HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2005-010 - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) - Approval of Annual CertificationsORANGE COUNTY� Nic
q qi1i
FACILITIES ORDINANCE
PREPARED B STAFF CO'.%'F.N-TTTTEE'* PLAN, N f NIG DJRECTOR-S,
SCROOL REPRFSENTATATES5 TECIT-NTICAL ADN71SORY CO.NBUTTEE
(SAPFOTAC)
(PURSUAINT TO PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF
LT` DERSTANTI)ING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 200-3)
(ORDINANCES, ADOPTTD IN JuLy, 2003)
(BASED ON No E MBER 2004 DATA)
CERTIFIED BY THE B OCC avXXX5 2005
Table of Contents,
P Ag. C
ExecutiveSummary ............,..... ... .................... ....................................
Introduction. .......... ------------ - ------- ............ -------- .......... - ---------- ........
Schools Ad-equate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ............
PlanninLa.z Directors, Sebool Representatives, Technical Advisory
CO mmittee (SAPFOTAC) membm ............ ................ .......... ---1-- ........
1. Base Memorandum of Underst2ndl.ng
A.. Level of Service...., ................ -'-- ............................. ........
B. Building Capacity ................. ........ - ....................................•- ..... 2
4M','Ckment- f B� I, - Orange d fedAprz'130, 2(,02( 207 - BASE)..: ......... .. ...........ti
4�;c:chrveat I.B-1. - Cl. tjwl Hid adjd Cayml.-,ro Schmil Ca.E."wiries dated April 29 2002 (2002- ........ 6,
L33, - Oninge colmin; School (Zlemernlary, Middle & High School; (2(10!`�'p
'-crkwenf: 13A - Owpe.1 Capacay (Eleivenuay., Middle & H,�qh ScAww)
Annxhmen;':
4 Jacks --er L R 6 - Owpel I-Id r7zt-TG Scmil CapacitV fElemelrlary, Middle & High Schao' 10'
C. '-Nfembership Date,........ .... -- .... ................ ...... ...... ............... --21
11. Anna l Update to Schoots Adequate Public 14 acilifies Ordinance Sy-stem
A.. Capital Investmentflan (CIP)........ . . . . .. ................. ......................... -,--22
B. Student Membership Projection 'NfethodolOgy- .............. .......... ........ ... 23
`7T 11 z
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
4:
......... ...... 54
C.
Student Membership Projections ............... ... ... ... ... ... .
A l i d d l e & Hg I S oc. i-� J211
Y. C 1. OP474fo C tJn! Snidenz ( E - T e n z e w a n , fgf
,
went. .11, CC, 2 - Chapel Hill,'Carr1wro Syudr, t E. �naonlruy' Middi" & r'i' i-h Sc i�
.4;
11, C. -3. - Orange cbunroSiu.den: Efonentaiy, Mflddlu & hiigh Scho;-,'j
11. C4. - Ch(doe I ]YOX"Zo-rharo Prqjeaiuns (Elnn en, mvy, A fiddle & Ilip`7 SCA, 0
R '5
g - " .11
'em st, I - pi-�j g , h
':-a wnewt: H� C 5. - Orange Cbi iov ieca'ans (Fleme-Oxhuy, Aliddke & Ph' j, -)c
- ------ -
.0-,�OJ-Q �7
II, C.6 - Chapel, j ' 1�1."' '
7
D.
Student Membership Grovvth Rate ...... -- ....... ....... ......
- ------ �fs
a rhn! en :::R J. -Ora n ge Co., I tj n. & Ch upeTh"Ll f 'arrho -, ro Studo, i i Gro w.1h Ra tes
02arr dwes from 1003 - 2013 ha.�,-d or numbers {20 2) .................. ............... ......
IT D-2. - Orange Count v (It Carnbora Student Growdi Raiey
h - ...... - ....
1 ar., -hites from 2004 -- 2014 based U11 1- znzmlzersh�p numbers (2003) ........
I .....
Ja.t is 11,L):3. - Orange C•unzv & C qp ! il*21-'Canrhnro Sxudeta Grawth Rates
dares from 2005- 70,'5 bused on, I T/ 15'��O' nnev--�ersh�p numUrs (2)04" ................. .......
E.
Student / Housing Generation Rate - . ... ... ... .. .. ... ... ...
.-e-jimerl: If.. E 1. � Chapel ff.i[L-Ca.;-rt5vro S?-:c�Lnr Rates (2201t 227). ............ ------- ......
Iii, RoNvebart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process,
44. Process - Capital Investment Pian ................. .....:...........:............�
111,x.1. Process I Cf�.F;�u4 L'7' ;_rnenf PL?; .. .............................. 6
B. Process - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance;
Certificate ofAdequate Public -Schools (CAPS) System,..... ... ....... ;
U-C Ai wee, i - III B.1. — Process 2 Cerd ate rY �°'A i ,pme FuNic Shools (CUPS)
Allocar .... I ......
IV. Additional Attachments
fivTz Dinvw1ber 14, 27004 ..............................................
2005 SAPFOT.-tC Executive Surnmary
1. BaseMernorandurn of Understandina
A. Level of Service .......................... .................... (-,VO arawgel.. I
Ompel M&Carrhoro
counly
School Dis-irlct a.
SchoolDistrier
Eleinziltary 105. 41
10i%
7 co 7
107%*
I Hog h
03
B. Building Capacity and Meniber-ship...........................(Chats ge) ... ...... P,
7126?
31
Chapel MIWarrbot -o
Orange C41112tv
School Dlstrkt
School Dhqr!rr
i capaedry Increase
Capacity Membership trtcreaKc-
f -am Prior
from Prior
Year
year
y 4695
Ele,mrwar
77f 71,
3 820( 3016
JW
Viddre ?S_.0 i (1 0
466 1593
..... . ..
'�035 -42
3 -2
...
05 7 171
C: i 4-z-m-uix i�s 3820. A I, w�dui,--,Ic! crg ",oii-pleriV9
M? 200 -0 ,
C. Membersbip Date -.Novemher 15, 2004...........
(No Chang-eJ ....... P,-,. 21
II. Annu2l Update to SAPFO System
A'. Capital Investment Phin (CIP) ........ : .................... (Challg,�). P-. 21
B. Student Alenibership Projection Metbodolop, ...... (No Changte).--.P 23
Yht- average of 3, 5. and `O year
2 Anc-ay, pro,'ecnrn,
C. Student Nfernbcrship Projections.... ......................... (Ch 38
5 Year out Snapshot Comparison
(&r-ovv indicates whether ;here was im zrcase or cecrerse, in t,)rOJeC1..on 'oull bzowetn
prior,,,, r and subis.equent year)
1 Chap& IMZ,(-Arrrbvra SLhoal District e Cokoar school'Distriv
D. Student Growth Rate......... .............. v ........... -(Change). .......... 1'* 49
Avera" Annijal Gro«'th Rate over 10 Years
Chapel HilbCarrboro
Orange Cvrrr?V
Sdivol DhNIrkT Sellool District
2003 2004 2003
20►4
. ........... . .... .
Eleyneiftanr- 2.34.4, 1-5A% 1.6S%
Middle 2,63-5/� 1.9�-� C17 9%, 11 1. 5 G
?.SF 4 1,28% i 8.21 ra
E Student / Housing Generation Rate .................... (A'O Chaage) ....... P,-. 52
2002
1 2003 1 2004 i
2002
2003
2004
03
i 66�
7126?
31
1
2954
1 M13, 7
1056 1
1
371. r}
2070 T,
D. Student Growth Rate......... .............. v ........... -(Change). .......... 1'* 49
Avera" Annijal Gro«'th Rate over 10 Years
Chapel HilbCarrboro
Orange Cvrrr?V
Sdivol DhNIrkT Sellool District
2003 2004 2003
20►4
. ........... . .... .
Eleyneiftanr- 2.34.4, 1-5A% 1.6S%
Middle 2,63-5/� 1.9�-� C17 9%, 11 1. 5 G
?.SF 4 1,28% i 8.21 ra
E Student / Housing Generation Rate .................... (A'O Chaage) ....... P,-. 52
(100( 5 '2.xecui,:Ive Surm-nary writinued)
SCHOOL ADEQUtATE PUBLIC FACTLITIES ORDINANCE STATUS
(l aced on future year SLu,_Iellt M ei-nbtrship Projections)
Th fblTowillg nifonnation relates to existir2 school oerti.ficd capacities and is not related to new
It zis la'gon front DPI (Department of Public Instruction) a5ccting elementary schools.
cIL-IpEL jjjLL1C,,jB_RB0R0 SCHOOL DISTRXT
Fllementaz School District
A. Docs not currently exceed 105% LOS standards (current LOS is 95.40/0).
B. De,,-F,;,asc in the increase of the growth rate a, this level over the next 10 years.
C. Chapel F1 T I.,'Carrhoro Elementary Scl.-ook) I "10 should be scheduled for a 2009 -10 open-i n g
lfiddle Scheel, District
A. Does not currently exceed 107%, LOS standards (current LOS is 90. 1%).
B. Decrcasc, in the increase of the go%th rate at des level aver the next 10 years.
C. Chapel Hilb"Carrboro Middle School --'5 would 11.1,ely be projected for 201-3-1-4 versus the
prior year projection of.2009-1 0.
High School District
A, Curi-ent1v exceeds the 110% LOS standard (cum nt LOS is 112.8%), but IN'lemorandum o-f
(-'\40U) suspended the: Cer-Lificaie Adf; =qualc Public Schools (C-ARS)
ad,-quacy test at this level. so CAPS rnay still be issued.
13. Decrease in the hicrease of the growth rate at this tevel over the next 10 years_
C. Chapt-1 ffilVCarrboro, Hiah School E' ) is still needed as soon as possible with current
Cunmft 11c'Llon schedule estimmes at 2006-2007 but, with a likely chwige to 200,17 -2008-
OR�4.'VG' C'O: t YTY SC1100L DISTRICT
Elementary School District
Dees not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (cuTTMI LOS is 19.0%).
B_ Increase IP the increase of the growth rate at this level over the next 10 yea s.
C. Does not affect or prompt CT activity in 10-, m,
Middle School District
A� Presently= at 108,7% LOS which eNceed S 107 % LOS standard but Memorandum of
Understanding (-N-40'U) suspended the C.-rdificzt-, Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
adlcquacy test at this level until Orange County School District (OCSID)NIVieditt School
� - C. I
.,,� Gp,.�,js so C. � S may still be ;ssu d.
B. !,ncrtase in the increase of the gro•th rage �! this level over the next 10 years.
C. OCSD Nfiddle School #3 is still ne,edc-sd zs soon as possIble with coil struction scl�,-Ohlule
es i iniatt--!s at 2006-2007.
High School District
A� Does not currently exceed 1. 10% LOS: (currem LOS is 9 1 .7 %).
B. Necrease in the increase of the gpowth rate w -.1-is lewd over the next 10 years,
C. Docs not affect or prompt GIP amt_1"V'-_Zy -_rn 10-Year tire,- frame.
m
Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
YNTRODUCTION
T-he Schoo I s A dequ ate, Fubllic F a cilitie-, 07d:-naunce, and Its; IN. I eniorandarn of
Und-stand-in-go arre ordinances and agreeinc�ra& Ve-! ?. Si PPOrtill- dOCU.-IIICI'-,tS are
arnt iciparcd' to be d,�,namic to incorporate thc armula>jl - chan, ing condlitions, of mlemlhez-a -hip, CaPaCUY
Ot
=d ud�.mt projections that may affect School Capiud hivest.m.ent Plan (CTP) timing. ThIs
fo-nmaJ annual report will be Forthcoming' to all of "11-he Schools Ad rate Pulblic F,-tcih'ties
Ond'irjan -P.aT,ntrs each year as =v ir, form --tiort is avadlable,
-r 1 rlq� ,eed. s process. of the CaT,' al
.1hus uodaied inforinat'on is -,s-,d in scho-c'is capital i-
PEI'Lln �?rocess 1) and within eT-IeTmer.is of e, Schools Adequate Public Vacili.-Fts
Oniinance C'n-dricatc oCAdoquate Pubfic Sch-vols (CILPS) spreadsheet syst c-s-'s 2
IM (pro L
This, report and any commen-LS from, ilhe Schools Ad . equate Public Facit I
it^e-;; Or
DarIllers v.111 be consqide;z d in the Rr t half of'��ach Nrc�ar by the Board of Cojility C,cm-T-jssi0reT7S
at a re_ slar or special ille-eting T he vanous elemEnts of - Jje report are then "cenlfied- and
L L v colas idered in the process cif the upco= Capital Investrnent Kan. Th-e Ccriificate oE'
Ad,-qua-a,, PUhHe Scbools system Is upda.ed after 'Nlbvtzmber 1-5 when data is ?, c,�-:Vcd �E-,O-m
and capac-ity (i.e. CIP capaci-ty or -p.
oo 1- 5 Ln. c ts k actual membershl
".;nint ac;*,on" capacity changes).
Thl- Schools Adequate Public Facili? .3es Oj-d.mance and . Memorandum of
halve d%man-iic aspects The derivation ofilie baScliine ar ;update to the variLheswifl m
Z
jh� futu,.rc as- a variety of school related issues zz-t En tined by techniQal mid pol,,cv gr
TI-ne pr-innary Eacel of this report inciud-,S "Ine, creax;ori of mathematical projec-,
�y school levels (Elemtnitt4az-v�, Mliddle and High) and by School T)I. ;t
ncts
ChU, pef -Ri I I 'Carrboro and Orange Cc untnv-' 171, is 91"o-mmation is found in Section 11, Sub-s ci.-] Ons
3, C, D, Lod B.
In summary, this report serves as an u-,pdate to, Lhe dyrarnic conditions of school
I- -CCAS future projections- as
F,,, 71. nc 'Mil) School cap ael ty, and h ousing d, cvzjcip ent,whic tff
Cap..,ial Invest-meth uji, g.
It Flat. I
T--erested parties niav make their k-nomm to the Board of Cow ty
prior vlo, their re- view oftlic rtpor-4, ar.,Q. szhool CFP comph'-fion.
N
ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum
of Understanding (Schools APFO'.—N10-LT),
SECTION Id
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Chapel Hillo'Carrboro School District
School APF0
Board or-County Commissioners
C,arrboro Board of Aldermen
Ch-t-apci Hill Town Council
Chapel )41131...'Carrboro School Board
Orange County School District
SchoolAIRF0
Boal--d of County Commissioncrs
H I I
illsborough Town Council
Orange County S ch oo I Board
. LV
P, lanning Directors/School Representatives
Technical Ad-slsary Committee
(aka SAPFOTAQ
Orange County Planning Department
Craig Benedict Planning Director
306-F Revere Road
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC Z7278r
Z5
Town. of Chapel Hill
Roger Waldon..'
' Planning Director
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Hill. *-'-,orth Carolina 27516
Town of Hill. borough
Margaret Muth, Planning Director
Z.4
P.O. Box 429
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Orange County School District
Shirley Carraway'. Superintendent
1-700 E. King, Street
HillsborroUgh, NC 27278
Carrboro Planning Department
Roy Williford, Planning Director
P.O. Box 829
Carrboro, NC 27510
Chapel Mll-Carrboro Scbool District,
Steve Scroggs, Support, Sere= =ices
7-50Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill,, NC 25716
Includes:
SAPFOTAC-,"O.C. Budect Liaison
Donna Dean
208 South Carneron Street
P.Q.'Box 8181
� -
Hillsborotigh NC27278
�5
1. BASE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
A. Level of Service
1. Responsible Enfityfor Suggesting Change - Chat ge cart only lie effectuated by
ainen,ainent to -Meinaiandum of by all School APFO paTtnars-
Deyinhion - Level of Sen4ce (LOS) rnears the amount (level) of students that ca-1- be-
acco-n-,modzted (serviced) at a oeitzin school system -grade group
U-'e" 1--le're)-itany ICN'-el (K-5), Micldlz- U.vcl (6-8), High School Level (9-12)j.
-d for: Srandardfor.
-1 StaffdW
Chapel Hill. Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Flement2n Middle ML�h School Flementary :diddle Ifi-h School
In t5
105% 107% N/A 105% NLX 110%
110% 107%
N,'A - This rneans t1h.e School APFO AdequacN Test has bem- "suspended" accordance will I
ad dendunris to the MernorandUrn Of Uhi-derstanding until proposed capacity is added in thic
s 'fie school level area.
pec,
4. Anakysis of ExLyting, Conditions
Chapel Hill Carrhoro School District
standards are acceptable at this t;M- e.
