HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-07-2011 - 5kAttachment 1
2011 SAPFOTAC Report
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ORDINANCE
PREPARED BY A STAFF COMMITTEE: PLANNING DIRECTORS,
SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(SAPFOTAC)
(PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 2003)
(ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN JULY, 2003)
Annual ~Zepo~t
2011
(BASED ON NOVEMBER 2010 DATA)
CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON XXXXX
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ i
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... iv
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ............................................
Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) members ....................................................................... vi
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding
A. Level of Service ............................................................................. 1
B. Building Capacity ........................................................................ z
Attachment: I.B.1. -Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10) ................... 5
Attachment: I.B.2. -Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10)............ 8
Attachment: I.B.3. -Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2010-11) .....................11
Attachment: I.B.4. -Chapel HilUCarrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2010-11) ............. 14
C. Membership Date ............................................................................ 17
II. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) ......................................................... is
B. Student Membership Projection Methodology ...................................... 19
Attachment: II.B.1. -Student Membership Projection Descriptions ....................................................... 20
Attachment: Il. B.2. -Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2009-10 .................. 21
Attachment: II.B.3. -Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2010-11 .................. 25
C. Student Membership Projections ...................................................... 29
Attachment: II. C 1. -Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10) .............. 34
Attachment: II.C2. -Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2009-10)....... 35
Attachment: II. C 3. -Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2010-11) ......... 36
Attachment: ILC4. -Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2010-11)....... 37
D. Student Membership Growth Rate .............................................................. 3s
Attachment: II.D.1. -Orange County & Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2010 - 2020 based on 11/13/09 membership numbers (2009-10) .................................. 39
Attachment: II.D.2. -Orange County & Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2011- 2021 based on I1/1 S/10 membership numbers (2010-11) ..................................... 40
E. Student /Housing Generation Rate ....................................................
41
Attachment: II.E.1. -Current Student Generation Rates (2007) .......................................................... 42
III. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process
A. Process 1 -Capital Investment Plan ...................................................................... 43
Attachment: III A.1. -Process 1 Capital Investment Plan .................................................................. 44
B. Process 2 -Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance;
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) System ..................................... 4s
Attachment: III B.1. -Process 2 Certificate ofAdequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation .......................... 47
2011 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding
A. Level of Service ..............................................(No Change).........Pg. 1
Chapel HilUCarrboro
School District Orange County
School District
Elementa 105% 105%
Middle 107% 107%
Hi h 110% 110%
B. Building Capacity and Membership .........................(Change)..........Pg. 2
Chapel HilUCarrboro
School District Orange County
School District
Capacity Membership Increase
from Prior
Year Capacity Membership Increase
from Prior
Year
Elementa 5244 5296 77 3694 3285 74
Middle 2840 2722 14 2166 1698 33
Hi h 3875 3640 34 2558 2222 5
C. Membership Date - November IS ........................(No Change).......Pg.17
II. Annual Update to SAPFO System
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) .............................(Change)..........Pg. 18
B. Student Membership Projection Methodology.......(No Change).......Pg. 19
The average of 3, S, and 10 year history/cohort survival, linear and arithmetic projection models.
C. Student Membership Projections ..............................(Change)...........Pg.29
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2010-11 School Year -Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
(The number in brackets [n] is the number of students the projection was off compazed to actual membership. A number in pazenthesis
within the brackets [ (n) ]indicates the projection was low compared to the actual whereas a number not in parenthesis indicates the
ro'ection was hi h com aced to the actual.
Year Projection Made for 2010-ilMembership
Actua12010 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Membershi
Elementa 5296 5518 222 5541 245 5603 307 5533 23 5381 85
Middle 2722 2921 199 2833 111 2853 131 2826 104 2742 20
Hi h 3640 3789 149 3704 64] 3777 137] 3732 92] 3662 22
Executive Summary
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2010-11 School Year -Orange County Schools
(The number in brackets [n] is the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. A number in parenthesis
within the brackets [ (n) ]indicates the projection was low compared to the actual whereas a number not in parenthesis indicates the
ro'ection was hi h com aced to the actual.
Year Projection Made for 2010-11 Membership
Actua12010 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Membershi
Elemen 3285 3269 16 3245 40 3385 100 3234 51 3254 31
Middle 1698 1682 16 1697 1 1689 9 1679 19 1711 13
Hi 2222 2138 84 2183 39 2237 15 2208 14 2236 14
D. Student Growth Rate ............................................(Change)..........Pg. 38
Avera a Annual Growth Rate over 10 Years
Chapel HilUCarrboro
School District Orange County
School District
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Elementa 2.03% 1.85% 1.5% 1.72% 1.44% 1.49% 1.84% 1.16% 1.34% 1.57%
Middle 2.35% 2.58% 2.03% 1.93% 1.67% 1.42% 1.78% 1.44% 1.53% 1.84%
Hi h 2.04% 2.31% 2.21% 1.8% 1.57% 0.98% 1.49% 1.0% 1.38% 1.59%
E. Student /Housing Generation Rate ....................(No Change)...........Pg. 41
SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS
(based on future year Student Membership Projections)
CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School District
A. Does not exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 101%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the
next 10 years.
C. Due partially to reduced class size capacities going into effect in 2008 with the opening
of Morris Grove Elementary, the projections are showing a need for Elementary School
#11 in 2013-14 by a projected overcapacity of 51 students.
Middle School District
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standards (current LOS is 95.8%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the
next 10 years.
C. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Middle School #5 is projected to be needed in 2018-19.
High School District
A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 93.9%).
ii
Executive Summary
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a lesser rate over the
next 10 years.
C. Beginning this school year, Phoenix Academy High School became an official high
school within the district with a capacity of 40 students.
D. Expansion of Carrboro High School from the initial capacity of 800 students to the
ultimate capacity of 1,200 students is no longer projected to be needed in the 10 year
projection time frame.
ORANGE COUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School District
A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 88.9%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the
next 10 years.
C. Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10-year timeframe. However, staff is
monitoring new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane, which is
not a party to the Schools APFO MOU at this time.
Middle School District
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 78.4%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the
next 10 years.
C. Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10-year time frame. However, staff is
monitoring new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane, which is
not a party to the Schools APFO MOU at this time.
High School District
A. Does not currently exceed 110% LOS (current LOS is 86.9%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the
next 10 years.
C. Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10-year time frame. However, staff is
monitoring new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane, which is
not a party to the Schools APFO MOU at this time.
iii
Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and its Memorandum of
Understanding are ordinances and agreements, respectively. Supporting documents are
anticipated to be dynamic to incorporate the annual changing conditions of membership, capacity
and student projections that may affect School Capital Investment Plan (CIP) timing. This
formal annual report will be forthcoming to all of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance partners each year as new information is available.
This updated information is used in the schools capital needs process of the Capital
Investment Plan (Process 1) and within elements of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) spreadsheet system (Process 2).
