122
Multifamily . . . .
Manufactured Homes 0.096 0.041 0.049 0,186
Ali Housing Types 0.145 0.074 0.102 0.321
Source: School Impact Fees.-Osage County Schools, TischlerSise, December 31, 200?
co
o'
a
~,
m
N
1 i
Section III
III. FLOWCHART OF SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES.
ORDINANCE PROCESS
Abstract: The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance process has two distinct
components:
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Process 1)
Timeframe: In November of each year, Student Membership and Building Capacity is
transmitted from the school districts to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for
consideration and approval and used in the following years CIP (e.g. November 15, 2004
membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June, 2005).
Process Framework
1. SAPFOTAC projects future student membership from historical data, current
membership and hypothetical growth rates from established methodologies.
2. School Districts and BOCC compare projections to existing capacity and
proposed Capital Investment Plan.
3. SAPFOTAC forwards data and projections to all Schools APFO partners.
4. School Districts develop Capital Investment Plan Needs Assessment during this
process
5. The Capital Investment Plan work sessions and Public Hearings are conducted by
the BOCC in the spring of each year.
6. The adoption of CIP that sets forth monies and timeframe for school construction
(future capacity) by BOCC.
45
Section III
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 1-Capital Investment Planning (CIP)
Projection Method
(Historical Membership)
plus Hypothetical Growth Rate
T
CIP
Approval
(Proposed New Construction
i.e. School Capacity
Added by number seats & ear)
Actual Adjustments
(Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year
Membership Projection)
~ ~
E-
CAPS
System2
(Certificate of
Adequate Public
Schools)
~ ~
'Historical 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
a
Y
y t .
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, 151ots 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 1 (for CIP 2009 - 2019)
November 2008 -June 2009 (using 2009 SAPFOTAC Report)
Schools APFO CAP5 Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2009- 2010)
November 2009 -November 2010
48
Section III
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. y
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