PI as-' ro-, I- -Chat the High School Adequacy '-St
haas been suspended (i,e., does not appLly) UjItil
ilrie new Hlei Sehool opeiis which is scheduled
10N at which dinc the test lbr the
all
Hiu' L
-i School will be awom tically reimwtd.
5. Recommendation —
Nkt Chang,.e from above standard
A it a lyshv of Existliq Can ditivn s
Oran ,ge County School District
T'he-Sestandard -, are acceptable at this
P]---ise note that the Middle School Adecuacv
test has been -suspended (Le, does not appl-,')
u it the new Middle School opens which is
nni
scheduled for Fall, 2006 at which time tlaetcsi
tree ?diddle School tx'ill tie ac.to -cal"Y
nc h,staicd.
Recommendation-
: o ChwigE from above standard
H
sec,!�f-n f
B. Building Capacity
L Rexpansible- Entityfor Suggesdj��, Change -The Ptanning Directors, School
Rcgresentatives, Technical Advisor Cominnizftee (SAPF0TAQ will rec -ve r.- ui�_,ste
r, ei q, Ali
changes that are CIS related and adopted hi -thc- prior year. CIF' capacity changg s. wifl, be
LTD.- �a7e_d along wiLli actual rriember111110 T: celvecll In Noven-lb-tr of each yc,---.
Othe-, changes will be sent to a `Joix"Jz ActLion Committee' of the BOCC and Boo-rd of
Edncation, as noted in the MOU. %,vao, wili rn-a-k-c rocommendations and �brwzird chain -Tes
(4 --in The specific forins with justification) to Che fiUR Board of County Comjnissioni�rs for
re%�iew and action. These non-C2 clan -g-1-3 vxuld be updated in the upcorrung No tuber
CAPS sys�,cn recalibration aridi,C!Lided in the SAPFOTAC report.
2. Di-y7thition- "For purposes of&us NIc-mnorandum, "building capacity" wi .1 b d
by ref6rence to State gnfideliMes and the School District guidelines (consisrcnm wizh, Cu?
School Constiuction Guidellne-s-!policits dcvcIc)-Lcd bythe School Di -strict and 0fe
0.f,countv Colymlissioners) ani will be detern-nined by ajoint action of the Sch�x-,T Boa
I - MI:
sand ih-- Orange County Bovril of Colun-.ussitiers. As used herein the le- nn "hull, nog
capacitN," refers to permanent buildings_ Nfab-Ile classrooms and other temporary Stuckvt
of ht coumtd in
detr.-T-rnining the school districts buillding capacity
Standardfor:
Chapel Hill. Carrbolro School District Orange iCounty School DksLriCt
Thl• on' ezr_rz a I ce -tLi fi ed capacity for each of i1he
�chac]s was certified by the respective
and. 171corliarated M the
s.t'- -z a.ion of the CAPS system (Chapel- Hi
C�7,bloro School District April 29, 2002 -
Bas,e ) (Sc-- Artachment. T. B. 2)
Cap2cit_v i E ti S wcxe made each year as
Theonigin al. ce fied capacity for eac_*,ivsji,
Mi I
I
schlools was certified by the rc-spective
s-iperintendent and incorporated in he
Ii-nit'on of ffie CAPS sy-stem (Orange
County- School District April 30, '20",12 - Base)
(Sec Atytachn-ient I. B. 1.)
Capacity changes ml re tirade each wear as
2
Section I
2003: Licrcasic of 619 at Rashkis, Eftanentzry,
2004; No chant -es at Elementary, Middle, or
Hizh School ]eels.
A
r. 4jja.jysis of Existing Con-dilions:
R "Alows:
2003: 'No net increase in capacity at
Elenien tar licvel- No changes at.-Iiddic
Sebool level. hicrease of 1,000 at Ctelar IRddz--
Higlh School.
2004: nett, increase in capacity a,
El-,nitntary level. No changes at or
High School levels-
Analyst's of E.ristin'-, conditions
Chapel Will Carrboro School District Orange County School District
The Scho-olsFacilides Task Force d--velop,-d The Schaols Far-Ilifies Task Force deve�01)5d' a
a to caic-ulate capacity. An y changes sy-s,-Pni to calculate capacity. Any change s
ve.., r To year will be monitored, re%iewed, and year to year will be monitored, rcv;ev.4 and
rtcorde4d by Lbe.SAPFOTA-C on.approved-
fo-, =L.s distributed to SAPFO partners and
certirffed Ipon approval by the Board of
Coumay Coo-rnissionn-s each year.
-TI;--
I he -:ezu'-sted 2004-5 t:uvalcity is noted on
Aua--Iumcnt 1.13.6.
re,cor�ded by the SAPFOTAC on approved
fomns distribuW to -SA'FO partners and
ceitified upon approval by the Board o-F
Coijnty Com-missioners each year.
Vnt requested 2004-5 ca city is notluttC- k}7kj
Attachment 1.3.5
Please note that the information contained In this report relates to existing school certifier)
capacities and is not related to new legislation from DPI (Department of Public instruction)
affecting elementary schools. -Amy capacity changes related to DPI legislation A'Vill mquire
reconvening of a School Facilities Task Force type of croup that can act as a Joint Action.
ft ?�-
Committee.,
5- Recommendation - No Change at this
time
Afflicriniput 7,om SAPFO partners and
car-nment, s from authorized Task Forces, thC
Recainizzendation- No Change at this time
A-Permpul ftom SA-PFO partners and
ftom authorized Task Fo-cc& thz
8tiard of County Commissioncrs would render
Boa ,dof Couniv Co-mmissiones would render a decision pnor to a Novenibe-r update.
a d'---isic.n Prior '.o a November update.
Poet Cat
°
i-
56,2M
SSS
Cheeks
6,346
529
411
X541
SIAM
414
90AW,
500
4,27
Oros
0
644
nba*
� rv+�rVn"
I
+ 4 ,
y-+�,
+} 0
w
�4 t �r
1, x,
�+�+, '
�+�
i32
sl
�.
`
UAS
.
ltdas S',
243,,=
■ 1,452
L
241.111
4,�
3�
�•.
O=
.
3 ?
Sch=4.
Z13tMg
44
' y"7 Z.
Ts L
't .3
-
�. _
°t am _
'!
ocilt, a-1
jv-
al*
PI
IL
oil Af
7
jjjjc
a
LAM
Attadunent L13-a
1 of 3)
Spoc;W Note% Foc 6* Nn-=b= IS, =2 but y&w Um b=d ttC P=L ul J=
Ivy thz CLZ or (2) xn walm—Atd vmion of this fmn s is C; 2 fie d bylh.- UkCC
Justification: An increase In Hiffsborough Ella mentaq CaPadtY Of 100 w*g$ completed prior to the
start of 0p3-04 srhool yw in nwrd8nce,.vfth ti- a CEP- H", ever, dus to conOnugq, renovaUor s wrVILn
tu—M fu 9 c a as of 514 S d, 9 .-eL s S s ft S .v,; 4 f a c h i av -- d teat t h e 200520
20, ADS
Ospacity Certmc-ation:
m
-Atta-chmem T.B.3
(age 2 of 3)
�Sch6�Tbfsfxictz Orm.-Cmil—mYS63677
School Year: -Novem= 73,- 3003 -N,5wmbtr i-1.3-M-4
I , -W[4 LNISCYCU IJ',' Lw-N= acrt-31=1 tapazifim as par, Cr " :bc S;..Ikwyzii Tai:
Fore vview =-4 N',:* iA'snnm m4 Scha,I Repve�,=,=�vv Fccanical RtporL llrun—tespacifcs wT.13 rmmin erl6c—re =0 C. zzng.�
C.? or (2) m me; dcd vm.-icyn orOMUS fam- ft: �s unif:'-,sd
bY -it t V.
Justification: No change in capacity.
C2paC-t.ty Certificationt
Superintendent Date
=036 FT7 -Date
Membership Certification.-
Superi Mende nt Date BOCC Ch2ff Dote
Attachment I-B-3
(pagge 3, of 3)
SCRID01 a 0--ange County School,,;
3rho;IYear. �ovemberl5,2003-;�ov—einbei"i-4-,'2064
Special Note: Fm -d-x Ncree-nbcr 15, 2002 bzs.c year the boa -,d uo -4 LI--- -,zLTxm-n =no cnNmaieo cap am Lms Ps PEn or inc, -wncAui rvoliu- La-;e
",ama rcv1 and 2M-3 Pha-Imors and
School Repmserilwive7rd' im-cz I Advi.zxy Commkriere- Repcxt. T*ht:scc2p=,I`Hcs will rmrain.zfRcdvt L va! char-=d
by (I', (:-,w Sczh---ol CIF nr (2,k 2r, arkmdedvasiou of this Rrm Chat is C=iffcd by flzBOCIC.
justIVIca-flon: Completed construction of Cedar Ridge High School. This sc•W opened in the fall
of 2002 with a s&ool ca2adty of 1,000 students.
Superintendent Cate
BOCC Chak Dat8�
Ps
Atta-clumst
tpap I
- . .. . ... ....
*pOsm I no MI EX 0*4 NwrInkoca. ;5.2,%2 SEW tap= w part of dIt SzhtXA NzAh�a—i4sk
hool Rtpcm T, hm cap�,,;ilies se ra—mm-m e6cvovt -='A A Pj
Rwft --t-itw End :&',S pia-mXem, =d SAO
i1wen Now Cox Q===w�5dvcmjOa of 1116
Justificationt
0 , 7
VI i �,.—Zass an r0-;, Zvty of 6,,9 at Rsshid$ EMMeNSY %SS COMPieed PI-Iw to thO stad, K Va ZOC�3-04
SCN004 jew- ;n zoz=�antce wllh the CIP,
Capaefty Oertirmation:
Membership Certification.-
Pox= VZ77 755--
Attachment I. .4
{page -2, of 3)
ISr-hoof Yearr. Novcmbar 15, 2003 - No-mmlocr 14, 2004 1
SpeCial Note.' I�vr NDV-amf= 15, 2002 basc year the t)mrd capacities as pan of Scho*l F—acilitzim TzSk
�: c mvivu.; aid 200.3 School Representative TocimicO, A&,iw.yCb=ni*=-RcperL
by 0) the Sch,ao, CJ P ov (2) an am=dcd vemium of this form - , is =Tulmd ky &x EXX-C-
Juttificatiort..
Mernbershfp Certification:
Supedritendent Date
ROCC Chah 57e7
e
Attach-nient L3.4
I
(Pa .) 1, -- -z� � 0 )
School District Cliapel Hill-Caitb6ro City School,-,
School Year. November 15, 2003 - Novernh--r 14,2004
.Special Note: Fcw 2)e: Na,�wnber 15. 2C-32 caap6ties as part W—he Sclux:4, (-nflit4s Ts�ek
Fo-ce 103 ?"Ennm and Schuot Reprmpffatz6vt Tc!c�micaj Ad ;!_XrY CC R--PCrL. 'Mmz CaPaci tics x l3 rznwin tnTcw'dve- xl� 0 cl=gad
by (Z ) ft4 4j;AW.�jj CIP
,3) ;, mcn4cd vcrzion of :WS fpwm has is m-bItd 'n vhy. BOC.C.
Justification:
Date BOCC Chill Date
Attachment
(past I of 4)
. . . .... .... ...
37choolEYWOU Oro-ve Comly schools
School Year. November 15,2004. November 14, 2005
For.-c resit- =d 2WO:- Phunmem znd S&M RcprcsftUUv-. Techm,—J Advism) COMIU1W P-tPOrL n-0 CuPati-A Wia vun—la crfe=va ur-11 ct=ga
by (:) th-- CIF w (2) xn *mmded version of LES rwM dw. is =aruzd hy LIV, BOCC.
Justification: An increase in Hilsborough ElerneentW capacity of 100 was completad or to tine
start of the M03-04 $0001 yeeLr in acoordance wfth the CIFI. However, due to oonfinuing renovation MWn
the soh I, the avertual full oagto!!y of 514 student sets VAII not be ach' leved until the 2005MD6
school year. The above numbers reftect school ggE!,jt Mthout considembon of state dass size
reductions in gcodes K-3.
Cartifloation;
Superir dent Date Chall Data
Membership Certification:
C-
supe-, ndent Date Glatt 13 /Iv f a e
Alladmient l.B.5
(pag
w 2 of 4)
SpA-clal Note: Far ;he.\vv=nb-r. 15, 2W2 We yea ft b*ard '!,e- ltqp- . ult-nd--m-C-trilsod =pAtitici -.L- Pwt of d1w SAOCI
Fa:t* n izw An INR7, pamn= and Szboul Repm-s-enwive Tz%ftize, Ae-.Uory C--.n=-- R,:im-L 1> =V�
Justification: An Increase in Hillsborough Sam antary cp-pacfty of 100 was completed prior to the
start Of the 2003 -04 school year in accordance %vfth the CIP. However, due to qnntinui22 renovafions vvirhin
the s&ool., t eventual full capacl_ty of 514 student scats w not be achieM until the 2005MO3
school year. Leolsla-flve adon taken In July, 2004 reduced class size in grade 3 to 21 or fewer studertm
PiWic*-m leg= Bat ive action had already reduced class size in gradg$ K - 2 to 21 or fewer students. Th;s
reduction in class size muirements for all grades K-3 reduces -tuts nvrrt er of students that can ta
legaffy, place-: within K-3 classrooms, pffee5ve!y r-edw;ing the number of K-3 seats avatable wifthin all
,elementmm-y schools. The adjustment In capactyis a reflection al'all of these adons.
Capacity Oedtfication;
z,
41 ,
Membershlp CertMeationt.
Tpdl� mttendent Date
Attachn,
(page 3 of 4 )
Schv,ol District-- Orange County Schools
School, Yevx.- N-,uvcznbcr 15, 21W. - Novembtr 14-Z"005
Sp0*144 Xvfti Fbf Lk-- Nfovwubzr 15, 202 h� fi=r t—:- board --ccepwd Lhe vV$cjIm3 as p,,U-1 of &-- SChoa] F"—ffili,* T,-A
Fov e revi,�-wamd 1,K).3 Mann= and Schmoi RrPrelmnM5NIC Tecbnkal Adv-i.wy Committ= Report. Thuce cV.,,%cifieg will m ru7ji anwatJ
b t 1 thz School CIF or (2) in a=nded vcrsion of &is knn tba, is certiffic-4 lbv th-- 500C.
Just tfication. No change in capacity.
Capaetty Certification..
S u p e it:.at nd a nt Date Date
I
M mbership C Icatia":
6'r
Supr;NR AI30
kendent Date BOG,G Ghajr Date
15
2003-2004
-124
2004- ,6 '206-2007
�2W 2005 -200 0
Afembersbi g,
swdle
Sqmunp-
200, 1113
1 -
JLSUr=uOv
- Reques"
Requited Rt ed
ed s e4
R"p�:q qu
J
Saco!
Feet
Capacity
Footnote
C;Pacitv
c,�dty ;aPacRy C20a
C
schoal yead
'140
J
C N
107,6210
726
243,620
Sp0*144 Xvfti Fbf Lk-- Nfovwubzr 15, 202 h� fi=r t—:- board --ccepwd Lhe vV$cjIm3 as p,,U-1 of &-- SChoa] F"—ffili,* T,-A
Fov e revi,�-wamd 1,K).3 Mann= and Schmoi RrPrelmnM5NIC Tecbnkal Adv-i.wy Committ= Report. Thuce cV.,,%cifieg will m ru7ji anwatJ
b t 1 thz School CIF or (2) in a=nded vcrsion of &is knn tba, is certiffic-4 lbv th-- 500C.
Just tfication. No change in capacity.
Capaetty Certification..
S u p e it:.at nd a nt Date Date
I
M mbership C Icatia":
6'r
Supr;NR AI30
kendent Date BOG,G Ghajr Date
15
A,tTa!-'hm=l
(n au, d a o
Special' Note., Fmrth--K qtmS.-r I I, zw2b;m m P=VfOlt schm-1 Fit-' iflulzek
jusmcatiam 1.1410 a in capast .