This report and any comments from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
partners will be considered in the first half of each year by the Board of County Commissioners
at a regular or special meeting. The various elements of the report are then "certified" and
formally considered in the process of the upcoming Capital Investment Plan. The Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools system is updated after November 15 when data is received from the
school districts with actual membership and pre-certified capacity (i.e. CIP capacity or prior
"joint action" capacity changes).
The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Memorandum of Understanding
have dynamic aspects. The derivation of the baseline and update to the variables will continue in
the future as a variety of school related issues are fine-tuned by technical and policy groups.
The primary facet of this report includes the creation of mathematical projections for
student memberships by school levels (Elementary, Middle and High) and by School Districts
(Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County). This information is found in Section II, Subsections
B, C, D, and E.
In summary, this report serves as an update to the dynamic conditions of student
membership and school capacity which effect future projected needs considered in Capital
Investment Planning.
Interested parties may make their comments known to the Board of County
Commissioners prior to their review of the report and school CIP completion or ask questions of
the SAPFOTAC members.
iv
ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum
of Understanding (Schools APFO MOU)
SECTION ld
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORDINANCE PARTNERS
Chapel HilUCarrboro School District
School APFO Orange County School District
School APFO
,.;~ : ~ ,
Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Hillsborough Town Council
Chapel Hill Town Council
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board Orange County School Board
v
Planning Directors/School Representatives
Technical Advisory Committee
(aka SAPFOTAC)
Orange County Planning Department
Craig Benedict, Planning Director,
Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner
131 W. Margaret Lane
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Town of Chapel Hill
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Town of Hillsborough
Margaret Hauth, Planning Director
P.O. Box 429
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Orange County School District
Patrick Rhodes, Superintendent and
George McFarley, Chief Operating Officer
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Carrboro Planning Department
Trish McGuire, Planning Administrator
301 West Main Street
Carrboro, NC 27510
Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District
Todd Loi+'rese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services and
Kevin Morgenstein Fuerst, Coordinator of Student Enrollment
750 Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 25716
vi
I. BASE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
A. Level of Service
1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -Change can only be effectuated by
amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all School APFO partners.
2. Definition -Level of Service (LOS) means the amount (level) of students that can be
accommodated (serviced) at a certain school system grade group
[i.e., Elementary level (K-5), Middle Level (6-8), High School Level (9-12)].
3. Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Elementary Middle High School Elementary Middle High School
105% 107% 110% 105% 107% 110%
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
S. Recommendation -
No Change from above standard
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
Recommendation-
No Change from above standard
Section I
1.
2.
3.
B. Building Capacity
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -The Planning Directors, School Representatives,
Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) will receive requested changes that are CIP
related and adopted in the prior year. CIP capacity changes will be updated along with actual
membership received in November of each year.
Other changes will be sent to a `Joint Action Committee' of the BOCC and Board of Education,
as noted in the MOU, who will make recommendations and forward changes (on the specific
forms with justification) to the full Board of County Commissioners for review and action.
These non-CIP changes would be updated in the upcoming November CAPS system
recalibration and included in the SAPFOTAC report.
Definition- "For purposes of this Memorandum, "building capacity" will be determined by
reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines (consistent with CIP School
Construction Guidelines/policies developed by the School District and the Board of County
Commissioners) and will be determined by a joint action of the School Board and the Orange
County Board of Commissioners. As used herein the term "building capacity" refers to
permanent buildings. Mobile classrooms and other temporary student accommodating classroom
spaces are not permanent buildings and may not be counted in determining the school districts
building capacity."
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective
Standard fore
Orange County School District
The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective
superintendent and incorporated in the initialization superintendent and incorporated in the
of the CAPS system (Chapel Hill Carrboro School initialization of the CAPS system (Orange
District April 29, 2002 -Base)
Capacity changes were made each year as follows:
2003: Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary.
2004: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
County School District April 30, 2002 -Base)
Capacity changes were made each year as
follows:
2
Section I
School levels.
2003: No net increase in capacity at
2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High Elementary level. No changes at Middle
School levels.
School level. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge
2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High High School.
School levels.
2004: No net increase in capacity at
2007: An increase of 800 at the High School level Elementary level. No changes at Middle or
with the opening of Carrboro High School. High School levels.
2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary School 2005: An increase in capacity of 100 at
level due to the opening of Morris Grove Elementary Hillsborough Elementary with the completion
School and the implementation of the 1:21 class size
ratio in grades K-3
2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2010: An increase in capacity of 40 students at the
High School level with Phoenix Academy High
School becoming official high school within the
district
of renovations.
2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the
Middle School level with the completion of
Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of
15 at the High School level with the temporary
location of Partnership Academy Alternative
School. An increase of 2 at the Elementary
level due to a change in the capacity
calculation for each grade at each school.
2007: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2008: A decrease of 228 at the Elementary
School level due to the implementation of the
1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 and an
increase of 25 at the High School level with the
completion of the new Partnership Academy
Alternative School.
2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2010: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
3
Section I
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to
year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by
the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to
SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by
the Board of County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2010-11 capacity is noted on
Attachment I.B.4
system to calculate capacity. Any changes
year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and
recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved
forms distributed to SAPFO partners and
certified upon approval by the Board of
County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2010-11 capacity is noted on
Attachment I.B.3
5. Recommendation -Accept school capacities Recommendation - Accept school
at all levels, as reported by CHCCS and capacities at all levels, as reported by OCS
shown in Attachment I.B.4. and shown in Attachment I.B.3.
4
Section I
Attachment I.B.1
(page lof3)
2009-10
Schaaf APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form
School District: Orate~e Caunty Scf>c+c~l~
SAPFiD A S ear: n'o~•ember 13.2009 - Novembcx 15, 2010
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: Vaveruber t3, 2009'
2. Novansba' 15th falls on a u•cckc>»i in ZW9. lhcrefnm, mianhcrslrip nmrben. p[vvtde~i,~aft 2~ ti9:at the Friday hc4i~rc.
Justification:
1.Elementary school capacities reflect 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3.
Capacity C~}e-rt~lflcation:
Superintendent Date
Membersh~ Certification:
Superintendent Date
t
r~ ~~ i~/o y
BOCC C ~ it Date
` - ~ i/`~ ~
-' ~~/a-
BOCC Chair Date
5
~• .
Special Note{s): L Fur [hc t; wtmhc I5. 2[4;121aix y;.~ar the Lnazd oeeuptcd d4c suf~:irtare`.cn!-chtiriid ealx[ci7irs as part of the ti::ho~.,l 1 adlitie
'I'aJc Force rr••iew and Zbp3 Ylannc:Y aGd SChrn~! RCpiCSCntsti.r P.•elnic:d Ad~•isntp Cwn;a:uee :4rpa1. "'. hest rapai itie~ .~~:: rem in rRbc;ie•c unril
.-hangai Ixy (I) the Sclxu:l <?]Y or(2) ovt amcndcd vrnn:a of ;his fume that is ~ ttitial F.y tha }3tKC.