16
AttacErnent 13.6
(page 1 of4)
School Disrt;W*. Chapel Hill - Cardboro City Schools
school Ve—ar-November 15, 2004 — November 14, 2005
SpecialNoto. PbrftXoN=rba 15.M2 cue priifi=as put of the Scbool fniliftsTuk
A= :n --o and 2003 N=---s =4 S,-bwl Rqp==t24-.V T=hniz-J Advir=.T CO.T--tV&-- -Rrp0r-,, MM Mpuldcs will =--in cfrzCd%—. ca.IR rz pd
by (1):t= Sz—hwaz CIF w (2) = ==dtd vmion of this Cam k 4 --ti *d by
An increase in capacity of $19 at Rashkis Ekmentary was completed prior to" ttartof the 2003-04
schod year in accordance vAth the CIP.
The above numbers reflect school capacityvdthout cons;deration of stale class size reductions in grades K-3.
Capacity Certificatlan:
supeanlw4ent soccchall' Date
Membership, Cortiffcation:
Date 500-77air Date
17
. ac rat !.i3.
(page 2 of
School III -strict". Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
School Year: November 15, 2004 —November 14, 2005
�N=�Id...Wzaxi ror me ovovemoer o3, Zuul base year the board accepted the superintendent- certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report These capacities will remain effective until changed
by (I) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification:
An increase in capacity of 619 at Rashkis Elementary was completed prior to the start of the 2003 -04
school year in accordance with the CIP.
Legislative action taken in July, 2004 reduced class size in grade 3 to 21 or fewer students.
Previous legislative action had already reduced class size in grades K - 2 to 21 or fewer students. This
reduction in class size requirements for all grades K -3 reduces the number of students that can be
legally placed within K -3 classrooms, effectively reducing the number of K -3 seats available within all
elementary schools. The adjustment in capacity is a reflection of all of these actions.
Capacity Certification:
Ao�� Z44, 12--'20-0 Y
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Superintendent Date
BOCC Chair Date
BOCC Chair Date
18
Attachment 118 .6
rage 3 of 4)
School District: Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
School Year: November 15, 2004 —November 14, 2005
Special Note. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent - certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification: No change in capacity requested
Capacity Certification:
Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date
Membership Certification.,
C 1 z Z v -4
79upgrintendent Date
BOCC Chair Date
z
Attach n ._nt 1.B.6
(.pa`o 4 of 4)
School District: Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools
School Year: 1 November 15, 2004 —November 14, 2005
OPOCIUN ]Muse: ror me lvovember 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent - certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by (1) the School CEP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC..
Justification: No change in capacity requested
Capacity Certification:
��Ad_ lZ— 0rvy
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
&Lj&= lZ 24-oz*
Superintendent Date
BOCC Chair Date
BOCC Chair Date
2�}
C. N-lembership Date
1 Respaitsible Enthy fir Suggesling Change - Chan ce can be effectuate• only by
In.- ers
aj-, M
m -,nt to N
a . Ternorandum of Ulndt�manding (T OU by a cl o AP 0 pa
2. Deftnition - The date at which student miErnbevship is calculated. This date is updated
eatc,h year and also serves as the bas:3 fo.- proj--ctions along with the history kom prc;-v)QUS.
yee� 7—s. "For purposes of this Nf-,moi-a the term "school mein.
iship" rnzw-�
actual, number of students attending school as of November 15 of each year. Th.e fiTure
,ardl—s
IS d-IerrninM by considering the number of students tnrolle-d (J-e� re'-ziste red re2
of .v a student is no longer arteending scbool) and making adjustments
N-VAI-drawals, dropouts, deaths, retentions and pronnotions. Studen ts w hoare me-I Y
absent fro class on the date Mu-XMbcr,,hip is de-Kammined as a result or Sickness or soine
Other teL-,1porary reas-an are included in school nic mbirzrship figures. Each year the School
e ar 1 S 0 taree-mert no, ialer thart
District shall transmit its school nicmb4rsh P to Lh P lie I this
fire (5) school days aftc.r Novernbtr l5,
a.rdfor;
Stand
Chapel Hill Carrb.oro School District
"'c-overnber 15
of each year
4. Anatvs of Conditions
Siandardfor:
Orange County School DIS-hirt
November 15
of each year
This,. ill b,-- analyzed in the future years to deeternine. if it is an exemplary date.
This date nzc�v sometimes occlir oon a iveekend (as it did in 2003) and
j,v no a iypkal care for inember-ship census and recordation. An
earlier date such as the -40"M d,,,:U.," n2eynbership n2ay be suggested in
fie-Fure _year., so da.,fa can be araI-.vz-I?d earlier to assist in school CIP
needs assessment.
5, Recommendation - .,Nlo change al this Recainnze-ndation - No cljajt,,-,e at this
tim e time
21
section 1i
11. _A.,NNuAL UPDATE TO Sciiootcs ADEQUATE PGOLIC
FAMITIESS' OR.D]Nr.k-CESYSTF.Nf
Capital. Investment 'Plan (CIP)
Responsible Ent ty fear Suggesting Ch ange -- The updating oaf this section wil I he
con.duuicd by the Board of Co=tY, Corz-a-ms _],Gners: (BOCC) after review of the CLP
,-,=que.sf-s from the S.clioolDisLricts. Action r�zardin�ClPpro r,)rai-tis usual yoCCLI-,--.s 01"IrM2
Z7
bud ic lie, ing pjToccss, Ln the spring of ea-ch year. The de%,tilopmont of
Lhe BOCC
get Publ,
-t. releas i! rne!
he CIP consideiz. the conditions, rioted in, One SAPIFOTAC repot zed in
CTP development year includii-liz LOS of service), capacity, and menibersh�p
p rOj tL1.7`&_rj s.
2. Definitfoir —The process and resultant pro,,, to detenriine schoul needs andpro,,idle
ffind-Ing for ne", school facilities thro,.,�-h a vanew of ruridiria mechandsTris,
C, - - Z,
5
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro Scbool District
","ot Applicable
SCarr dand far:
4ran2e County School District
Not Applikable
Anajj}sjs,of E'Xistifig Conditions
-Me Outlines a system Of i-niple-n-onLing the SAIRFO, including Issuing Ctm-ifiCa-Les
OtfAdNuate Public Rhools (CAPS-,) to-,-ie)x developmern if capacity is available_-. Tht
R_-ques s for CAPS will be evalual.ad ui.,:.ig ihe most recently'adopted. Capital Lavtst=.e-Ilt
Plaza. The plan -nehides fluiding for CH('CS high School 13 (2007), fund ray recov—,nil-ion
04 CHCCS Elementary School elf) (20,09). and funding for OCAS Middle Schoal F..r3
(2&06). A,,iew Capital lnvestrn�_It Plan =s cl.-TT�ntivui- der dL-Nclopinen',for.aI o� !alpT_'ear
pr
PIO ju,7c 30, 200:5.
Recainmendation —
Not siul cct to staff review
22)
Sec-60.77 11
1,
Student Projection Nlethodology
P,esponsible-Ef I tityforSuggesifug Chia se4,-don is reviexed and rem =,t ended
0Y the PIxi-n-Ins Directors, School Rt:prescniatives. Teo- cal Advisory Gc+mmitte
yCalS tO (JC*kC;1131P11ff, total metumer-snip ai e cornomcu suuout. icvcL
v La
and Hi.h School) which take into historical membership to! Is ata spiac`
time- (Nover iber 15) in -die school yeWr- Tlhcs�-!-Iethods are also knoxvnas:'rn.od-t1.,-:'-
Stain fair far:
Chapel Hi: l Carrboro School District
Stwidardfor:
Orange County Schoot District
Prcscinhll the average or five, mod gis art bein g used: nameIV3. 5. and it) year
C� I . .
historylcohort survival methods, C,),-,rty PI anring DeParatnent Linear
Wa,v- e xid Tischler Linear methods Attach -Pnent TI.B. I describes includes a
description of each model.
Analy,sis of Exist ijig Conditions
Performance of the models, is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its
I -t^ Us so Lhe
pr-;�dkrion of'school level capacities at least th-rcc years in advance of capacity shot M
atu,i: i Capital Investment Plan (CIP) updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and
con-struntio.n. Attach ,111Qn..t11.B.2 shows the performanc-- ofFthe models for the 20,04-5 school
year ftc)m the prior year projection (i.e., only a one year projection), A-Rer which, a surrmrlarY Of
eacin mode,[ is provided.
Recomwendation -
No Change from above standard.
I,-
�21
Ai,achnitnt H-B. I
(page 1 of 10)
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District:
Orange
Year,,,I)ate Tssued:
11/2-2/04
Ye2r..'D.qtc Based:
November i 57 2004-2005
Years Projected.,
2006-2015
.!L Projection Type-
Tischler Linear
1. Projection
Mathematical F-onnula
Description/
Straight Line Projection
Characteristics.,
2. Projection Formula:
7u.'a-z-'an, c ChaLge; b = Base Year, x
& = Frpj ovtzd FoL
Projewfion Years)
...... .....
3. Projection. Historical gow-this rdlected hi projected .growth
Assumptions: % Elernentaxy, Middle, -and High taken from SYF 200-5 andhe4d
constant ib-Toughout projec'non.
4. Average Annual 1 A ',I te V., is hT a It 4,veftege. wwad g-,-nvk ywr;
Grovvth Rate.,
S. Attachments:
6. Projection Performed; PI: Brian Carson Dtate., 1 L,224--4
7. Projection Reviewed: By: Date.
8. Projection Certified-,
9. Comments:
-)4
At-m,-,hM= TLB, 1
S -DFNT N NIBERMIP PROJECTI
TL I-Ei ON
School District: -2munge
Yeari'Date Issued-. I1_109'1" +i�=
Yeari'Date Based: Ntovembc-r 15. Z004-2f)05
Years Projected-, 2"(K) 6 - 2 Ct 15
A Projerxion Type: I OC? Llin r Way
I. Projection � 4a.fl,,Tnatical I,;,%—,rkxith Rc=nt variation among school levtls.
Description/ Reflectinj prqg!.!sin& waves of mcmbership.
Characteristics.,
I— Projection'Formula: aym + (311, — 15 (0) — EYN''I EYNI x %SL - ICY -NL,-SL
e
man6er bry schnal le�,d
3. PrOjtttiGn Base year gT.",Ih reflects Its -year
'Usumptions; Increaw in BY I of 5 r-e-II-XL$ d e2s-Cs in h0usir 9
4. Average Ann.1141
Growth Ra A p te:
5. Attachments:
6. Projertioti Performed: Br-* Brizzi Cap,,,On Date.,
7. Projection. Reviewed: B N_I: Dare:
8. Projection Certified.
comments':
,,W- p
25
Avtachmcnt 11.3.1
-STUDENTIMENTBERSHIP PROJEMON"
School District: OMP-C County"
YearjDate Issued: NoverZ-hur I 3' OOL-1
YeavDate Based: Novembcr 15,2004-2005
Years Projected: .2006-2015
,V Projection Type: 3 Ywr Cohort
1. Projection Mathe=vzal f-Orr'-w-I ad= w—n-we-Z Lhc wvmse adv-wicramatrant zier
De-scriptiont the p-evIOUS 10 -c=s f ca'"'I gradc level znd then uscs, mdh to no cal-cuLaw
Characteristics: projected m= btr by sel-w-al lcvcl. An as surd Lin& pw-vel
is based on binh rcco.-ds and `or hisWrlcal gmulh r4lm
2. Projection Formula;
3. Projection Assumes a 1% an-nnual E2�wfh rate for the kin dergar!gn -c level
Assumptions: Assumes the same percentage of students in cacti Fade level graduare,
to the next level cash near.
4,Av .rage Amnual
Gro-with Rate:
S. Attachmeuts:
6. ProjectinnPerformed: BY: ScTog9$*,Bcp-cdict, D= Date.- 11116, L) 004
7. Projection Reviewed: ny:L Date:
S. Projectl*a Certified:
STUDENT MEMBERS'RIP PR OJEETtON fpage 4 of 10)
School District: -
YeariDate Issued: Novmiber 1(,. 2004
YeariDate Based*. Noveinbcr IS, M14-2005
Years Projected., .2006-2015
A. Projection T)° e: 5 Ye ar Cohort
ra a -ano-emen re w
1. Projection &�aj c*-�rqutes:he avc ge dN z t -t V�
Description/ the pre%ious 10 years for c,:.,c11 grade level and then Wets each rata to Calculate
CharacteristiCS: p-rojected Tncn. 1 crship by schwl lei vel. An ossuined kinder ganen .*n=-nbcrsMp
is liased on bh-th rteor& and` br histor ical glowth r4cs.
z. Projection Formula-.
(oiber than
rate.
3. Projection gzlk level.
�A,ssumes the same Baentage of s-,ud--nts in each gradt fcvel zra&awc
Assumptions;
to the n---,t tev-.1 Caen tx-�
4. Mcrage Anatial 0.62% t4we: T'-"s i$,Sr, V"Oago smusirxe over anschow levels Ovafffft Y-'$-'T-
Growth Rate.,
5.
. ..........
6 Projection Performed: Scrod; gs,Bene�dktDezn Date- I
7. Projection Reviewed: 13y: Date*.
& Projection Cerfifled:
At"I hmne= 11-Im!
-STUI)ENT ME-NIMRSHI—Tv PROJECT ION (p ap 5 mi, I C�I
School DLctrict-.
Yr a V`Da t e Is.,, u v, d; November 16, 2004
Year"Date Based: Novctnbar 1. 5. 2004-2005
Years Projected: 2006-20 15
-2L Projrction']z-pe:
I0 Ytar GO -hCTIL
1. Projection
the overnot advanctment r-.-tc ovcr
Description/
the "previous 10 years flor each grade-level and IhLn uses each mate,,ocakul.1te
Cbiracteristics:
projected nlemthmhip by school icy cl. A-n assumed 16ndergan= zmernbenhip
is hased On binh rccords any historical growth rates.
2. Projettion FormuU.-
fK 0.0 b
K s7. G2: Mv, mk, enc 1: C-,,- r. CkO&I vev r G, it 1V,: LI Z.4 e "r n e Mk v
ar grade *S On em ben, hig it -. 4 wwra!Z. e a d, vzrn c,� r,-,r
-nae..
3. Projection
x-ugual g;",th rat ibr the kind. -z- sen =dz I
'I 3x n
_t,
As f Sm-dents in Cach fcvel s—,-dlulw
to hie M-u le'vel each Vear.
4. Average -Annunl
-,AYs il ewt avva-w? annual roe Ovef 0 01,vr ml
Growth Rate:
5. Attachments:
6. Projection Performed:
Benedict, Dzwj ate,
D. 11/16 4
7. Projection Reviewed:
Date:
& Projection Certified.-
9. Comments:
z S-
SHIP PROJECTIQ_-N jpagt 6 of 10)
.iTUI)E,',\-T �TKMBER
school District:
chavialviii — ca-r'a-x-o
Yeari"Date Issued:
l2i0912004
YearfDate Based
Novembler 1.5. 2004-ZW5
Years Projected:
20,36-2015
,X. Projection T�vpe.
Her LincV,
Tise
1. Projection
N4,ujhema cal formula
Description]
straiot lim prqieclion
Characteristics:
2. Projection Formula:
3. projectiou
,xs,sumptious:
— (Wh
Ic Bze, Fear. x
Pop 0, a mw
nroirudon years)
Himriml
% El Mcr,
cotstw
is -�--fleazd in pmi
tak-ea t-om SYE ZC*4 wind hm-ld
4. Annual GrOAN'th Rate.-' .2.45% Note: zhiv & ari avcn�izo annu-d gmv2k ?W*e craT
proitctiom finclud—.s., T Otai, -EtmeV id e, and 1414;77f)
6. Projection Performed- B�,!.- Brian CuMon 12,"09,1200-4,
7, Projection Revielvcd,* 13�' - Date:
& Projection Certiflled-*
9. comment:
�q
T
STUDENT NIE%MERSfIIP PROMcnax ls e,
School, Dbarict: C'n app el Hill - Ca �ron:",
Year,,,Date Issued: 1109,201
Ycar;'Dste Based: November i 5,
Years Projected: 2006-2015
A. Projection T)�'pe: t Urea r Wav---
1. Projection M "-eh wn�n)r
Dewription! Reflec6unzz j:.wgn�ng wavcs of rneinhership.
Characteristics:
2. Projettlou Formula; BY-M, + @Yl - I i(n')) - EYNI., EYM x '/'*SL - EN-NVSL
�Byzlf = l3a gar 2`J #.Owh n-ev.Nnhip. By -
bfue f$154
Yi=n SL
Member hT xchew,,�i k-,"el
I projettlext
Basc year gz- ref O-v,=r
A5sumptiong-. Lnqeasc ir BYI of5r: d.=mzes in howsizj
Reflects buildout constraints.
4-. Average Annuut 1.-846 %
Grawth Rate: ASGO, - CIO 15
PAY = Fi-'11'1-1�zmral, 'I'Af
I
S. Attschments:
6. Projection Performed: 'By: Brian Carson Date.- l2,"fJ'9!2CO4
77. Projection Reviewed: By.- But
& Projection Certified:
9. Comments:
!(J ,
STUDENT MENMERSHIP PROJECTION"
School District:
YeariDate Issued:
Novcumbc 16, 21041
YearlDate Ha.,,ed:
'November 15, 2004-2()f)5
Years Projected:
2006-2015
A. Projection Type: 3� Y= Cohort
I-Projection Nfachc=tfcaal fix� Cown;y—n c avvmge adva-mc--n- Est rave over
Description/ the pmiowN TO y= s for esen ;md-- I-evel and thcm uSes each %0 czkZ-zt'c
Characteristics: pivected.-nemImnship by se 1rml. An asiwmed kin-dergmmen
is based on birth reconds, his!oncal gi-mA,,Ih r-,fcs.
2. Projection Fornratat ^-I
K, = K, + (K. 0-0 1) a=(JG,,IggJflO b=g"Ja)
r.-Own szhoal vc4r, C�Givr wadesmem5emkiz
ra, m b=Ar*-Cz--d m
3. Projection Assume& a I% znnual cmN%,,fn we for the k indeqg=cn mdc cv- el.
mu pions: Assumes the same percentage of students in each grade level gradaate-
to die next level =h ycar.
4. -Aytralge Annual 01955S w avv3ge anwa rot C".'sragsa".' -Ove-- atemrt;n
Grov� th Rare*
5.Attachmeats:
6. Projection Performed: ,By: Scroga., B=iedict, Dean Date; 1 I il 6J2,004
7- Pr _ ?rejection Re0ewed: BY: Dote:
OJ
S. Projection Certified.
Oui��
STUDENT MENIBERS Ill ? PROJECTION'
'Chool District: Chipel HIKII - Cwmbc,-a
Year/Date Issued: NovembeT 16. 20041
YeariDate Based: IN'ovember 15, 20014-20)5
Years Projected:
A. Projection Type: 5 Year Cohn
projettion MatItem, stkt-1 fromrjlz that con-74,trs, aie avcm- gre advanct-muza rzte ovzr
g
Descriptionl the prey 10 yews for c4ichpmde levidind then wescvwh rete -kocalculate
Characteristir.s: projected mmbwrship kv ool level- An assumed kindcrgarren nncr;-,bczshjp
is bw�d on birdh, .e�co-ds =& 'or his :ormc-Ld growth rav-s,
2. Proj"tion Formula: �_:Z
(other lbrul &mpreq-ious grade lm'#dumnhig. mod vrelrent
rate,
3. Projettlion Asssum�s a annu-J grcrwth rat -or the kindtrgamm gadl.- Ive,-eL
AS-sumptionscl. Assurr;ts &,-- S p Y t ffstudtnas in each gmdt fv,:-c! grzaduazz
to the me-vt kwit-n-h yzan
4. AveraggeAnnual N-',��, 4"J'a iavomge annual goo
GroWb Rate:
5.
Attach men tsv -.
6. Projection Perrormed: By: Skmgm- Rtne�c-t, Dean Date: I l.1 6-20041
7-Projection. Reviewed: Date.*
Projection CmIrled:
9. Comments;
TLDEN 31EMB' R151HP PROJECTION (pave 10 -of 1
School, District.
Chapzi Hill -
Year'itat issued.
r °e r 6.20- =
YeariDate used.
Nmember IS. #tom% WS
'Fears Projected:
2006-2015
-k. Pcsrctt
1r car Ce$
at « s� a � �'€`t' � 4 •� L" a,
i� srrt t
the :� w i i�7--t t —b is v a d then s Caen Me xis
Characteristics-
by set-a-4 zmku-n=J kindergartn
is based on birth rt or 3 "` x S i ii "ro b rates-
2. Proj"t on Formula:
K
f ff
h 7i rf4
3. projection
Assumes a I %a A, grey: h rate for the kindergasten grade level-
Assumptions: a tions.
Assumes the same gSamentag e of students in each grade Ivvei u
to the nest level =h rear.
4. Average .finuuai a zm— 11siswl ve:awc 10:1=w we
Growth Rte:
5. Attachents:
6. Profccdon Performed: 3vt Scrogy Bet: ict, beau �3ate 1 i 1
7. Projection Reviewed: BY: hate,
S. Projection Certified.
Orange County School Distrfet
School 2004-2005 School Year (November 15,2004)
H'rnmms High
4:-,aan-5 JQW
irdjjdes hospita• sdiaaf
4 2-
3.A -t
Orange County School District >
School: Membership 2004-2005 School Year (November 15.2004)
Statistical. Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
10-Y RC HORT(10C)
TISCHLER (T) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP)
3-YEAR COHORT (3C)
Elementary School Level
Projections were mixed (high and low) and between a loss of 42 and a gain of 47
students over the actual November 15, 2004 membership. The average
projection was 15 students lower than actual membership.
The membership actually increased by 71 members between November 14,
2003 and November 15, 2004.
Middle School Level
• I wo projections [Tischler and Orange County Planning (OCP)J were high and
three were low (I OC, 5C, 3C). The average projection was 34 students higher
than actual membership.
The membership actually decreased by 78 members between Novarriber 14,
2003 and November 15, 2004.
High School Level
Four projections were low (between 1 and 101) and one (3C) was high. 7he
average projection was 32 students low_
The membership actually increased by 17G members between November 14,
2003 and November 15, 2004.
TOTAL
The total of all school level projections were low and between 13 (O-CP and 3C
representing the lowest) and 71 (1 CC, representing the highest) students.. T.' he
Tischler (T) projection was high at a gain of 97 students. The average projected
v�as a. 13 student decrease.
The membership increased in total by 163 students, which is the sum of +71 at
Elementary, —78 at Middle and +170 at High.
Q :N0 Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) projected 6.632, which is low (i.e.
undercount) but within 34 students of the November 15, 2004 membership.
Chapel bill / Carrbo:ro School District
School Membership 2004-2005 School Year (November 15, 2004)
11114103 i 11115104
Change Wtween
Actual I Projected Actual
aotual Nov 2003-
2003-04
24N-05 1 2004-05 Nov 2004
.
Elementary
469? 4695 +3
Mode I Prolection is
T fa" H369
oCP 4505 H2-, D
10C 4876
H181
5C 4,80-:9 H204
3Ct08 i J 13
AVG!. 4910 11215
111 5,1200
2612 2560 -52
P 9p#Ion,
m
OCP., h210
2770
1 I 2-5-c-�s H38
5C 2$02 >2
3C 2535 P25
AVG 2675 1 H115
10634 1 man
Model
I:LIt5J2Q04
hl h
T
=0
H303
3422, J 492 1
I H2-72
iow159
h,312
816
Model
prnfectl M S
K "I 72
OCPf
3274
1
H93
3CI
3562
M40
AVG)
3497
H75
1 Totals
Middle
2612
2560
Hicih
3 330
RA77 I
10634 1 man
H means High
L means low
* excludes hospital school
36
>
Model
Jf-
T
1U -77
H303
OCP
I H2-72
iow159
h,312
816
11 nA17
H means High
L means low
* excludes hospital school
36
>
>
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2004-2005 School Year (November 15,2004)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBRMA 77ONS
I 10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
TISCHLER (T) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 13-YEAR COHORT (3C)
Elementary School Level
All projections were high and betoveen 113 and 369 students over the actual
November 15, 2004 enrollment.
The membership actually increased by 3 members between November 14, 2003
and November 15, 2004,
Middle School Level
A projections were high and between 25 and 259 students over the actual
November 15, 2004 enrollment.
The membership actually decreased by 52 members between November 14,
2003 and November 15, 2004.
High School Level
• Four projections were high and between 93 and 172 and one ((MCP) was 10-W-
The average projection was 75 students high.
0 The total membership actually increased by 92 members betvve.en November 14,
2003 and November 15,2004.
TOTAL
The total of all school level projections were high and beNveen 272 (0CP
representing the lowest) and 800 (T representing the highest) students. The
average projected was a 405 student increase.
The membership increased in total students, which is the sum of +3 at
Elementary, —52 at Middle, and +92 at High.
• NC Department of Public Instruction (NCDP[) projected 10,933 (an increase of
299), which is high (i.e. overcount) but within 256 students of the actual
November 15, 2004 membership.
J
CACCS&OCS St-'S' -SSP-d
37
0
C. Student Projecdons
Ritspon—sible Eudi
yfior Sj�gg"nfngq C-Iiange 01"MIS -'-�,�LIOTI Al-- bf 2
by tbo Planning Din:ctors School Reprtsp-ntadves, Tedinical Ad 4Q-(Iry
Con,,miuf e. (SAPI-70TAC) and n�fcr-z to th-li- BOCC foramma
I I repon
--"LI:-A v"i 1 dist- bu�ed SA-pt-- Q Y %,n' ..ors ion- rvtievv nuad Corr =men: s to th�' 3C XX
--70 czrun =6"n.
D.- 1� v
flim-Won — Tl�e zr--z of flivt �'_...j
�v, N "d Te� zzd
G - Ic-, (C hap--! `VCzmlm r-I School Mallet and fir: u- Ccpw --
P-
Srandardfor.-
ch.r PO It Cirrtioro School bi trict
-�tandurdfon
Orange County School District
S -a 41 vreM e discuzst�d -,I TIRE
t
on N 1 ethcs !cOo vl:�)
S
. t-. Anachawnt U.C6
,4nalysls of EvIsting C-011dilkins
See AIIMIII-tm��znt I LC.5
..c.1t f mu shoov cj"'nii-
. n
DUS, Fhhep L —i- _as :n&-c;Esv.,7
T,.'-n wzjTs of sty u—na
ppojevc
NtLis: note "hat the infon-tati . 011, eom2lnt-d in fbs T; D-ort nz�ja(,;s to exist 1'g
't: nd is txlt rt!Iatc-d w I T-L L I
Les q-7 o -p-j.� I -(::
Afr-%: C-. aziY, zhzm,,Z��i rtlatcd to D"I
'esTa "FL
an L7 T �_7
a oll co
3's
ArAn IN'
Chapel Hill Cairrboro School District
Elementary
T-nL- pre%:ious year (2001) ptecdon ror Novt4Tnber 2004 at this level was overestiniatcd by 215
7he.actual gro%vth was +3. years, this level was stems? Tily
a I-Li-q rical base, of
=--:asing ffimn HI to 77 to 141 studcn�,s a yezr; � iclh crQ�ated a
Al,h. vvas c =yture� by dic -ianous inoxit-Is last -,z r to p7cxd�icz t��z need 6:r
E` i a co rn �� 'u n j,,, n t' m 2 0" --t 6 2 CY) H! e wzvc r. th u- T�- 'I ztt I Y sz.
ve'' rzzord WzS s-ath!"ically mtisk"ding ir-o its Hini-kod Vjr-I,!!Xt and was, rnmaw e, rnore
-Ioii ver, Nf 02,75 szzudziui,
1-w hit-, icala age L
:,rft cj,=mt yon ofely +3- The7,,.ffw foxe yL
ver veragc, now pcnc�rnds the nr.-j�-d.s for Mcinuntary School �4'1 0 in
� � sus at-t acce!erating 87A av
Middle
i-ezi (20,,3 3) proje-cticrn S Nov embs: jIrCG#4 �-,Ar ilr-ns ltvel was
-1 -S to I., Fia �h-, --52 was. oonsisaem -,:,,ith The
xas iecrc�,,—sing pn�zipi Lously ff; IM 214 To 6
7 'ain i, - flect fh'
,rcr.d. Ho%%,wer, ccr, nodels did e prier year's growth at the elm; mars s-ch -11 el
as they prog;.-rcss into the middle school y cohoris. According-! y, ffie pt' -viously note e
d cica-,ntm-
VTOWTh ill ulattd inrw coriti-nuned groy ,th al :-imz a-LiddIc s:,aaol level. Now, with MbCr
204 naloNt YnAdhe schOol aL4d t- C -t-3 at e-10=-,un�tary School f� --Ir
with an av mr 51 now radwas vtar fc, -ht-
pushz:z r -�;� n�ned --u SAM 05 to the War year MOIN
fugh School
y��, (20 03) pnjecHoa Or lfovymber 206,41 -,or fni-q PeN,,el was Overe, Unmg,�:d ��y 75
d 'i'h:r-- a,�.:rua I mem bersL, ip creasr % +9 2, but was rM t a5 as - h n:d i': t_t
t-t Src7v,,-h was z2p;-:5z .able 04 a ralsivoly cons=nT 14&:;),,� ard 'I, S
n
, C- + T re 1F is -zate, n-a-FL-t
so iuie pr- c�.od 1 anwh
67 nos o k ,
C ar, I and z;n�-��,di. v,,;wc-I-- is -17y unte casc ill ail alhTtZ !fVtS
79
santm X
thaud—I ?YOWH544C gnivall at this 1WI& SCIVA 0101 is
-,.vtngz arm- "-A 77
= '3 opon
rn -rL--- nacm ',e-n ye=s- A-.,v- Hi�gih Schoz)] s in - i-05v no
rc Cawn horizon
nztds arc not-ed in thLt 1 O-yet-ur P, i , ',- :
Orange County School District
Elementa.l:f
undc�-cs-=,,n-a-d b,,y 1-5
2"K
yz— prrqjieztion, ..e.._
��Z'n--A jmmli w4s -Q!. CIV57 sh: PzWous. - v, ars,, this le've-I :hzs ;-x7 zn once
f�,,o7r, ASS to �5' zo -�-44 a yean TV; crNak a
-S cncai -bas c Ornegadve gpmk wl-,ich was cap%mA liy *,he vario-us m.whemadcal mndc's ]12-
v ar to p-mducc malfstic d moderat PT(�)C,603;3 th'm Nvere IeS5 th'all a clasroom c-p'nity louu-
III we ChmgC COWUY SCM01 sp.,iVni. is more closely related to dcNVO-PTI1.-n1,,'ha-n
a " 2tab:e nunjjbl�- Ornew
'H-Cantano School D[stHCL a S2
Adm. m ZemTh:1 �?d h"Yusinj- Stock Th, zmef-=75, dv.-�` iapm�fnz, ac�ro -, -tv �hou!d IN: mic o :T-7 -m, t
ZS a W-Ln,.4 -.- :C S-12difTit" 4ro7vh a a a 7m: q U a i tc,, ' E7-- caliy haystd n:aftzmnaucii
=Ws.