Section I
Attachment I.B.1
(page 2 of 3)
2009-10
School District: Orange County St:hao>,
S PFO C Yeart Nnvcmixr 13, 2009 - Novemlxx 15, 2010
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: Novemlxr 13, 2009'
?. \uvcntbn~ I ith thus rn n wrckcnl in 2G09. Tnct r`i~rc, mamhvnhip nuntbrn provided sl>,~11 h,^. fmm the Friday :+eG?n.
Justifleation:
Capacity Certifi~cat~~ion:
s, .~ jC,~,~~ ~~ - (3 vq
Su rintendenl Daie
Membershi Certificatione
Superintendent Date
~y
~y
6
SpsClal NOt!(4): 1. For:he Nnvembrr f j. '00?'~aic }•e. r the hnartl acce~lr8 Lx 5uperu)[ennect-wmn ~ capu: mrs ::: p:•.n o:::a- .,~~•. ~,_: + ~~:~~•:•.,
Task Faxce nvicw 2nd 2003 Planncn and 4:hnu1 Keprc5et8atise Taltnical Advisory Coauniaa Repo rt. These capaciti:~ +t•ill remain ci'1n liw~r;;ntil
changed byjll the ticlnwl Clf ur{,'+,}an antcrdCd+•ctsirn uCthis k>nn t3?ut is sa;iticd by chc l30CC.
Section I
Attachment I.B.1
(page 3of 3)
2009-10
Schooi APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form
Se ool Distrlet: C)rangeCountySchuots
SAPFQ C P Year: November 13, 2009 - Ttirnronrbcr 1?, 20t 0
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date; Novemhc:r 13, 2049'
;.. \pvQ~nb Y 1 Stls tats nn a aceketid in 20451. "Ihcrcf.•+n, m mtbetsbip neenthcrs pmvidcv! shall f+e Goat tb~ Friiay hefam.
Justification:
Capacily Certification:
.-'fit ~~ ~J,>r~, rr-7~-v9
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Superintendent Date
~~l~y
BOCC rC~hasr ate
Y _._
•,
~~.- rLf ~/ds
BOCC Cnair Date
7
Spaelal Note(s): L Fof the \m'cml>Lr I5. '-l5? bnse y+:ir the Mani ccceptrJ ihr supaintrndrnt-;crtiCed r~paci:its as part nl'the Sdn~et Fn: iliP.es
Tack Fnrce moiety ;nid'4/12 Manners and Schoul Kcpicsnt4a,ivc Ta;hnical AJvixay Cotnmittn> R;pnrt_ 'I"hr'r .'apici;i awill remain citcai+i~ until
cb;m~C'xl by (1 }the 4.hv~el C [P ort2} mt anicndod v~ion ut this form that is ccisitted by the BOCC.
Section I
Attachment I.B.2
(page lof 3)
2009-10
School District: Chapel Hill-Carrbnro Gicy Schools
A O CAPS Year, November 13, 2009 -November !5, 2Ut0
Capacity and Mambership Submittal Date: November 13, 2U04'
Carrboro GO,R32 533 533 533 533 i33
l;phesus GG,952 44 448 . 448 448 448
Fstes Hills _ib,299 527 527 527 527 527
Glenwood 50x764 .423 423 423 423 423
FP Graham 66,689 S38 538 53A 538 538
McDougk 98,000 564 564 Sb4 5G4 564
Raslilcis 95,729 583 585 585 5$5 585
5cro~s 90,9$0 575 575 575 575 575
Seawall 52,896 .466 4GG 466 4GG 466
Morris Grove 90,221 U 0 0 585 585
Total 729,3G2 4,654 4,159 4,659 5,244 5,244
SUS
43U
516
435
495
569
544
568
559
_i98
.5,219
spaelal Note(sl: 1. F. r the Nnvrml::r I5, ?~C4 oast Bear the horrd zccrpted Ux i:pcr`ntem!»n1-errdfied capxuha as p;[rt o! thr School rarltlilCG:
'I'asL- F"mce r+n~icw and 20Gi I'lannen ar.[I ti. htxt3 Rrpresrrta[icc Tcahnicnt AJrisary Ccmmit[ce Rcpen: these cupacitics wi;l rem»in ef(raive until
c]tattgcd t+y tl t titr Sclx:al C]P v[ (2'1 an amcndnt crniun u(dtis fault tit:;t is crnitiai hp lhr (3000"
3. \os'cmLcr l ith tells nn a txeelsutd in :OU4. lhc'tirtrc, nlrmherYtatP IlLLntl!CI'S ptOSlded shsll hr ;n!m tht rr3d ap Ltitcrc
Justification:
Capaycity~Certtflcation:
i~//~ /?l.~X~- ll /6 0 ~
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
i~~ t/-I`- a~
Superintendent Date
t
BOCC Chair D2te
BOCC Chair Date
g
Section I
Attachment I.B.2
(page 2 of 3)
2009-10
School District: Chapel hill-Carrboro City Schools
SAPF ear. November 1:~, ?009 - ~'oventher 15, 2010
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: ~overnber 13, 2nc>v
i~IcDou~le I 136,21
Phillips 109,498
Smith 128,7!4
Special NOte(a)= 1. Far t1^e Sm~cmber 75.3~'i7.lr„sc}"csr the board accepted the w}x-ntcaden;-rerlfticd ccpuc~us as part .~: the Schcol l::eilities
l"atik Puree re~irw aiM ?6U3 Ylanntxs anJ Schoal Reprc+enuitise I`ecint ical AAviw+ty Commiltre. Repor. ":"here ra^x ivies will rcrtatn efrrC•~e umil
chenaeJ Fp 11 j the !;chnol CIY ur (2} an amntAni sctsinn of tEuS Cann that is ccttit?uJ by the 6l':: ti'.
2. Novemhr 1 ith falls un a •.rkend in 1(~t59. 7"hcrofure. mamlx:ghip rumh:~rs p:uve'.r3 sh2ii be fmtn the t: iAa}• lxforr.
Justification:
Capacity Certificatia»:
.~ er-r6 ~~
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
Su ~rintendent Pats
/c~---- . ~~~ (¢y
BOCC Chair Date
.,
"Z-~--- ~ f f~lG
~~/
BOCC Chair Da
9
Section I
Attachment I.B.2
(page 3of 3)
2009-10
So ool Distr c : ("hapca fliii-('nrrbora City Scheois
O C S ear: 7~atiembcr 13, 2409 - \ovc°ml:er 15, 2019
Capaelty and Membership Submittal Date: i,[ovemher 13, ?p09''
Capacity Certification:
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
_i~~,~~~ 1~l6 ~ ~
Superintendent Date
~ f ~y
~~dc
10
spECiAI Noleis): 1 rra ihr T`:•cemtx. IJ. <Q~~ ~D.l'C cC1T the ilUSl (1 9eeC~:C4 the 5Vpl'i Ifaka(ICf.ISttLGCd ,,^.ip~i: irs as par! ufti+r Srt:xu [aril ~c;
ltuk ranax. mvicw ur.J?'+D3 i'lanrcn ant Sc i:uaa Rrp.^runu:b•:r 7echni~_at Advisorp ~=om.-nirrc Kapurl. Tars capacip;, o:ia rama:n c!TLtili+:. cmi=
ch:cvcA by f I 1 :: SshJm CI° N 1'_1 d^ d:at~':1rrl SC[S:aS V( lhl: rM"^i ~It]t :3 :Ctl:L2J ~av to ~x~L.
2. Norerrbcr I Ah lalls n ~ a •.rerS:rril in 2!i09 Thrrcfurr, n~emhrrship nr:mtrn p+uc fled <htll to fun rho FriCf}~ b;(um.
Justification:
Section I
Attachment I.B.3
(page lof 3)
2010-11
Schaat APFQ Capacity, Membership and Change Request Farm
ichoo District: 1 Irvler C'.nnnr tiriulllh •~~ ~~
iRPFt) CAPS Yaar: ~o,•auhrr I+, :'uitl • No~'entttrr I•(• 'ul 1
rapacity and Memhorship Submittal Date: N,lc.•mh,'r i5.?olu
'amcron Park 7u•:112 56S 565 Sr/5 5r,5 565 fi25
'emrui 5?,avr d.q; .(;: .ISS d55 .155 2G3
3(lwulCh~tihs G•I,ilh q97 d+)7 ~I+17 •i+)7 .1')7 d47
Trudy Ilrne•n 7.1,11 I6 5.41 5-I•{ 5.1.1 j4.1 5:41 4T9
lilishnmugll 51.1116 d?i =1?I •171 a'71 •171 41i
,fcu• llorla (011.16.1 5S6 5~r, 5Xh 5F6 5Xh 577
'alh~cm. 8~.?83 57r, ;-n ;7r, 5'1, 576 4f33
~'I'olat LIVg,18)li 3,6+)•li 1.69:11 3,6+),(~ 3,61)a~ .1,69ai ~ 1,255
SpCC)dl Nolo(sl: I I w the \ncunlti•I I ,..•un ` h.l.o y:ar tlx• IK.:nJ .Irr.ptl~ll Iln• •.up: nuta•u.6•ur.rndird . apa: iu,~ a. p.u l Id 16r 5; lul,ll Pay iliur.
=a.kl".n:crcllru.nlaln+ltl'tumrn.nxl s: hind Rl•I•I:•ax.nll.•L•.Iuu:.Il AJu+ny lt,Inmm.v Nl7,~nt IIn••cc.q'a: iti,~,llll ecm:un clt:'.'u,r until
chsnr..l M 11 r 11,. 1. Ia. ~••I l 11' •~r t.:l :nl :Il,ti n•1„I'., t •I~ n ~•I 1111. 1:. ~I III III II 1+,',I 1111, .1 I„ III: Ifl I1 l
Justificatian:
Capacity Ce tificatian•
Superintendent Dalu
Membership Cartificat(on:
Superintendent Date
_ia' san,
C30CC Chair Dale
-~
r
(,.F,a l:K i. v •.. t
6000 Chair '._ _ __ ,._ nalc
11
Section I
Scheoi District: c7rangc t•unm}' S.Iloul. "'""' ___..___.
~SAPFt) CAPS Year: Nutclnber l~..'.I110-lurctnbrr I•i.'_nil ~~~~........,,_W._._.__._,»~
,Capacity a»d Membership Submittal Date: N/+t rndxr t ~. 'ut tt
Attachment I.B.3
(page 2 of 3)
2010-11
.iUStIfIC itletl:
Capacity Certification///:'''
Superintendrni i)au;
IVlembership Ccrtificatiort:
t
Superinlertdnnl Uerie
~, ..
CiOCC Chair f I]ate
nocc cn~ir ` r]a~re
12
SpOClal NOtu(S!: I I , n tl+.• \n+.vul•., I ~. v i:. ~ ltnr ; :.u tlrc P...,+,! a... pt;.1 tltr • uh: untcw.I: ul , nnl ir.l : a}•.r: tnc..r p.ut ,.I IA: S: hr~ d Lr, iltte
Ia.1:Pnr..t.,tr...in,1'i,~r:l'I:nm:n..r.1 ~; 1+,~~.l l+.,pc•:ntan•.; I.rlu+n .I ~,1.+•~n~. r'..:unuw..~lic}•.n Ih:•:::,p.intt.•..+Il irnt.rm .d•.•.ti+.•mnil
h.utc.•.1 M ~ 1 +the x,90 •.d t. 11'.n l ~+.ot .nu: n.h.l ~, i,n~n ~~I thr, bdw th.u +. ,, ndic,l i.c the Itt u +
Section I
Attachment I.B.3
(page 3of 3)
2010-11
~chaol AP~Q Capacity, Membership end Change Request Fnrm
Schaol Gistrich t h.unv t'rnuuv ~~ h::,,l>-~'~'~~
SApFO CAt'S Ycar: ~„~cmbrt I>. ''11t1 ti.~cndT~r I•t.'t)Il `. _°°--~.._~_._..__.u..._.,,._...~~.....,.,...~.__.
tiapilGlty and Membcrsbip Submittal Dike: \,.rrmi~cr ! x..'.111!1 -_...~.._._~__,__..~...,.-._....__.
Justif9cation:
Capacity Cer./tification:
SUpcrintr!nrlrlq I)nlr~
Metnbcrship Certification:
Supt:rintcnilarrt I'anlu
1 ,~/ t ,r
",P t,2.y,S.~f.ZE 1 ~, L: ~' 7i''a`% 1 ,:
ISt)CC (:hail h: tc
.~
13OCC Cltait ~Datc
13
SNQCIaINOtt7(::):1I.n16•V,•,.nrh,tl• :~~'I•,;r.~arthele•.nd;r::cph+l thc.up.:nn.vd.:J..+lrle•I.q..,,m...:.p.w.dlh;a,it.,.dL,rrlde.
I.f•I. 1tn.r t: un. dn.l 'r,itt 1'Luust. an.l '.~ 6„0l R. pir,.nlaln. Ir. lint: al ~\J, t.un t ,.!uwottr.~ H. p,nl I lu n..q•.,:m, . •.,,II „•nnm rtlr.li,r unld
. h.tlna•.1 In t I: d,.•'.., It•,.,1 s II'.n t `I.m ,um u.l~~.l r,a .r.m.d thr. Luw flat n:.auli.~l 4t the I1tN t
Section I
¢ ao s r tape t - ,arr oro ity a ots s
aar ovem cr 5, - overn ur ,
apac>r y an em ers p u m a e; i~iove[n er ,
Attachment I.B.4
(page lof 3)
2010-11
,7wstfHcatfan;
Superintendent Date BUCC Chair Uate
M®mbership Certification:
.-,
uperintendent Date BOCC Chair ~' - ir~alr
Capaclly Cep ~ffcatian:
14
'Task Ferce review and 2003 Plgnnets qnd Schad licpr~mdntive Tegfinipl Advisory Cbmm;ttee Report. Thrtcr. cnpncitics wi11 ramain effer;iive mNil
changed by (I) the Sckxml CIP or (2) qtt amendtd version of this fornt ihnt is ccdificd by the BpCC.