Nnddle
The prWous yew- (2003) pplachon 2004 Or this level was overesiimuted `>y 74
Htm& The actual mernborship dt!creased by 78. Over the previous I'lu ms" tne gro,4vuh
VC YCL
,was
ftm 23 to 1104 tot 40, s�-� Az .78 us j tnt�.o-;msLs:ert WiTh. t.110 Lr Pa le
the negalve gTowth K 85) at the tsmo!-M
'Y icvu!�It�
---0:-Y2 as thty Progress NO th,,- --V-nL7-'!f 7Lzr A�Z�3,- ilg,� % Lht Prev- -
4 7mmm;Y gram,74 x-d zrnalric,��a:ztd in--o _ -ow conaiauM gorah att
I 'Z,-z sc, -oal CL-roHm'Ienz, Lm"i tlh�-
zz zz-'d
Nov., WAtheNownbc
N21,: 7 7
ar-Pj;2z6"m's ara Cons:tTv"azivz -xith
in °-� N ti de projucttj year r '&ahte ncxi lt-m -y�am A.T.bauzz,)I th is ;!CI v,-,
40
V
High School
T?ie p7eviou.-s- year (.2003) projections for -Novemb-IrZof)" for this level undercstimated by I')
s �dtra Vic actual membership inUea-s,-d by -1 4). oveT the proviotts three years. gro%vlh, w2s
Led 1.3 3 V, "'s
ma dcTate za a reIadvdY constaint 8 1, 7 5 and 59 Mo emb"Crihi? iller -5c, SO the PrL`f` '
i 04..-� id
h 4 a a: Tic 1 14' DOI levcA is m i r ar
Cri
v,- thaug -�,-ear h iao cm L
17
F :.. m r-- projections. ig-e alone Of Ti' .flmving of me-wth vt T
avem-14-z,--n ual illm� �-,e CF,-zm-
in, the ncxz Tc7n yfars
Recommendation -
4m,auisdes as noted in 3 above
411
J
vvv veaeaaan• f °vJ..vw•.+
3rd month 2nd nanth November 15, 2002
Elementary
Compiled by: Orange County Budget Office
01/29/03
School Year
YUUV -01 2UU1 U2 "LUU2 03 2003 -04
1004 -0ii'
2006-06
2006 -07
°cvvi -Oo
'ZuGow "a
t0v9•iv
20 10,11
2x41 -i2
201i -i3
EO.', -i4
Actual
3,078 2,693 2,901
1,791
1,834
1,877
1923
1,969
2,017
2,066
10 Year Growth 1,641
1,560
1,541
Tischler 1
2 951
2,966
3,000
3;050
3,100
3 150
3,199
3,249
3,299
3,349
3,398
3,448
OC Planning
3,035
3,105
3,178
3,254
3,331
3,411
3,493
3,577
3,664
3,753
10 Year Growth
2 916
2,946
2,930
2 992
3,040
3,070
3;101
3 132
3,163
3195
3 227
5 Year Growth
2 889
2,896
2,870
2,921
2,966
2,995
3,025
3,056
3,086
3,117
3,148
3 Year Growth
2,890
2,892
2,854
2 892
2,925
2 955
21984
3,014
3 044
3 074
3,105
Avera a
2,922
2,954
2,962
3,017
3,067
3110
3154
3.199-
3,244,
3,290
3,336
Ca ac' -100% Level of Service
3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820
3,920
3 920
3,920
3,920
3,920.
3,920
3,920
3,920
3,920
3,920
105% Level of Service
4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011
4,116
4,116
4,116 4,116
4,116
1 4,116
4,1161
4,116
4,1161
4,116
Actual - % Level of Service
80.6% 75.7% 75.9%
Avera e % Leve
74 2%
Average - % Level of Service
76.5%
75.4%
75.6%
77.0% 8:2%
79.3%
80.5 0k
81.6%1
82.8%
83.9%1
85.1%
AhnuAfStudegf Growth Reie
(3)
`•8b1'ti i.+' 1128% :' 0�4 %°
10T /°
0.2%
1.85 °h
T:87%
0%
141%
1 d2°1e
.' 1.41 %e
141Ye
142%
additional 100
Middle seats available at hillsborough elementary
-
School Year 2000 -01 1 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04
Actual 1 504 1,527 1,831
Tischler" 1 1,659
2004 -05
1,687
2005 -06
1,715
2006 -07 2007 -08
1,743 1,771
2008 -09
1,799
2009 -10
1,827
2010 -11
1,855
2011 -12
1,883
2012 -13
1,911
1 2013 -14
1,939
OC Planning 1,633
1670
1,709
1,749
1,791
1,834
1,877
1923
1,969
2,017
2,066
10 Year Growth 1,641
1,560
1,541
1,510
1,508
1,477
1,525
1,558
1 574
1,589
1,605
5 Year Growth 1,617
3 Year Growth 1,638
1,514
1,463
1,418
1,394
1,355
1,389
1,419
1,433
1,447
1,462
1,555
1,520
1,486
1,469
1,514
1 1,439
1,458
1,473
1,488
1,502
Average 1,638
Capacity - 100 %Level of Service 1,466 1,466 1,466 1,466
1,597
1,590
1,581
1 1,587
1,596
1,611
1,643
1,666
1,690
1 715
1,466
1,466
2,166
2,166
2,166
2,166
2,1661
2,166
2,166
2166
107% Level of Service 1,569 1,569 1,569 1,569
Actual - % Level of Service 102.6 °h 104.2% 111.3%
1,569 1,569
2,318
2,
2,318
2,318
2,318
1 2,318
2,318
2,318
Average - % Level of Service 111.7%
108.9% 108.4%
73.0%
73.3%
73.
74A%
75.8%
76.9%
78.0%
79.2%
I Annual.Studenf:GrowthRate n s71r *a�1 k
(3) " 1.5$ °%. w; 6, $�% 0.40%
2 47%
-0:48%
` -0:53 °/a
0:34 ° /a
2518
2 518
2 518
2,518
110% Level of Se1670
Hfah (based on January 2003 revised timetable submitted by ocs, middle school s3 opens In fall 2006 with 700 additional seats
School Year
2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -0 3 2003 -04
2004 -05
2005-06
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011.12
2012 -13
2013 -14
Actual
1,672 1,753 1,828
Tischler"
OCPlannin
1,859
1,906
1,891
1,922
1,953
1 985
2016
2,047
2,079
2110
21141
2,173
1,950
1,995
2,042
2,091
2,140
2,192
2,244
2,299
2,354
2,411
10 Year Growth
1,852
1,916
1,943
1,914
1,897
1,898
1,805
1,792
1,619
1,808
1,851
5 Year Growth
1,843
1,893
1,903
1,847
1,808
1,773
1,662
1,828
1,635
1,616
1,648
3 Year Growth
Average
MofService
1,882
1,868
1.982
1,926
2,025
1,993
1 977
1,960,
1,855
1,830
1,825
1.790
1,817,
1,958
1,950
1,952
1,957
1,912
1,915
1,938
1,942
1,980
Capacity -100% L
1,518 1 518 2,51 2,518
2,518
2,518
2,518
2,516
2 518
2 518
2518
2 518
2 518
2,518
110% Level of Se1670
1,670 2 0 2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
2,770
Actual - % Level o110.1%
115.5% 2.6%
Avera e % Leve
74 2%
78 5%
310 " /e
77 7%
1;6%
77.4%
- 0:40%
77 5%
i1 +09%
77 7%
75 9%
76 0%
76 9%
771 %
78 6%
Annual:Studenf
(3)
' A d% d 28% ; f 2 21 °1•
Icecar noge nlgn opens wim i,uuu seats in ran 1uuz
indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
1'i It is important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2002 date of membership as outlined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not include
CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
121 The Tischler.Model provides for the "Linear Method" of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection models included the "Linear
Extrapolation Method" for CHCCS.
" Annual growth rate calculated using actual_ membership for years 2000 -01 through 2002 -03 and average membership for years 2003 -04 through 2013 -14
1s the s (Town or School District) designated member of the Orange County Planning and School Technical Advisory Committee ( OCPSTAC) I,
, certify that the Student Membership Projections and Student Generation Rates identified in the chart above are the ones that the OCPSTAC has
liscussed and agreed upon to be the official projections that will be used to compile Orange County's 2003.13 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools and the Orange County
ichools. (Date)
N
O n
0
b
n
r+
CHCCS Student Projections
3rd --T 2nd month November 15, 2002 nwnbmhip
Elamantary
Compiled by : Orange County Budget Office
01/29/03
School Year 2000 -01 2001 -02
002 -03
OWN
2004118 2008.08
2006 -07
2007 -08
12005-UV
Ylltib -iU "'"
[UtiO- 9'"
2v5ti -i'c"
"cvii•iv'
svia•ni
Actual 4 444
Tischler
OC Planning
10 Year Growth
5 Year Growth
3 Year Growth
evel of Service 4.302
W-100%1
105% Level of Service 1 4,6171
4 474
4 302
4,6171
4,551
4,3021
4.5171
4 714
4 750
4 726
4 799
4 736
4 4
4,9219
5,1611
4 877 6 040
4 913 5 070
4 690 5 018
S 034 5 218
4 913 5 060
4 925 b 083
4,921 4.921
5.157 5,167
5 203
5 221
5143
6 413
6 193
23
5 521
5,797
5 368
5 387
5 309
5 621
5,362
405
19t, 5,521
797
8 b29
5 b07
5 382
5 677
5.418
488
5,521
1 5.7971.
5 892
6855
8 018
8181
8344
5 818 5 726 -5,80-5 5 818
5 415 5 489 5 524 6 579
5 734 8 792 5 849 5 908
5.470 6.625 5 580 6.636
5.6651 5,673, 5 781 844
1 5,621 5.621 b 521 5 521
6,797 6,797 579 5 797
8 001
6 835
5 967
5 682
5 928
5 521
5 797
Actual - % Level of Service 103.3%
race - % Level of service
U
104.0%
.
105.8%
v . .
t41%
_.
100.1%1 103.31% .. _ 8..
mgik ��
97.9 9.9. 't . 8..% .
.9.4.8% gp �
J
2%
02..8.% 104.4% 7
}10.1d3.t. .1.
{4 t�1f "0 tfi
Uleldin Elernadary 09 opens In fall 2003 with addItIMI 619 JEWtrf #10 opens m 11.112006 with 600 addM.W seats
School Year
2000 -01
2001 -02 12 002113
2003 -04 2004-05 2006-06
2006-07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009.10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
201344
Actual
'nschier
OC tannin
10 Year Growth
6 Year Growth
PGrowth
e -100% Level of Service
Level of Service
2 326
2108
2.2561
2,540 2 808
2 840 2 840
3.039 3 039
2 701 2 796 1
2 705 2774
2 673 2 85H
2 675 2 874
2 883 2 883
2 840 2 840
3,039 3,0391
2,8_
2,8
2 714
2 757
2 719
2 840
3,0391
2 982
2 899
2 813
2 894
2 825
2 840
3,0391
3 076
2 956
2 883
2 991
1868
2 840
3,0391
3188
3 282
3 365
3448
3542
3 835
3 007
2 985
3194
3 033
2 840
3,039
3 079
3101
3 382
3158
2 840
3,039
3152
3 283
3 591
3 324
2 840
3,0391
3 226 3 288
3 295 3 328
3 827 3 864
3 357 3 391
2
3,0391 3 039
3 372
3 382
3 700
3 425
3 039
Actual - % Level of Service 110.3% 69.4%
Avera e - % Level of Service L pp 94.6% 95.5%1 98.0%1 101.5%1 104.0%1
yy �g y�pfr...inh 1[r t �ca7Y T_ .. t rA, turf i- n , }�'� .. 'y S SJ ✓.4 a i:,G'si�i" -r1
PRO
„ti�ua �(aiYa9 aPV Wrii ;E rrSa i § ay"� i kE `-iF N' P5 t�»7 ...�,
..... .}mil+ v. .:�
108.4%1
112.6%1
117.5%1
119A%j 1213% 123 2%
3 .- jS.Fn y^ .:
?! ���q9V' 1
9n��k
7 "48/e
.:'S{ g4� S- .i5��'r�.t+1�} =5.
,za�;.,?`
$
.. bfil..%..
tai It is important to note that this reflects the November 16, 2002 date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include
CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
rll The Tlschler Model provides for the "Linear Method" of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used In prior years projection models included the "Linear
Extrapolation Method" for CHCCS.
tar Annual arowth rate calculated
for veers 2000 -01 through 2002 -03 and
w As the 's (Town or School District) designated member of the Orange County Planning and School Technical Advisory Committee ( OCPSTAC) I,
certify that the Student Membership Projections and Student Generation Rates identified in the chart above are the ones that the OCPSTAC has
discussed and agreed upon to be the official projections that will be used to compile Orange County's 2003 -13 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools and the Orange County
O �
O
IQ
tD
b
n
N
UU5 Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 2) 1''
Elementary
Scholl Year
Actual
2000 -01
2001 -0Z
2002 -0J
2003 -04
2004 -05
1 2005 -06
2008 -07
1 2007 -06 2008 -09
1 2009 -10
2010 -11
2011.12 HP
2012.13
2013.14
1 871
3 076
2 893
2 901
2946
Taschler
OC Planning1956
Taschler r
2,000 2 038
2,075
1 2.113 2,151
Taschler
1 771
1 804
1 838
1 871
3,063
1 3.121
3180
1 3.239 3,298
1 3.356
3 415
3,4T4
3,533
3,591
OC Plannina
10 Year Growth
1 736
1 784
1 833
1 870
3.007
3.064
3 122
3.181 3.257
1 3,335
3 415
3,614
3,615
3,719
5 Year Growth
1 614 1 630
1
6 Year Growth
2 010 1 916
2 981
2 963
3 035
3.088 3.148
1 3,180
3 211
3,243
3,276
3,309
3 Year Growth
1
3 Year Growth
2.067
2.051
2 974
2 960
3 018
3,001 3.116
1 3.147
3,1178
3210
3,242
3,276
1ie19 a a? V, I i t, 6 1_l lstm} r ar t "M,e r F +a} r+ + v lanmpuR�r npn
1
150
AnMral Chanpe Fn fase (De" crease tl Ab9tal & 9J etedw���uu�� 1 +f , r: rs W yy a ' , q 4
V
{ •. t
... . [ r � :,, i.
2 980
2 955
3 018
3.060 3.107
1 3,138
3169
3.201
3,233
3.265
,...
AnhWlGliapp6� .lndreasa,(t)9chase InAcltial +P ected't +'.'
I +* + #,. j4uu ,?>til.K+d
nirkjl..
i" .3 00V, v3'11117 "; a'07 Fy .s.'J''. 28' r ¢ 185'. + t a- a ? a 278 ?•;`ri 1J a26 : ^' 3 3801 'r'I '452'
,,4 T r� r,
} ?j y
t 7 :�: „'. i) e'•ur. rsi +' :a P D -SiVy: t{ .L 'fv. fr ? 4.. 4 %1 3'9., ,r�
�Ia:• 4 4x,:, 3
beYS i �,t',..� yr o."{j?k1r , +rfi�i21 1 ?�;;
h? "4: $fit
LL +
2,510
Ca c -100X Level Of 3 Ice
1.465
pt
�. '10,
!..1 a
s 4GM.: i4 .#.
?'1$:rc,
48
"4 us1
a i ri lay"
y. wt 81 a
n.
,11r s
Ca act - 100% Level of Service
3 820
3 820
a 820
3 920
3 920
3.920.
3 920
3,920 3,920
3 920
3 920
3-929
3,920
3,920
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
42
927
919
975
919
909
848
94 735
889
642
2,316
2,318
2,310
105% Level of Service
4,011
4,011
4,011
4,1101
4,116
4,116
4116
4116 4,116
4,116
4,116
592
4,116
540
4118
488
4,116
Number of Students, Actual and Projected. Over (Under) 105% LOS
933
11.1181
1 110
0,11 1
1,115
1,105
(1
990 (931 )1
(885
838
084
638
605
Actual - % Level of Service
00.8%
75.7%
75.9%
76.1 %
104.2% 111.31e
114.0%
.042),
Avers e - % Level of Service
llIlllllM83,6%
88
38
884
Anna e - % Level Service
81.3%
81.9%1
Avere e - % Level of Service
63 0%
76.6%
70.8%
78.4%
79.7% 81.3%
82.4%
76.5%
84 9%
86.2%
87.5%
nua u r _ a :r, at 1 %:
o
:'Y810 % +v" °028%
c,; °"11S2Yo
1,90%
, 70[37%
' ^2:11%
1:66.
":' ' 1:90%
pp. a,
.1.44 %'',;,;
1.55%
r1: 1 O '':',!::1ai4
OCS Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 2) (1�
Middle
School Year
Actual
2000 -01
1 2001 -02 1 2002 -03 1
2003 04 2004 -05
2005 -06
2008 -07
2007 -08
2005 -09
2009 -10
201041 2011-12 201243
201!34
1 672 1 763
1604
1 627 1,831
1 871
Taschler
OC Planning1956
Taschler r
2,000 2 038
2,075
1 2.113 2,151
1 738
1 771
1 804
1 838
1 871
7 904
1 938
1971 2 004
2
OC Plannin
10 Year Growth
2 297
2,345
2,394
2,444
1 736
1 784
1 833
1 870
7 907
1 945
1984 2 024
2
1 569
1 536
1 534
1 472
7 530
1 569
1 614 1 630
1
6 Year Growth
2 010 1 916
1902
1,896
1,883
1 565
1 524
1 624
1 460
1 512
1 642
1 682 - 1 698
1
3 Year Growth
2.067
2.051
2,102
IJ 1 N' nn`
e 6 r�q v, I, Sir, , twin ,, M,ry'p
7 672
x'1643'
7 541
t5J8C
1 557
1658'•'
7 494
1633f:'t+
1 543
1 570
.1713'' "....17,51
1 603 1 619
'.1'775
1
150
AnMral Chanpe Fn fase (De" crease tl Ab9tal & 9J etedw���uu�� 1 +f , r: rs W yy a ' , q 4
V
{ •. t
... . [ r � :,, i.
e�r v i + t.iY f r ♦r. .� ty��.F.€ M .:4 # I
RI P Cj{ #. 3S
0 „
W2
Capacity •100 %Level of Service
1,510 1,518
2518. 2518
2,518
:
r
2,518 2,518
3b7Y "
138
2,510
Ca c -100X Level Of 3 Ice
1.465
1.465 1,466
1 68
1,455
1466
2166
.