Section I
Attachment I.B.4
(page 2 of 3)
2010-11
G AO s r c : ape t - arr oro t~tly . c too s _ ,T.~.. ~>.,
ear; ovcm cr 15,' 0 - ( ovem r 1 ,'1.0 1 ~~~~~~~
apac y an em rs p u ml a a e. Novem r lU '~"
' i0R,058 ~:
' ' b70 i ; G70 ..4~b
4 :6.80
~fe puglC , z
,:.
136,221 ; 792 732 7~~ -'732
732 G6b
1'hllllps 109,449: ,;,;7Q6 706 '7p
. ' 706 :.j06
~ b7~
3
°
Smifii 12R,7G4.: 732 7~~
732 :, 2
732 ;:<7 F0
,,° -,-~.
_..
'I['ofal 482,541: 2" ~f0 2,840 , - `""2'Sq 2,840 2,$,40 ; ~ 2. .
Spacial Note(s)t 1. Fur rho November I5, 2tX12 base year the bunrd accejited the supermletuhmeeetttficd c~pocthcs as part of the School I'n~ilitws
Task Prtrce review and 26Q3 PTanners and School I(c~prnsentative Technical Advisnry Cmm~titltn liepnrt. There cnpacitles will remain cl'fectivn until
drastged by { 1) the School CIP a (2) an nmonded version of this form That is certified by the BOCC.
Justification:
Capacity Cerfifirafiont
Superintendent Date
hlembersiefp CCe//ffrtification:
Superintendent Dafe
BOCC Chair Date
1 T. -
BOCC Chair ~ ate
15
Section I
Attachment I.B.4
(page 3 of 3)
2010-11
0o a r a : ape Ib •Carr ro tty c too s i
ear: ovem er I - ovcm cr I ,' 11
apa~yan em ers rp u m a a e: Novem er ,7.UlU
Jt+rati~eatlon: Adding a new high school facility. Phoenix Academy High School became an official high
school wiihin the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools starting in the 2010-11 school year.
Capa~cl~ly Certificationr
Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Uate
Membership~Ce,+rtHloaflam.
Superintendent Date
,~ / ) r_
BOCC Chair Date
~~
16
3pacfa/ Nott.(s): 1. Pnr Ufa Nuvainhar 15, 2002 ha5l` yYaf [he t7a+ic1 aC{:ePled the SY~ er111tCIMCfIC•CCIUI1Cl1 CapACU1Ca aJ PAR Oi rnC ~ cnom rncmncs { a5R
F'«ec revlaw And 2003 Planners and Rchnnl RePrcsantaiiva'rcchniual Advisory Conimillee Rcy~xi. These rapxcitirs will remain effective until changed hy(t}
thn Schtwl CIP nr (7.) an amaulal vwsion of thia form that Is ccitified by thn XiOC(:.
Section I
2.
3
C. Membership Date
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -Change can be effectuated only by amendment to
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all School APFO partners. The Planning Directors,
School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) may advise if a change in
date would improve the reporting or timeliness of the report.
Definition -The date at which student membership is calculated. This date is updated each year
and also serves as the basis for projections along with the history from previous years. "For
purposes of this Memorandum, the term "school membership" means the actual number of
students attending school as of November 15 of each year. The figure is determined by
considering the number of students enrolled (i.e. registered, regardless of whether a student is no
longer attending school) and making adjustments for withdrawals, dropouts, deaths, retentions
and promotions. Students who are merely absent from class on the date membership is
determined as a result of sickness or some other temporary reason are included in school
membership figures. Each year the School District shall transmit its school membership to the
parties to this agreement no later than five (5) school days after November 15.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Standard for:
Orange County School District
November 15
of each year
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
November 15
of each year
This will be analyzed in the future years to determine if it is an exemplary date.
5. Recommendation - 1Vo change at this Recommendation - No change at this time
time
17
Section II
II. ANNUAL UPDATE TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES OxDINANCE SYSTEM
1.
2.
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) after review of the CIP
requests from the School Districts. Action regarding CIP programs usually occurs during
the BOCC budget Public Hearing process in the winter and spring of each year. The
development of the CIP considers the conditions noted in the SAPFOTAC report released
in the same CIP development year including LOS (level of service), capacity, and
membership projections.
Definition -The process and resultant program to determine school needs and provide
funding for new school facilities through a variety of funding mechanisms.
3. Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Not Applicable
4.
5.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Standard for:
Orange County School District
Not Applicable
The MOU outlines a system of implementing the SAPFO, including issuing Certificates
of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) to new development if capacity is available. The
Requests for CAPS will be evaluated using the most recently adopted Capital Investment
Plan. Anew Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior
to June 30, 2011.
Recommendation -
Not subject to staff review
18
Section II
B. Student Projection Methodology
1.
2.
3.
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -This section is reviewed and recommended
by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC) to the BOCC for change, if necessary.
Definition -The method(s) by which student memberships are calculated for future
years to determine total membership at each combined school level (Elementary, Middle
and High School) which take into consideration historical membership totals at a specific
time (November 15) in the school year. These methods are also known as `models'.
Standard for:
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
4
Orange County School District
Presently, the average of five models are being used: namely 3, 5, and 10 year
history/cohort survival methods, Orange County Planning Department Linear
Wave and Tischler Linear methods. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of
each model.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Performance of the models is monitored each year.. The value of a projection model is in its
prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the
annual Capital Investment Plan (CIP) updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and
construction. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment II.B.3 shows
the performance of the models for the 2010-11 school year from the prior year projection.
5. Recommendation -
Nine years of projection results are now available. Analysis on the accuracy of the results is
showing that some models have better results in one district while others have better results in
the other district. The historic growth rate is recorded by the models but projected fixture
growth is more difficult to accurately quantify. In all areas of the county, proposed growth is
not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment. The
system is updated in November of each year, becoming part of the historical projection base.
This is especially pertinent in the Orange County School District which serves students living
within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane which had had little historic
enrollment impact. The significant proposed residential growth occurring within Mebane's
jurisdiction has yet to be fully entered into the historically based projection methods.
19
N
O
STUDENT MEMBERSIiIP PROJECTIONS
PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIPTfON I CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS
Taschler Linear (OCS 8
CHCCS) Mathemagcal formula; straight gne projection Y7R"b)`x)+b
y=projeded poptrlatian; c=historical annual chartge; b=base year; xe projection years Historical growth is refledad in projected growth
BYM+(gYI+S(n})eEYM EYM`%SLeEYM/SL gazeyeargrowtltreflectsl0-yearavemge;
OCP Linear Wave
lyiathematical linear vrfh percent variation among sdwol BYM= base year Znd month membership: BYl=yearstudaM membership increment
increase in BYI of 5 every other year reflects
(OCS}
levels; reflects progressing waves of membership base; EYM=ensukrg y~r membership; n=projection year, %SL-% ottotal
increases in housing growth; reflects butldout
membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYM/SL=ensuing year wnstreints
member by school ~vel
BYM + (BYI -15(n)) a EYM EYM `%SL = EYM/SL Base year growdt reflects i ayear average;
OCP Lirear Wave Mathematical linear with pemont vadation among school BYM=base year 2nd momth membership; BYI-yearstudent membership irtaement decrease In BYI of 15 until sdteol year 2074?A1 t
CHCC
( S) levels; regects
progressing waves of membership base; EYM=ensuing year membership; n=projrrclion year, 965E=%of total
reflects decreases in housing gmtNh; reflects
membership persr#aod level (Lo. aMmeratary, middle, high); EY6glSL=ensuing yenr buikiout ranstreiatta
member by school lever
Knekin+(ka.t°0.01)
MaNematiral formula that computes the average n=1
advancementrale over the previous 3 years for each a e(E tin f g„t)13 Assumes a 19'o annual growth rate for the
3-Year Cohort (OCS & grade level end then uses each rate to calculatt n.3 kindergarten grade le+rel; assumes thesema
CHCCS) projected membership by school level; em assumed b=g o-t (a) percentage of afudents in cant grade level
kindergarten tnembersttip u based an bath records K=kindergarten membership; n~iven ached year; G'-given grade's 9r~uate 1n the next level each year
andlor historical growth rates mambarship(otherrhan kindergarten); g=Previous grade's membersh~a: a~verege
advancement rate; b=projected membership
Mathematcel formula that wmputes the average r=t
advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each a ~E G„ 1 g,,.t) ! 5 Assumes a 1% annual growth rate for the
5 year Cohort (OCS & grade Ievei and than uses each rate to calculate n=5 kinder~rtem grade lavefl assumes the same
CHCCS) projected membership by school level; an assumed beg o-t (a) percentage dstudents in each grade level
kindargeatart membership b based on bidlr retards Kindergarten membership; n=given school year, G=ggivan grade's gradual to the next level each year
andlor historical growth rates membership(othx Ihen kindergaMn); g= prevous grade's mear&ership; a=average
advancement rate; 6=pmjeeted membership
Mathematics! formula that imputes the average n=1
advancement rata over the previous t0 y«tra for each a =(E Ga f g„ t) ! 10 Assumes a 1 % annual growth reta for the
10 year Cohort {OGS & grade level and then uses each rata to ca~ulate n=10 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same
CHCCS) projected membership by school level; an assumed beg ,M (a) percerttege of students in eoch grade level
kindergarten membership is based on baath rewrds K=kindergarten membership; n=given school year, G=~gHen grade's graduate to the nett level eadt year
andlor historical growth rates rnembarship(othartban kirtdergaden}; ge previous grade's membership; a=averege
advartcement rete; b=T,rojeeted membership
n
O
ti
a
>y
n
fD
i--a
Section II
Attaclvnent II.B.2
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009)
11/14/08
Actual
2008-09 2009 Report
Projection for
2009-10
11/13/09
Actua12009-10
Change between actual
Nov 2008- Nov 2009
Elementa 3165 3211 +46
Model Projection is
T 3234 H23
OCP 3221 H10
10C 3200 L11
5C 3206 L5
3C 3196 L15
AVG 3211 accurate
11 /13/2009
Middle 1601 1665 +64
Model Projection is
T 1670 H5
OCP 1617 L48
10C 1608 L57
5C 1619 L46
3C 1628 L37
AVG 1628 L37
11/13/2009
Hi h 2242 2217 25
Model Projection is
T 2245 H28
OCP 2272 H55
10C 2175 L42
5C 2198 L19
3C 2159 L58
AVG 2210 L7
11 /13/2009
Totals
Elementar 3165 3211
Middle 1601 1665
Hi h 2242 2217
7008 7093 + 85
Mode Projection is
T 7149 H56
OCP 7110 H17
10C 6983 L110
5C 7023 L70
3C 6983 L110
AVG 7050 L43
H means High L means Low
21
Attachment II.B.2
(page 2 of 4)
Section II
Orange County School District
School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
`TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C
Elementary School Level
• Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 15 students low to 23 students high.
However, the average of the projections were equal to the actual student membership.
• The membership actually increased by 46 students between November 14, 2008 and
November 13, 2009.
Middle School Level
• Projections were primarily low, ranging from 57 students low to 5 students high. On
average, the projections were 37 students lower than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 64 students between November 14, 2008 and
November 13, 2009.
High School Level
• Projections were mixed (low and high) ranging from being low by 58 students to being
high by 55 students. One average, the projections were 7 students lower than the actual
membership.
• The membership actually decreased by 25 students between November 14, 2008 and
November 13, 2009.
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were primarily low, ranging from 110 below actual
membership to 56 above actual membership. On average, the projections were low by
43 students.
• The membership increased in total by 85 students, which is the sum of +46 at
Elementary, + 64 at Middle and (25) at High.
22
Section II
Attachment II.B.2
(page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009)
11/14/08
Actual
2008-09 2009 Report
Projection for
2009-10 11/13/09
Actual
2009-10
Change between actual
Nov 2008- Nov 2009
Elementa 5302 5219 83
Model Projection is
T 5380 H161
OCP 5400 H181
10C 5466 H247
5C 5392 H173
3C 5390 H171
AVG 5406 H187
11 /13/2009
Middle 2697 2708 +11
Model Projection is
T 2727 H19
OCP 2730 H22
10C 2796 H88
5C 2779 H71
3C 2759 H51
AVG 2758 H50
11 /13/2009
Hi h 3630 3606 24
Model Projection is
T 3780 H174
OCP 3739 H133
10C 3664 H58
5C 3638 H32
3C 3663 H57
AVG 3697 H91
Totals 11/13/2009
Elementa 5302 5219
Middle 2697 2708
Hi h 3630 3606
11629 11533 96
Model Projection is
T 11887 H354
OCP 11869 H336
10C 11926 H393
5C 11809 H276
3C 11812 H279
AVG 11861 H328
H means High
L means Low
23
Attachment II.B.2
Section II (page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2009-2010 School Year (November 13, 2009)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
`TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
3-YEAR COHORT 3C)
Elementary School Level
• Projections were all high, ranging from 161 students to 247 students higher than the
actual November 13, 2009 membership numbers. On average, the projections were 187
students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership decreased by 83 students between November 14, 2008 and
November 13, 2009.
Middle School Level
• Projections were all high, ranging from 19 to 88 students higher than the actual
membership. On average, the projections were 50 students higher than the actual
membership.
• The actual membership increased by 11 students between November 14, 2008 and
November 13, 2009.
High School Level
• Projections were all high, by 32 to 174 students. On average, the projections were 91
students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership decreased by 24 students between November 14, 2008 and
November 13, 2009.
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were high, ranging from 276 to 393 students. On
average the projections were high by 328 students.
• The membership decreased in total by 96 students, which is the sum of (83) at
Elementary, +11 at Middle, and (24) at High.