2168
.
2168
2,166
2,166
2,166 2,160
2,166
Number of Students Actual and ProlecIed, Over (Under) 100% LOS
38
61 165
205
161
1T7
528
510
533
487
453
415
391
110% Level of Service
10T% Level of Service
1,509
1,509 1,569
1,569
1,569
1,569
2,318
2,318
2,316
2,318
2,310
2,316
2.316.
388
2.310
Number Of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 110% LOS
2 83
942 883
745
08 701
Number of Students Actual and Projected. Over nder 107% LOS
65
42 62
102
1 59
1 74
880
862
084
638
605
567
543
518)
Actual - % Level of Service
102.8%
104.2% 111.31e
114.0%
632
Avers e - % Level of Service
80.4%
81.9% 82.1%
82.2%
82.7g%
81.3%
81.9%1
Avere e - % Level of Service
63 0%
84.9%
_._ r.e-TR A:if:. q iwys tK! : n
111.0%1
112.0%1___
76.6%1
76.5%
75.4%1
77.6%
79.1%1
80.8%
81 9%
1 83.1%
nua u e , • . roux ,.R: . k, I u # .v „,:•> r x
" 1:58% 8181
„ ^'
.50 .
ztoowle 12.22%
It4o /.I
OCS Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 2)
High
School Year 1
2000 -01 1 2001 -02
1 2002 -03 12003 -04
2004 -05
2005 -06 2008 -07
2007 -08
2008 09 1200940
201041 201142
201243
701344
Actual
1 672 1 763
1 828 1 887
Taschler
OC Planning1956
1 962
2,000 2 038
2,075
1 2.113 2,151
2,108
2,220
2,264
2,301
10 Year Growth
2,008 2,003
2,119
2176 2,236
2 297
2,345
2,394
2,444
6 Year Growth
2 048
2,040 1,997
1,967
1 968 1.867
1 857
1,056
1,652
1,909
2 056
2,082 2,057
2,024
2 010 1 916
1902
1,896
1,883
1,935
3 Year Growth
2 101
2.181 2.187
2.165
2154 2.060
2.062
2.067
2.051
2,102
IJ 1 N' nn`
e 6 r�q v, I, Sir, , twin ,, M,ry'p
4s 420211 r 2082= rt 2058 ' x2070
2082 ?' 7047 „+ 20611 '" 207 X200
C °2.13b:
ArtpWl;l:Mhpe +hicrNS,010faPN e) HWI EP,.roeebtl '1 .:. fi, t::rx.ild�u•.tn.:ryvx,,F7�FPEryry,�',. a ;:..ez
" ,.:.. F;I W+!' �F N: jag:� 1y". rY�♦},r i a�
bliprl'4',�':M,.,I'J' 'j't/},,., ,.. ': ryr [ "):. K:!Y!. 'i:ll�k rr lla� ,♦... �. F. }. 'J' I^ K+
hi
a .� >� :.:.: ,r+ y,d.�- - +•,. • a ...:k. : ,. ,... :.� .. ,.,,.. _....
irti 1 N Yi;y } '�1i4 .j( ♦Y7 �' N.. {. t1 :L Tt .1..1:: _•
,F I�� ,:, .. 1 . F:. ..S,. 1 .f:: P"11r5 ,�'iVl�y
1, SIRS12s. "i 314
_ .: t
A.
, „38" !c? 6,asrcalrT
1
RI P Cj{ #. 3S
0 „
Capacity •100 %Level of Service
1,510 1,518
2518. 2518
2,518
2,518 2,518
2518
2,518 2,518
2,518
2,510
2,518
2,518
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
154 235
890 831
493
438 450
448
438
110% Level of Service
1,070 1,670
2,770 2 T70
2,770
2,770 2,770
2770
2,T70
471
2,770
457
2,770
440
2.T70
429
2 770
380
2,7T0
Number Of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 110% LOS
2 83
942 883
745
08 701
700
685
23
700
892
881
Actual - % Level of Service
110.1%1 115.5%
72.6% 74.9%
632
Avers e - % Level of Service
80.4%
81.9% 82.1%
82.2%
82.7g%
81.3%
81.9%1
82 6%
63 0%
84.9%
_._ r.e-TR A:if:. q iwys tK! : n
.. 7 9% , '0305 5%.:...�1h
85ti t ur1D18 ---F7 "•
;J
? 2s78y.
Indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
aiIt is Important to note that this reflects the November 14, 2003 date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital
The Taschler Model provides for the "Linear Method" of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection models included the "Linear Extrapolation Method" for CHCCS.
pI Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000 01 through 2003-04 and average membership for years 2003-04 through 2013 -14.
Na
O n
b
n
W
CHCCS Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 2) (1)
Elementary
School Year
2000 -01 12001
-02
2002 -03
2403 -04
2004 -05 2005 -06
2008 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009.10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2073 -14
Actual
4 444
4 474
4 651
4 892
3 728
3 867
3,989
4,121
4.2531
4.385
Tlschler
4849
4,780
Tiec ter
2819
2 922 3 026
3129
5 084 6.2491
6 435
6.621
5.607
5.993
8178
8384
6 650
6,736
OC planning
46
2 770
2 835 2,895
2,951
4905 5.01121
6.213
6.359
5.499
6.600
6 778
b 827
6 911
6 993
10 Year Growth
4,219
2 598
2 611 2,729
2,818
4 8T8 5.0361
6.157
5,310
5.3T2
6.420
6 480
6 635
6 690
6 846
5 Year Growth
548
2 602
626 2,746
2,830
4 899 6 086
5,235
5 411
5,483
6.638
6693
6 849
5 706
5 762
3 Year Growth
119.8%
2,585
2,574 2.666
2,689
4606 4.916
5.008
5,127
5160
5.217
B 89
6322
5.376
5,429
0.ri t'lY7 JM'yr #a;E$'
4w "Willy :.
2 "$75
7.a'3 11-02; $1 ^.',1r5Iv2`$ K ?G':3'
4941:,. Q, 0
4
,
Bit q:
)7 rC
;F. 7F..
5 .- 6
6 ..
aiqualgc, -rnye ... w+at o r 9) in +xe . I `Arrejac�trd"a
�
rt 1?r
a
yy,,
V ky +r ' R,
'.. {a I If�`•`"a^. ��a ,. a
rat
:c
l
:7`
` -,'�; %`12167. (jq,%1 0'
a I d
t
..b 6
4 I (1...
r 9'�
m
,..rfi.� �{
.. .92 ,
y t
f, . 3
Ca cl -100% Level of Service LOS
4,302
4,302
4,302
4.921
4,921 4,921
5,521
5.521
5.521
5,521
5,521
5,521
5,521
5,521
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over nder 100% LOS
142
172
249
229
17
149
311
155
58
35
127
218
305
392
Capacity -105% Level of Service LOS
4,517
4,51T
4,51T
S 187
8167
5. 67
5,797
5,79T
5 79T
5,797
5,T97
5,T97
5,79T
S T97
Number Of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 105% LOS
73
43
34
475
257
97
587
431
332
241
149
58
29
1711
Actual - % Level of Service
103.3%
104.0%
105.6%
Avers e - % Level of Service
W t.... , ! s zy =;y , a ,:.: ^„ :.9,, x , . r "� a , .�. r!rg9120%
..
n.e -' "278_;
anrw,0::6% ,?'," 2:40Yr
�' >7, %'u- +r..£57 -7:'
?^, t .60 �'i``.'�44,0511i �4 ?'�-8 33% •r;,� 384 -r ;r
1.79
. 5.
Avers - % Level of Service
95.3%
99.8%
103.0%
94.4%
9T.2%
99.0%
100.6%
102.3%
104.0%
106.6%
107.1%
nW : u e r1rU a .gqs fiV n r rn -r:F
a m ? i, 388
r ,rrs s72..
to- r3:7 ..
„4: 5%
m w^ 5
' t : 5
k %�ss2i99
uro,r 1 8%
;,.., 187...
^r1 °
3%
,. wp
CHCCS Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 2) (1)
Middle
School Year
2000 -01 2001 -02
2002 -03 11
2003 -04
2004 -05
2005 -08 .2008 -0T
007 -08 2006 -09
2009.10 2010 -11
2071 -12
2012 -13
2013 -14
Actual
2 328
2 540
2806
2 812
2983 3182
3330
3 684
3 728
3 867
3,989
4,121
4.2531
4.385
Tlschler
4849
4,780
OC Planning
10 Year Growth
2819
2 922 3 026
3129
3 233
3 336
3.439
3.643
3.640
3.7501
OC Planning
$96
182
98
46
2 770
2 835 2,895
2,951
3,003
3.076
3.147
3.220
3.294
3.368
10 Year Growth
3,339
3,339
4 I9
4,219
2 598
2 611 2,729
2,818
2,987
3,129
3,299
3,352
3,36e
3,420
b Year Growth
tell
159
292
548
2 602
626 2,746
2,830
2,979
3,090
3 236
3 277
3 310
3343
3 Year Gr(rMh
97.8% '104.2%J
109.7%
115.2%
119.8%
2,585
2,574 2.666
2,689
2.799
2.871
2,976
2 992
3 022
3 052
AVa • ;e;.:y 1 , t Nhwoy r! 4 . ":rPf i,r n r I ;•n r fr.:
2 "$75
7.a'3 11-02; $1 ^.',1r5Iv2`$ K ?G':3'
S
,
33tt�� S,
h Chan a i n Nraa' ; $OYBfi I 1 rP Ototl t1w! �<r
g t rf ! .. t
*�'F k d n'
�J ..
. s
f
' +&
.f "•wt� ,. k Y PY a n c ar �';< ,,.:
ryry
2 r sMr.sa,�
Mahibiffr 1' r it Sd? r . ,= y ' d $. tt9r 4�e1 9f
rt 1?r
a
b�
15,
r
l
:7`
Y.A1
;I:.
u,
Ca cl - 100 %Level of Servlca .
2,106
2,849
2,840
2,840
2,540
Z840 2 840
2 640
2,840
2.840
2.840
2.840
2.840
2.040
Number Of Students Actualond Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
218
300
232
228
185
127 30..
43
160
280 1
379
437 1
492
547
107 %Laval of Service
2,250
3_039
3,039
3,039
3,039
3,039 3 039
3 039
3,039
3.039
3.039
3 039
3.0 9
3 039
Number of Students Actual and Pro acted Over Under 10T% LOS
1 70
498
431
427
364
325 228
155
39
81
180
236
293
348
Actual - % Level of Service
110.3%
89.4%
91.8%
92.0%
94.2%
96,6% 1 99.0%1
101.5%
105.6%
109.2%
113.4%
115.4%
117.3%
119.2%
Avers e - % Level of Service
W t.... , ! s zy =;y , a ,:.: ^„ :.9,, x , . r "� a , .�. r!rg9120%
..
n.e -' "278_;
anrw,0::6% ,?'," 2:40Yr
�' >7, %'u- +r..£57 -7:'
?^, t .60 �'i``.'�44,0511i �4 ?'�-8 33% •r;,� 384 -r ;r
1.79
. 5.
CHCCS Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 2)
High
School Year
2000 -01
200.1 -02 2002 -03
2003 -04
2004 -05
2005-08
2006 -07 2007 -08
2006 -09
2009 -10
2010.11 2011.12
2012 -13
2013 -14
Actual
Tfsdhler h
2 810
2983 3182
3330
3 684
3 728
3 867
3,989
4,121
4.2531
4.385
4.517
4849
4,780
OC Planning
10 Year Growth
! ,,i , _ tk�r:;aE4 a . ; +.e.i�. 1' �$, � r , {, F,'�; {l1>i'�
3,035 3,035 3,935
3 274 3 352 3 426
3 515 3 B47 3 645
3 641 3 704 3 717
3,562 3 724 3.718
31!tPR
Y73
i�
: t' ., h?i6, B- k .£ . d °$ 'Sf s `g3p4e x; \1�9$*7Z,n:,�, :r ; lY r S i,r a ' , ., Y 4 . w J'
3 035 3,035 3,035 3,836
3,494 3,567 3.6101 3,674 3 731 3 016 3 SW
3,690 3,730 3.8291 3.936 4,145 4 326 4 466
3,762 3,796 3.886 3.999 4,235 4 453 4,621
3,752 3.747 3,780 3.843 3.989 4 103
:4. I 1
3dhr"11 99 03
N z' .
+ i:37. tl, .: .�rs�3'7:9 � P ,
r,Y, 24r I''42 u
3,835. 3,835 3,835 3,835 3,835 3,835 3,935
6 Year Growfh
3 Year Growth
tH, , : L $ ;i§ w -,irj, r
;t:;. _
{ ?.4P. ;
* ,
,tl,w.a.., ;
,., ",p w 'ri
}".�iF .
1 P! n 14 �g h .sac ® 46
. x ; Y !, � .
N.lVia �h ifib �s. l *x ah t ytx'r ? , ',i' { � ir.r ,. X. 1 1. ,,, ( E'✓, . + , §, : r Itt`qr„� ., s "r : '. . r* '1 . ,r'r
�w
Capacity -100% Level of Service
Number of Students Actual and P acted Over Under 100% LOS
220
T2 127
295
462
$96
182
98
46
38
132
288
434
555
110% Level of Service
3,339
3,339 3,339
3 339
3,339
3,339
4 I9
4,219
4.2191
4.2191
4,219
4,219
4,219
4,219
Number of Students Actual and Pro
led Over (Under) 110% LOS
524
378 177 )
tell
159
292
548
481
428
346
251
95
51
171
Actual - % Level of Service
Avers e - % Level of Service
1 92.8%1
97.8% '104.2%J
109.7%
115.2%
119.8%
M,8%
97.5%
9 S%1
101.0%
1M034%1
107.5%1
111.3%1
114.6%
....... d ... .. r trrv.�,/t"d7`•'r.•;�r+•v, rr Irr4., azn ar x.'ta w� f?T ?
TTIPM
WitnW..'
Indicates nrst year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
uh It is Important to note that this reflects the November 14, 2003 dale of membership as outlined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital
ur The Tiechler Model provides for the "Linear Method" of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection models Included the "Linear Extrapolation Method" for CHCCS.
tah Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000 -01 through 2003-04 and average membership for years 2003-04 through 2013.14.
O
CD
ki
n
Elementary
nit Compiled by: Orange County Budpt Office
School Year
2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 04 2004 -05 2005 -06
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
1200940
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2013.14
2014 -15
Actual
3,078 2 893 2 901 2 946 3 018
Tischier
3.078
3.140
3,202
3,264
3,326
3387
3,449
3.51 J
3 573
3,635
OC Plannina
3,061
3,158
3,231
3,314
3,400
3 473
3,649
3,628
3,692
3,758
10 Year Growth
5 Year Growth
30`14
3,004
3,093
3,069
3,188
3,149
3,247
3,312
3 347
3,379
3,412
3,447
3,481
3,195
3,247
3 280
3,313
3,346
3,379
3,413
3 Year Growth
3 038
3.137
3,236
3.296
3.364
3.388
3.421
3.450
3.490
3.626,
, ..,.
Vo 9's r4-,� -.. � ` �6?+i: ,
•
,Capacity -100% Level of Service
a a4iw8�
3,820 4,820 3,820 3 820 3 820 3 920
9'ist
3,920
a' his:
3 r sa
"43 9
'a` 73,,
1a ✓
r< °4'
f
i °at(,
`3`6:6
e . s
b6s
3,920
3,920
.e
1
2166
2165
2166
2188
3,920
3,920
3,920
3`920
3,020
3,920.