24
Section II
Orange County School District
School Membership 2010-11 School Year (November 15, 2010)
Attachment II.B.3
(page 1 of 4)
11/13/09
Actual
2009-10 2010 Report
Projection for
2010-11
11/15/10
Actual 2010-11
Change between actual
Nov 2009- Nov 2010
Elementa 3211 3285 +74
Model Projection is
T 3339 H54
OCP 3265 L20
10C 3217 L68
5C 3228 L57
3C 3222 L63
AVG 3254 L31
11 /15/2010
Middle 1665 1698 +33
Model Projection is
T 1696 L2
OCP 1672 L26
10C 1713 H15
5C 1728 H30
3C 1747 H49
AVG 1711 H13
11/15/2010
Hi h 2217 2222 +5
Model Projection is
T 2258 H36
OCP 2271 H49
10C 2198 L24
5C 2217 L5
3C 2238 H16
AVG 2236 H14
11/15/2010
Totals
Elementa 3211 3285
Middle 1665 1698
Hi h 2217 2222
7093 7205 +112
Mode Projection is
T 7293 H88
OCP 7208 H3
10C 7128 L77
5C 7173 L32
3C 7207 H2
AVG 7201 L4
H means High L means Low
25
Attachment II.B.3
(page 2 of 4)
Section II
Orange County School District
School Membership 2010-2011 School Year (November 15, 2010)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
`TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C
Elementary School Level
Projections were primarily low, ranging from 68 students low to 54 students high. The
average of the projections was 31 students lower than actual student membership.
• The membership actually increased by 74 students between November 13, 2009 and
November 15, 2010.
Middle School Level
• Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 26 students low to 49 students high.
On average, the projections were 13 students higher than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 33 students between November 13, 2009 and
November 15, 2010.
High School Level
• Projections were mixed (low and high) ranging from being low by 24 students to being
high by 49 students. One average, the projections were 14 students higher than the
actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 5 students between November 13, 2009 and
November 15, 2010.
TOTAL
• The totals of all school level projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 77 below
actual membership to 88 above actual membership. On average, the projections were
low by 4 students.
• The membership increased in total by 112 students, which is the sum of +74 at
Elementary, + 33 at Middle and +5 at High.
26
Attachment II.B.3
SeCtdon II (page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2010-2011 School Year (November 15, 2010)
11/13/09
Actual
2009-10 2010 Report
Projection for
2010-11 11/15/10
Actual
2010-11
Change between actual
Nov 2009- Nov 2010
Elementa 5219 5296 +77
Model Projection is
T 5436 H140
OCP 5350 H54
10C 5410 H114
5C 5365 H69
3C 5346 H50
AVG 5381 H85
11/15/2010
Middle 2708 2722 +14
Model Pro ection is
T 2761 H39
OCP 2704 L18
10C 2767 H45
5C 2746 H24
3C 2732 H10
AVG 2742 H2O
11/15/2010
Hi h 3606 3640 +34
Model Projection is
T 3677 H37
OCP 3704 H64
10C 3649 H9
5C 3639 L1
3C 3640 accurate
AVG 3662 H22
Totals 11 /15/2010
Elementa 5219 5296
Middle 2708 2722
Hi h 3606 3640
11533 11658 +125
Model Projection is
T 11874 H216
OCP 11758 H100
10C 11826 H168
5C 11750 H92
3C 11718 H60
AVG 11785 H127
H means High
L means Low
27
Section II
Attachment II.B.3
(page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2010-2011 School Year (November 15, 2010)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
'TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 3-YEAR COHORT (3C
Elementary School Level
• Projections were all high, ranging from 50 students to 140 students higher than the
actual November 15, 2010 membership numbers. On average, the projections were 85
students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 77 students between November 13, 2009 and
November 15, 2010.
Middle School Level
• Projections were primarily high, ranging from 18 students low to 45 students higher than
the actual membership. On average, the projections were 20 students higher than the
actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 14 students between November 13, 2009 and
November 15, 2010.
High School Level
• Projections were primarily high, ranging from 1 student below to 64 students higher than
the actual membership. On average, the projections were 22 students higher than the
actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 34 students between November 13, 2009 and
November 15, 2010.
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were high, ranging from 60 to 216 students. On
average the projections were high by 127 students.
• The membership increased in total by 125 students, which is the sum of +77 at
Elementary, +14 at Middle, and +34 at High.
28
Section II
1.
2.
3
C. Student Projections
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for annual report certifications.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC
prior to certification.
Definition -The result of the average of the five student projection models represented
by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level (Elementary, Middle, and
High) for each school district (Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District and Orange County
School District).
Standard for:
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Orange County School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment ILC.4
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment ILC.3
The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued
growth in both systems. Variability by school level and between the School Districts is
also noted. Year-by-year percent growth is shown on the attached table as well as the
projected LOS. The projections models were updated using current (November 15)
memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter.
29
Section II
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Elementary
The previous year (2009-10) projections for November 2010 at this level were overestimated by
85 students. The actual change was an increase of 77 students. Over the previous nine years,
this level has shown varying increases in growth. From 2001 unti12003, growth steadily
increased; however, in 2004, the increase suddenly fell to an increase of only 3 additional
students. In years 2005-06 through 2008-09 student membership increased by over 100 students
per year. The projections show the need for Elementary School #11 in 2013-14, versus 2012-
13 as projected last year. A site has been acquired for Elementary School #11 with design and
permitting largely complete. Efforts are underway to identify construction funding.
In 2007, State Statutes were amended so that effective the 2009-2010 school year, children
entering kindergarten must be five years old by August 31st of the year starting school, versus
the previous statewide policy date of October 16th. This policy change resulted in a 45 week
enrollment period as opposed to the typical 52 week enrollment period for the 2009-10 school
year. Consequently, there was a substantial drop in kindergarten enrollment. This year there
was the typica152 week enrollment period, which resulted in a significant increase in
kindergarten enrollment over 2009-10.
Middle
The previous year (2009-10) projections for November 2010 for this level were overestimated
by 20 students. The actual membership increased by 14. Over the previous nine years, growth
decreased precipitously from 214 to 68 to 4, to -52 and then has seen modest increases of +12,
+20, +30, +75, + 11, and +14 since 2004. The projections show a need for Middle School #5 in
2018-19, which is two years later than projected last year.
High School
The previous year (2009-10) projections for November 2010 for this level were overestimated by
22 students. The actual membership increased by 34 students. Over the previous nine years,
30
Section II
change has varied from a high of 199 students to last year's loss of 24 students. Actual real
estate market conditions can suppress historical and mathematical trends, which is likely the case
in all three school levels within the school system. This year's projections show that additional
capacity is not needed in the 10-year projection time frame, whereas last year's projections
showed a need in the 2019-20. Additional High School capacity is expected to be achieved by
expanding Carrboro High School from 800 students to 1,200 students, as was included in the
construction plans for the high school.