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS
42 927 919 876 3 620 877
01
19
6
592
545
498
449
404
358
108% Level of Service
4,011 41,0111 , : 4,011 4 011 4 011 . ,.4116
471'Fk
4,116
..:4116
4116.
4,116
41.16
4,110
4,116
4116
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 106% LAS
933 1118 1110 1 066 (4.011) 1 073
997
915
'' 853
788
41 1
(6941
16461
600
554
Actual - % Level of Service
evel of Service
Avers %M
80.6% 75.7% 75.9% 77.1 % 79.0%
77.8%
79.8%
81.
83.2%
84.9%
86.1%1
87.3%
88.5%
89.7%
90.9%
Annwint rbtiViH;,Bta'O " a
- :.8:01 %x:;028 " °.152% `''' "2A1 OAO %'"
251 %
":" 2,62%
'" "194%
`- ;''1.97%
'= '1A2Y.
' "1 :40Y:
149%
:` 1131%
"1: 1%
laddmanl 1bo JIM SEWS et HafbOleugn BMWtary
OCS Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 3) (1)
Middle
School Year
2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009.10
2010.11
2011.12
2012.13
2013 -14
2014 -18
Actual
1,604 1,527 1 631 1,671 1,693
�hW al
1 626
1,656
1,091
1,724
1,756
1,789
1 622
1 655
1887
1 920
OC Planning
1,619
1,645
1,679
1,108
1,737
1,782
1 829
1 877
1,927
1,978
10 Year Growth
1 598
1,567
1,549
1,504
1,637
1,616
1 683
1713
1,730
1,747
5 Year Growth
1 601
1,571
1,550
1,606
1,538
1,604
1 835
1 872
1,689
1,706
3 Year Growth
1 624
1.612
1.622
1.602
1.667
1.767
1 804
1 849
1.668
1 887
66 7.
e'.,�. , �sby - ,,• : - • , . �: , : � -: " .
Capacity " 100% Level of Service
; 61 {g:.�;•
1 66 1 466 1,468 1,468 1 486 1 68
c : a
i 's
M,
`�
{> ,:
•
`• , � '!'9
.e
1
2166
2165
2166
2188
2166
2166
2166
2166
2,166
Number of Students Actual'and Projected, Over Under 100Y. LOS
38 61 155 206 (1,466) 148
555
a
557
519
456
415
373
346
318
107% level of Service
1 569 1 569 . ' -,1,569 1 589 1 589 ' 1 669
2 318
.2310
2.318
2 318
2 318
2 318
2 318
2 318
2,318
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over der 107% LOS
85 42 . 02 102 (1.5691 4S 707
599
1 09
871
1 (6081
567
524
487
470
Actual - % Level of Service
102.6% 104.2% 111.3% 114.0% 108.7%
. .
.
.
Y
, %
-014%
41%
Avers e - %Level o(Service
110.1 % 74.4%
74.7%
74.3%
.0%
78.9%
80.8%
82.8%
84.0%
85.3%
MnuahBWdentGrowth to (3)
' " ^ :' %1,53% 7 ' '8:81% "' ' "+7:67% 1;29%
0 58%
,3
? 3.83%
. °-2:37%
, `, 2A3Y6
" 1'151%
:. ;1151%
middle sdWW t:3 Opens h fall 2006 with 700 MOWN seats
OCS Student Projections (No reduction in class size for grades K thru 3) "1
High
School Year
2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2008 -06
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009.10
2010.11
2011.12
201243
2013 -14
2014 -15
Actual
1,872 1,763 1828 1887 2057
Tischler (21
2,099
2,141
2,184
2,226
2,268
2,310
2,352
2,395
2,437
2,479
OC Planning
2102
2,138
2,175
2,214
2,254
2,296
2,338
2,382
2,442
2,505
10 Year Growth
2,115
2,063
2,010
2,015
1,939
1,891
1,923
1,897
1,071
2,047
5 Year Growth
2,129
2,122
2,088
2,088
2,017
1,973
1,996
1,970
2,030
2,094
3 Year Growth
2165
2,214
2.216
2.25T
2.206
2.201
2259
2.269
2.372
2.463,
i
9ii
V
Capacity "100 %Level of Service
e:' Gr 56 O r
1,518 1 18 2 2518 2518 2518
11
n_
2,518
ma i
2,518
b
2518
;' 1 'I'I
2,518
_ b4�
2,516
"� i5
2,518
�e � .bbl
2518
"2 b6
>,tts• 2
2,518
2,518
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over (Under) 100% LOS
154 235 890 631 (2,518) 396
382
383
358
381
384
344
335
288
200
110% Level of Service
1.670 1 2 770 2,770 2,770 2,770
2,770
2,770
2770
2,770
2,770
2,770.
2 770
2 T70
2,7T0
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over (Under), 110% LOS
2 83 942 883 2 770 6411
834
836
810
833) 638 596
(58
51a
(452)
Actual - % Level of Service
Average - % Level of Service
11 115.5% 72.8% 74.9% 81.7%
84.3%
84.8%
84.6%
85.8%
84.9% 84.8% 86.3%
88.7%
89.4%
92.0%
Annual StudentOrowthlNats (3 )
. .
.
.
Y
, %
-014%
41%
2,99 %'
Cedar Rfte High opens wish 1,000 scats In fail 2002 - _
indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
t9 H Is Important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2004 date of membership as outlined In by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
at The Tischler Model provides for the "Linear Method" of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection models included the "Linear Extrapolation Method" for CHCCS.
r:t Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000 -01 through 2003 -04 and average membership for years 2003 -04 through 201415.
P 0
CD
0
—muent Projections
class size for grades
•ago 109.796 oa 792 °039 4 79 ret4' 703
3 835
t0 ft is important to note t 12,896 242 4 78 57
W rho Tschler '� ZB ° w 588 4 279 39
that this reflects �i 2y. 548 4 18
rot Annual Model Provides for f oa Novemyer 75, httlr "5.3:7Ye ;2a6y; t 18.396 178.O9y 4 79
A. growdllratecalculatedusingactua lM-11 e�i f R► °°Coons forboBjCHhiPasoutlined nbsPastsearthattlisttictsurpa�oSchools i18y� 1:dzy 1;98 :,p, 4ie 97,386 98,795 3q4
P or years 2000 -01 Ouough 2 US and OCS, Ort9fnal PS�� s Adequate public APFO emended Lev,! of h �hooi s 7 4i'Y. 37� 7f
3-04 and ns used in bite FaclQtfes Ordin SeNlca er s to 2oD7 wRh 800 ye >.0 ,� It d average'mhersh!P for years 2 03-04 through 201 Models included the t k UdEe.�cCHCCS students atte °dd nel s
�aPolation Method" for od the HOVUM School
Orano Conk, $udg,t Office
11/2904
J
rY
:-Crior, H
A Student Growth Rate
1. Re-yansible EaaWyforSu ggestingo Change - The updating ofthis section will be
cionduc-Led by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Teclulical Advisory
Comji-iiitee (SAPFOTAC) cacti year and refcrred to the BOCC, for annual report
ccr' ;.5cafion.
?r�, Fections will be distributed to S_APF0 partners for rep and con,
I me.nts to 7[,,L,,- poCC
-,-Tior to certification.
24 Defthlifion - The amival perecirtage growih rate calculated fron i tlic. projections n sulthrg
from the averag
ge of the, Eve irodels nzFTestnted by 10 Yearnumerical membership
profections by school level for each -i school district. T-IiS does not represent the V
year gokAlth rate that May be pOvii LiVe or
n eg 7e but rather the -a -e age of the FZ u I
a
gnmvv�h rates c) ver ten (10) years.
3. Slandardfor.
Standard for:
Cha,pel'HW Carrboro School District
Orange County School District
See Aqtachment IT.D.3
See Attaclunent JI.D.3
A
A nalysis of Exivh,�q Conditions
411:4ty-vis of Ex isting Conditions
Th riern-bership figures and pee -ceritagc-
T-he irkombers'hip figures and percentag.-
go-,vt1i on the attachnients-shenw
_ovwth (in the aittaclunents -;-,,low coni:nued
c r t
o.u.inued growth at each school Bezel
.7,owtla, at each school level within the
within the system.
AvL4.-Laac Annual Growth Rate over 'Len years:
Avera ge Annual Cinmth Rate ov-,r zen ycarss-
P-,IJ:tnjz7,.`�i,,-c,!c: 2004 2005
Ve_° Pro'cokm -made; 2004 i 00:5
2.3_4% 1.79 a
1.54%
2.63% 1.9 1 %
NfiddTe - 0.79% 1.51(0��&
-., --;
1.2 1 L
5. Recommendation
Recominen.d[ttion
Use siatistics as no'
;ed
I - ics as not
Use stt at',st* note
E. Student / HouSing Generation Rate
I'llmilot -WorfAv jukuj DIWH kilmol!) ptotouy'llo wmmj qj offlINXINall pootiptiold 61t)00,) 0311VIO -
su011OOfOAd ju9pnjS ojoqjjeo/lll" lode4:)
I-- VP
voo"Ooz SUOROOfOld 4uapnjS 4unot) oftwo
a,
Vt
Orange County Student Projections 2003-2004
WWI(,
School
I 3.L30 3 87
3 e!t ij 44%
% 1,16Y4 lAl*. G
IN
Nm*x., t NAA(fobvi
Orange County lllmmiog wid fw4w0jws lkpostiont hwaacm of AnimAl Ovwlh How fiomi Awroges- laimmy, 900,1
Orange County Student Projections
middlo
Chapel Hill/Carrboro, Student Projections
(wit WrACaw(Jdwt4 W4100,600VINVI—W ON KQ"twvf I i'll9m
llrunT alld lowpoe,14AAMP59fitKIllt
yj
S tf-on H
I
r--. Student / Hou-sing Generation Rate
RespomsibleEndijifor Suggesting Chimge-'flhe updating of this sectlonx ill lie
conducted by Planning School Rep-resentatives, Technical Ad sorry
Co.-inurnittee (SAPFOTAC) aiidrefc�rrrtd to the 'BOCC for cznification.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO for review and comments to thcBROICC
prior to certification.
D efin WaFt - A p J ected number o f that are generated from txvo di fft�re .rent i- �,�
703 Y
of housing. "single-family" an.d "ot1&'. Sin glle-fami . Iv also includes. doulble-vid- Or
greater manufactured and modular hornes. 4'Otheeincludes multifamily and !;ingle-
vvide mobile homes. The standards, xeT-e- created during the Tischler and Assoc iazes
School Impact Fee Report of Febr=ry _200 1.
4tandard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro S.ehaol District
See Attachment II.E.1
xist
Afza�vsls of E. htq Conditions
Standardfar.
Orange County School Disti•ict
See. Attachment H.E. I
Tht-, stzff conim.ittee (S APFOTAC) is u3e%eelopina a program to independ=tly cz-.� _-Wate
student gen aration rates using GIS and School n.-porting systems. This priogzram will tale
a flleiv yea-Ts to develop.
Also, note that students are cLL-rat� from rew'�.Raotzsin as well as &orn txistisa;- houslnU
9
whe;r,t nt%v faTri.illes have moved in. The CAPS systern estimates nevv develo:)rne-rit
impacts and associated student s enizration bul it is hirportmit to understand. that sru -nt.
increazes area composite of both oft -s
fzciom This effect can be dramatic and can
ereatl)rbetvreen areas and districts 'xhttre eitb�r new housing is dmuinant orae'viv
ra-mill-les --nove Into a large inventiory of ex-is[ing housLng stock.
52
zendaiian — No change
Genemanion Ra s (20-FA o imta! all cm, sic mi-es a re devel p and,
VI
Tischler Student Generation. Rates
Orange County
Schools
Elementary
Middle
High
A1.1
Grades
shig!e4l"am.fiv
0.150
0.075
0.084
0.309
b e.
0.033
0..030
0.147
,&-m nbusing_6pes
0.140
0.068
0.076
0.28-4
Chapel WHI-Carib oro SC ol
- ----------
Elementary
Middle
High
All
rades
SIngle-Fam.i1v
0.1.68
0.095
0.123
0.386
Other
0,094
00042
Ow 43
0,179
All Ftp-!l � g
G. 1.")" 4
0.070
0.086
0.290
-q
SOIL!": hrpwt
RCIx"I I -Y Iv)r
secri"-On+ 19
HL F.I.GN'N'CILAR'I'Ok:�*-SC'ffOOLsADEQt Al-F- PUBLIC FAcm;-M-F':,S
ORDINTANCE PROCESS
Abstimrt: The Schools Adequate Public Facilinks Ordiiiance process has two distinct
A. Capital Investment Plan (CI) (Process 1)
Timcf-Crame: ln';Kovoniher of each year, Stu&--nt Nfe-nbership and Building Capacily is
-,ransmi-,t frorn the school districts to t]iL- 0-ange County Board of Commissioners for
couside-ration and approval and used in tie follo-wing years CFI' (e- g- November 15, 2004
nu -nbms used to devetop a CLP to be considered for adoption in Jane, 2005).
Proicess Frameivork
I SAPFOTAC projects future snadent membership from historical data, clum-,;rnt
membership and hypothetical -groMilh Wkcs from established niethodoloi2;es.
2. Scbool Districts and BOCC compare projections to existing capacity and
r0J Z:7
proposed Capital Investment PIL-I
SAPFOTAC f onvards data and prk33-ections to all Schools APFO pamiers-
3
A i
School Districts, develop Canita], lnvcZJnenzt PlanN eeds Assessment dziring tills
process
5. The Capital Inv-cstment Plan iv-or sessions wid Public. Hearings are. conducted by
the BOCC in the spring ofeach year.
0 1
6. The adoption ()f CTP that sets londi nior-,Rys and tim.efran-,te for school construction
(firture capacity) by BOCC-
try
fi
114
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process. 1, - Ca ital (UP1
Projection Metbod
(His on A N4.embersh-pt
PILLS HYFOLIACtical 1' 41,C
u
W
Approval
(Waposed New- (.',,,(rv!-1.rucfi--x1
Atldcg] hy nornber
!-ket ual.Ndlustments
,Cummit. Y c ,.jr Actul [Uptaws Pas L e-ar
Man bers, hip, Pr�-Jecdon)
CAPS
System 2
i ficate 0 f
OWN)
R
I IWATiad is a PrOWL Of mJJG:i,%: �Iawralzd lymn; (L) INVaAdn"Onmud Topzd har. Mierc a!w u5u;an is buill,
kvith ne-w finuai appmvud holsog jawkwaml; On Q Am W WiL ho u."
TEu My ; m I o �'!.: x, CA I � S *>y ac I I I (j.t., " ut-1 i I I'M* s pt C-idsk, CL ti 114:J vi:� iol k -.--i IVA(: I I I �,) a I J a rece i vc', d I to I to : �,-, (.Ill' Prm- I { ".'I1} i ► k-7, tl ',v "XUA
Ilk' i �j (M i! � ci id mr 15 of Moc x4n; 0 2 yy m! IN Dew ;V, wl N r u hyl lr"�Wu;II ill 'a � uiliu ye :I r I it to (-- ('111.
Serfirm ill
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Certificate of Adequate. Public Schools (CAPS)
Update (Process 2)
Timef-a=--e: The CAPS System is undatad approximately Novcmber 15 of e=h year when tlhe
school districts report actual membership and capacitY, whether it is C
E. ainations of changes -in capaci-c
associated or prior joint action' agreezuent. -. ,nlacti -n'detcrm o
due to St} to rL-,I'es or offiex non-construction related itorns are anticipated to be dune prior to the
� oveinber 15 capacity and membership nzporfiung date. This update may reflect the Board Of
Courycy C:ommnssioncrs action on the earlier -year Capital ki-%restment Plan (CIP) as it affects
b I ncili7ie3
capaciny and addition of new achial fall Schools Adequat�� Pu lic Fa -
Orduna-alce Certificate Of Adequate Public _5c tools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year
;z Novernber 15, 2004 to Novettnber 14, 2005).
d - Cd for a cermin 3,ear. As the CAPS sN updated, is originally logg , ystenj is up 4 ated, each
CAPS projection year is 'absorbed' by the aettual estilmattc o-fa given year. Later year CAPS
project'cns of the same development rmnain in fhz fuzura year CAPS system accorc,.Ir-�-,Jv. For
exanuinlc% ii[a. 50-lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 Tots maybe assigned to "Year 1."' !0110tS to
1. 1
Year 2F11, 10 lois, to "Yeax 3," 10 lots to "Year -4-- and 5 lots to "Near 5." 'When "Ycar I " Is
uvdatcL tlnW students generated From the 15 lo -;s are absorbed by the actual estimate. The
s- added to the
z�ucient--, g =enerated in "Years 2. 3, 4, anti 5" are held M the CAPS system wid
ap. propna7te year when the CAPS systen, is updaaied.
Pjeas,- -10ti-effiat the M?o processes (CIP and CAPS) are on separate but parallel tracks, Howv-ver,
the CT dots create a croSso ver 0 r caPac ity inforn:i atioia b erw ee7a t 11 e two processes. For
tjjt Schools APF0 systern, for both school c115tmts that will be established I im' qi-ate !
cercif-led each year in November and is based o.-II prior year created and J or planned CIP cantacf,,V
avid current school year membership. The SAPFOTAC report including ne,�vcurrent year
I � 1 -1 - z I
tj-L-zn-,� —rship -.nd projectiou.s are to be used for up-comins. CAP devclopment as noted in f1me ss
Serrion fil
CIP Process 1 (T'OT CTP2,005 -, 2,015)
-Nover iber 2004 -- June 2005 (using '2004 SAPFOTkC Report)
SchoGIs APFO CAPS Process I-.. (.fbr Se,,ioojs.AP'FO System 2004 — 20,05)
'November 2004 - November 20,C15
.;8
+Vecfiojl fit
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 2 - Cerfifica te of I Aye guate Public Schools (CAPSI Allocation
2005 CAPS system. is efTectiva November 15,, 2004 throug),,i November 14, 2005.
The system is -updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC/School District joint
action approved - prior to N -nation is received within 5 days of November 15
. proved capacity ovember 15, 2004, This infGn
and posted. witt-fln the next 15 days. This CAPS system recalibration is retroactive to November 15, 2004,
CAPS Allocation System
1. (,*ortiried C'alxacity
2 LOS Capacity
3. Adtial maubmillip
4. Ycar Start Availal)le Capacity
5. 0jigoing Cumat Avail.nble Capacity (includes available
c&tpacity CAPS dcvelopmexit by
Year)
0. CAPS apprmed dcvelopment
a. Total uaWs
b, singic Familyl
c. Other 11oushig
CAPS System
AC ->O - Issue CAPS
AC<O - Defer CAPS to later date
'S(tilleal, Geaera(iolt Rates from CAPS W11%ing type create fulure incinbership c-*Aimare III q op #
, , PImse note that this CAPS utembet-ship ftit -c y is
dill,cre"t (hon lite I ljt, (uqq based oil historical dato alld projcolioo titodels usixf iii the ("ll' promss 1. Thisesslimate only captows 11mv
devr1opment Impaol, Which is Lite component that IWSAPFO can rogalkile,
2A(.,- AvaihibIc Capocity developuleat iseill-eved itilo line Nystwl.
8(,, - cc-tilled School Level capocity
ADM -Avaragc E)aily ht to
ND - New Developmew, NCB] means rirst approwd. CAPS apprond developitictit
S-ern�ml FF
IV, ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS
The attachrncaits are additional inforniatim r--1,-A-ant to the SAPFOTAC report_
Attaches z-m It J is the BOCC AlIevda Abstract (sans aSledAttaclurnents) for the De-cf,-mbe—r 14, 20 1_BOCC
mccar.- ar";0"icy 1he November 15, 200-4 ai;tuall mem bc,-ship and capacity numbers for both school . vVere
an roved. Other issues rt-lalod to the SMPFO were also discussed at the m=tizigg, as addressed Ln the van OUS
por-Lion,o-fthe aiftached abstract.
60
ORAINGE COUM'Y
BOARD OF C01VAISSIONERS
AC71ON AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meefln,g Date: December 114, 2004
A tac znt I I
ge I of`"{
* # 1 * - 4 ft�
UNPIN
SUBJF-CT-. 10�Year Student Membership Projections and Schools Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance (SXPFO) Implications
DEPARTMENT: Mariag-r/Bu a.fJPI.-.,-inL-ir!'
PUBUC HEARING: (YIN)
No
Attorney
ATITACHMENT(SI:
S Membership GapaQity Calcul.-dark
and thaw Request Forms
WFORMATION CONTACT:
tip Year S-*-.Lqdert Menribership Projectiar,
Rod Visser. e)d 23M
lab'ES111GTaphs
Donna Dean, eat 2151
CGI241CA1 Managar Ma m- o re; New School
Cr4g 3enedict, ext 2592
Projects
Geof Gledhill, 73Z2190-
11123,;04 Attorney Letter on K-3 Class Size
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
cha-d - County's • Annual Debt ServiCe
Hillsborough 732.8181
Projectilons
Chapel Hill 968-4601
Durham 6SB-7331.
fillebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consilder apprwrJof Nvie—ember 15.2004 actual membership and capatity
,00."S SIVI ChZar-4
.Y Sch
Count
La
City Schools-, I aceive 0-
year proje-aMms developed t =41h zweed-upon mode4s; anti to; mnsIdar
a 3 =-Tic4i V, currently programniej de.A isvian-ca- to address anticiVated cost
ove-mirz In various c1Jmf school and Cmnry
BACKGROUND: [n 2OD3, the County, the two school systemns, and the Toyms of, Carrboro,
Chapel HUN, and Hillsborough entered Into mutual agre-emants that orsated a syetern of &hDols
Adequate Public Facilities ordinances. SAPFO was designed to ensure that new growth vv thin
'he County's two school districts orcurs, at a lace that allows Orange County and. the school
districts to provide adequate school faciVues to serve the children who will be living within new
res snval developments.
SAPFO Machinery
un
-9 -f Coty
0 0 jai at th - Board a
frtean days, after reoe&ingtha n, e om. the School Dist -. B04 5 -103�
Theattualstuidiant
mares zhlp '5-7,jres as of November 15 ea �� are run thtough five separate student
'ecfiDj-t models by a. Techn.1;--i Advisory Coz-arnittee (SAPFOTAG) of
mamte7snTp proji
representalives of, the Crounty, Towns, and sciiool sterns. The average. of the five mode'is
becomes the basis for programming the construction of additional school space to
Attachmnelt
(.pagve 2 of -1)
accommodate forecast, growth in student mqm�ership. T he membership numbers reflect an
aG,.gal student count as defined in the MOU. The capacity that is noted, Is from last years
SAPFCT AC certification.
The SAPFOTAC analytical work would normally take place in the January - February Idmeframe,
but was accelerated for 2004-05 at the request of the 80GQ because: the results of the
SAPFOTAC analysis of updated student membership projeetions, Will have a sTgni-ficant impact
on major capital funding decisions that the BOCC will need to make in the very near future.
SAPFOT AC is tasked to produce an annual report for the governing boards: of each SAPFO
partner. The full annual SAPFOTAC report will be completed in early 2005.
Building Capacity
There has been extensive discussion among the governing boards and staff of the CoLmty and
school systems throughout 2004 regarding the certij-:-c ion of individual school building
capacifties. The State of North Carolina has Jalkan urillateral action during the past tso years, to
dictate to local school administrative units that the average class size throughout a school
district for grades K-3 must be reduced to I teacher for every 21 students. As the BOCC has
rioted, this has in. effect created an told coded mandate for county governments to provide
additional school space with no time to plan for the funding and construction of new space.
--oliowing dis
F cussion on the subject at a November 2004 work session, the County Attorney,
examined the requirements for reduced class size and the possible sanctions or other
ramifications that might face any school system that is unable to comply with the average crass
size manda-leS. The accompanying letter frGin,"he Attorney outlines the results of his research.
As provided for in the SAPFO Section 1.b "-..'bUJldi,-1g capacity' will be determined— by a joint
action of the School Board and the BOCC.- Ther ' efore, until there is a 'joint action' agreeing to
the impact, of now State rules for classroom size in grades K-3, the existing capacity levels are
being . used for capaolty/membership projection comparisons.
Implications of' Updated Ten Year Student Membership Projections
SAPFO provides that the County must provilde funding and a school system must construct new
school space so that the Level of Service (LOS) for elementary school space vAl not exce-ad
105% of capacity across an entire school district- The updated ten-year student ma:rnbarship
proi-ctions prepared by SAPFOTAC and rafleGted on the a=mpa.nylng:charts Indicate that,
absent the creation of new seats, the 10511/o level of service would be exceed-aid at the
elp-maritrary level in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools for academic year 209-10.
Accordingly, adherence to SAPFO provisions will require that now permanent elementary
school space be avalfable for the beginning: of that school year. The needed opening date has
shifted back three, years compared to the 20007 opening contemplated in last year's student
membership projections. aloMing growth produced only minor enrollment increases at the
elementary level in the Chapel Hill-Carrbo.ro Schools during the current school year.
GHCCS Middle School #5 Is projected to be neaded in 2013-2014. 800 new seats w1ft become
sivallable virith the anticipated opening of CHCCS High School #3 in August 2007. Bused on the
updated student membership projections, there is no other ad. Mona[ high school space needed
within the ten-year planning period.
62
AU ac linicirt _,N". I
(paggo _3 of 4)
The Orange County School student membership pr):q-actlons reflect no ui I
req rem t en at this time
for addifional school seats during the ten-year pTanning horizon, beyond the construction of
Middle School #3 that is in progress, and slated for opening in August 2006.
Other Observations
Recently. the Board asked County staff to furl eat estimiates by both school systems'
architects regarding likely shortfalls in the established budgets for (ACS Middle School .43
and CHCCS High School #3. Both school systems have been advised that higher prices for
steel, concrete, and fuel, among other factors-, make it very likely that construction bids Will
significandy exceed the project allocations for construction. County staff have been working
with the school staffs and architects and plan to bring responses on January 24 to the
BOCC-requested analysis about factors affecting the anticipated cost overruns for the two
new schoo I projects
The Manager has explained during the past several months that the County faces significant
constraints, under its oven policies, regarding the issuance of debt beyond that already
programmed in the County's debt issuance schedule. That fact was reviewed in detail
during several Board work sessions this fall. The accompanying chart depicts the County's
anticipated annual debt capacity over the next ten years, with very little latitude to assume
any non-programmed debt through FY 2007-08. Estimates of potential cost overruns just for
the two riew school proj4cts have been in the range of $6 million to $7million. The Manager
has made it dear that he Will not recommend that the County issue additional debt to
address additional funding requested by both school systems for the now school projects,
beyond that already programmed, until the County regains additional debt issuance flexibility
beginning with FY idoa-og.
• In view of that, the Manager transmitted a September 24, 2004 memo to both
Superintendents soliciting ideas about how the anticipated cost overruns for the respective
na,& school projects might be addressed through reallocation of resources available to the
school systems through their ClPs and other revenue streams.
• To this point, there have been no expressed written alternatives to the Manager's proposal
that a portion of the planned issuance of $12.8 million in debt. for CHCCS Elementary
School 910 be shifted to address anticipated cost overruns for the bmo school projects and
other County capital projects that are in develop me nt
.
• In the absence of Viable alternatives and with the SAPFO-calculated postponement in the
need, for the opening of CHCCS Elementary School #10 until the 2009-10 academic year,
tote Manager recommends that the BOCC indicate its intention now to redirect some portion
of debt planned for Elementary #10 to address other-, more urgent capital funding needs.
• The adapted, 2004-14 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) would be amended to reflect the need
forfunds to construct CHCCS Elementary #10 with a revised opening date of August 2009.
• The Superintendent reports that the project archit wc:s have advised her that oonstruction. on
OCS Middle School 0 must begin by mid-February 2005 to keep the project on track for an
August 2006 opening. Accordingly, the Orange County Board of Education will likely
consider awarding the construction bid and approving associated contracts at their
scheduled meeting on January 24, 2005.
• BOCC action to reallocate specific arnounts of planned debt to provide appropriate revised
capital project budgets would be scheduled no sooner than the next BOCC regular meeting
on January 24, 2005. That action could take the form of endorsement of specific project
budget amounts and/or the adoption, of updated oapital project ordinances.
• The existing interlocal agreement between Orange County and CHCCS establishing the
project budget for High School 43 at $27..8 million plus $1.9 million for "smart growth"
63
in";�,3atvss w ' 4fd have -10 ba re�5tjsad to w1hatever acticil the BOCC May to i3 etrLiSt
t Counyis, ffundLag all ocatedto the pro
Ibe 3---ard bas indicated itts intention to • - ss at the January 22, 2005 annual pIM-nning
re,4reat the 'etive Ucational
.le irnpjica�ions of vario a schooke' d initi es -such such as Ed:
ate
Exceltence, Efficiency, and Goflaboration - in: the larger context of measures the Board aniay
consider to promote greater funding equity between the two school systerins in the futon.
RMANCIALIMPIACT: Precise financial impacts cannot be determined. but possible Changes 9141.1
r
projected building capacity and projacted gTovr�i In stud-ant ra-emb ,,,h,i P for the next ILP-1 YSWS
Of Tid-7
unpacts an fWur operating and cspz� &udg ea-sured in the tans: n-0 -s off
I S
RECOMMIENDAT I`ON(S). The Adnam"ieust-Sn re-=- mtrnend, -,mot the acrid:
Appprnova the No-.,,ernber 115. 2004, actual rnsmb5Tsh[.P numbers.,
Racenve the information about 10 -yeah student projection averages-,
M Approve the building capacity figures based on the individual school building ca.parity
numbers for both school systems at the fuels certified for 2003 -04-
* Indicate the Commissioners' intention to reallocate, as necessary and appropriate,.
p i
funding tiom the previously Planned issuance of $12.8 million in debt for CHGCS
c
J.a.mentaiy So hoot #10 to address oast ovemuns for CHCGS High, Sclioal 93, OCS
,Md6e School #3, and other pr;oriby County capit-ei praiects as determirted by the SO CC;
aire-=. staff 410 revise the 2004 -1 4' 4C, IP: Io �Iorid-ud-= a fundiqg. plan thatwou,-Ij p roVida for the
crtstnj-��-On of OriccS Elaimarftary-MIG akmg a timmina conslstentvWvh the need fb;,
Via, s CI spaca as id�entiftd in the Fjpr-,,a'--d SAPFO —tan-year student rmarn-�Fersi,.:R
(i.e opening for the 200,95-10 acadfeWic yasrX
o R �0- Oeas.-d 14::51
9. Items for Decision -- Reqular Agenda 9a,
a. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Approval of Annual
Certifications
The Board considered a review of the Annual Report from the Schools Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC); and provided appropriate
direction to the Manager and staff.
John Link said that, as part of the provisions of the memorandum of understanding by
the County, the school systems, and other municipalities, the Schools Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee has the responsibility each year of
developing a report that outlines changes in actual membership capacity, student projections,
and their collective impact on future issuances of certificates of adequate public schools
(CAPS). He pointed out that their recommendation is to continue with the K -3 class size of 23
students to one teacher, knowing that the General Assembly made a decision to reduce the
number of students to 21 students to one teacher, without any additional funding, provided to
the County.
Rod Visser said that, regarding the capacity situation, there is going to be a need for a
group to meet and try to resolve before next November how capacity should be determined.
The documents are based on the 23:1 ratio in K -3. He pointed out the major points in the
report.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked for the review from Geof Gledhill, which highlighted the
issue of unfunded mandates from the State. He thinks it is outrageous that the Governor made
this unilateral decision.
Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to address the General Assembly's class
size reductions at some point since determination of capacity at the state - mandated class size
of 2 1: 1 does make a difference. The change will especially affect the CHCCS elementary
schools since they are more crowded than the OCS elementary schools. Also, she asked that
the charts be run for 2004 -2005 on pages 46, 47, and 51.
Commissioner Jacobs thinks that they need to look at the issue of how to address this
class size mandate.
Chair Carey said that at some point he will ask the staff to run these same numbers for
one school system in this County and Commissioner Halkiotis seconded this.
Rod Visser said that there is a requirement in the MOU that this report gets referred to
each partner for comments. This is the next step.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
approve the Annual Report from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical
Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC); and to transmit this document with comments to the other
governing bodies.
Commissioner Jacobs added that the County Commissioners' comments made also be
transmitted, including that the Governor's budget includes taking some of the existing school
construction money and re- appropriating it for other uses.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16