Orange County School District
Elementary
The previous year (2009-10) projections for November 2010 at this level were underestimated by
31 students. The actual membership increased by 74 students. Over the previous nine years, this
level has experienced erratic enrollment which changed from -185 to +8 to +44 to +71 to -10 to
+66 to +86 to +7, +46, and +74 students a year. This created a historical base of negative growth
which was captured by the various mathematical models to produce moderate growth
projections. In the Orange County school system, historic growth is more closely related to
new residential development than in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District, which has a
sizeable number of new families in older, regentrified housing stock. Therefore, development
activity should be monitored off-line as a harbinger to student growth on a more equal level to
historically based mathematical models. The need for an additional Elementary School is not
anticipated in the 10-year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring new sizeable
residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough.
In 2007, State Statutes were amended so that effective the 2009-2010 school year, children
entering kindergarten must be five years old by August 31st of the year starting school, versus
the previous statewide policy date of October 16th. This policy change resulted in a 45 week
enrollment period as opposed to the typical 52 week enrollment period for the 2009-10 school
year. This year there was the typical 52 week enrollment period, which resulted in a significant
increase in kindergarten enrollment over 2009-10.
31
Section II
Middle
The previous year (2009-10) projections for November 2010 for this level were overestimated
by 13 students. The actual membership increased by 33. Over the previous nine years, growth
has varied widely and included an unexpected decrease of 78 students in 2004-OS with smaller
decreases each year unti12007-08 and then increasing this year and last. However, certain
models did reflect the negative growth (-185) at the elementary school level in 2001-2002 as
they progress into the middle school cohorts. The district's third Middle School, Gravelly Hill
Middle School, opened in October 2006. The need for an additional Middle School is not
anticipated in the 10-year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring new sizeable
residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough.
High School
The previous year (2009-10) projections for November 2010 for this level overestimated by 14
students. The actual membership increased by 5. Over the previous nine years, growth was
relatively constant. However, there was a decreased in enrollment in 2009-10 and only modest
increase this school year. Even though 4-year historic growth at the high school level is
moderate and recognizable, future projections are more moderate because of the slowing of
growth at the elementary and middle school levels. The need for an additional High School is
not anticipated in the 10-year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring new
sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough.
Additional Information for Orange County School District
The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange County
portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, the City of Mebane is not a party to
the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not issue CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public
Schools). In previous years, development activity and platting of new subdivisions increased
within the Orange County portion of Mebane. However, changing economic conditions may
curb this activity.
Increased coordination with the City of Mebane regarding development issues may be necessary
in the future. OCS currently has capacity to serve additional growth, but it is possible that
32
Section II
rampant development in the Orange County portion of Mebane could quickly encumber
available capacity.
Recommendation -
Use statistics as noted in 3 above
33
U
N
O
I
.L.a ~
~ O
Q ~
..:. .. ~. ~ aro,aoaa.e..:.leaze...•.n•r......~....ew rr.»r:.n:n+en:.r,..
rn ~ n,t,•!« o.«. ..,~.i ...,... •,,,.... K,naw 1.~Krt ncxwr %n'+:n «• r-i.. w r+..•r,s_a fmr.n.«n.a. w.e.M.tlor.,r.«•t ,,.
.>.taww atl>...; «wet.. •t«,:«+ W ~.I.s,,...wr.t.l....Ixa':1.r,++1Yn a:. e>m...:.s.n.....-...+,. ~,,,,
:v /.f1 ;t KVr. .• 1M
_
„ u F t M R~ wA- p ts•vt ... lFV
+ tRZr ~ R .- rs rta .~
~_--
-
__.
. lf!" ~ I/Z,.~_ ~ 1 to.a r., , SfTi- .ttY - - ~Rtrr A
w u.t
r..
n.[ -1: t l •s.~ 'stCi
-
'
ri
i
1 e :.... IF.tl__
i .. _. _. r.~- _._ . ~:,. :. ., ,r.-. :.
' y ..
}rr+~y
X{
,. ~:Y..:.. ~h, •.+
-___ , __ .
w ~
__.
'aT~
..
1191... .
.~ .
.... -
1 ..
i~t+~~~R~%'~t41a.. ..
~...
~_ _. .. ".w..
___
--_ .:. ..
I:. .
F51':-
•!1 tt. i . ~
tii .t , '~
vw ~ _'- Kdl
YVIS'- ' NI
Rte
t
ti _.._ aul •t•~ .r~
..
tsi n ~
.
tat
• _
•w r.•..
-__ .__. _....
Slsu
ser sf llce arolOS
.stK
'. >., a
t <rx K wr.
-t4. •
101 .li. teYt
5114 t~/•r •. M't Wcl sK'~
IrsIK • ... ._Hl.•R n .. fla+c. s tYR- NfM! ~ rar'^f
~t,^.uott~e?wli luopn7S SDD
.n:«.xrtal...arMw>•...:n•i:,...o....,r:':•.•,,-.•.r.~:~,:~«..r ..s.«•.-,........ au.K..s .1, wi»•._v,w~,...,.,~.lw ,..>r .a..,.Y.,.a a.,ec.sw.eea+,r.~,.,,=r.r.:.,-..~t.n..:-...,.'c, ,:
mama K+•.1lrn x uKw=:uw.a wwt. ew-i... n.., ...aa• •w ti nr.~..,, rex aan t«r,r,an peer.•,a,.,
':n;•.nr•,lrian~.r,..sm.+~_w,..p'xnaw~mXx~ertstw••.r• .vurr+.a rrx,,..ertr. ra rr.wtee<:>y.snA«(1,«:ro•^...Iw..rn.t. ~.. ,,:.
«....~w. n •••rvntrn•1•rv.an twwrxtlKra ...-«..,•... e.+e ~... .... ~„
tC1
0
'N
'IV
V
,..• _...
..» .1K acs, ~ wac •! '...:• ..ar ... ~.~w .,w .. _
, ~..:. ~_._
.. ,tar: , ~ ~ ~
. ..
.. ~ ~~.~.~ ur. .:. ~~ _ -rnl..n
>.
_-"
°
'
-
• 'Q9f - urt
_ - t,. . c
- ~.. w ii'C- a
~ r u., a
t 1.C.
sH• F•+• + r... .-
'liY:""
aaet
~
' ..
.
-
mi
'~
'9i
~
'
-
--
-
~ ,ar .... ,...
-
` -i ~ _. _
..
.... _ ,
~,
wl
.
, - .:
ais*
o
~
r
r
-
-~ }'
-
~-~ _
-
-
-•.
'
HRri
__ ..,
_•'_ R?t
~
. r
-rt
xt;
c tat<
rt .,
,tea
i
.^.
.._
_.
_. __._.-
. ~... _H
..'
---
w~o•~"syy'F
~..
~RY..
.
~
lint _ ..
i1
t w ', _. .~
.~„t. ,-. Ii(S u.
4 Q
1
N
i
- ,>...
w
f
n,
.....__.,., .. ...,_ _. -a
..:....
. ,
AGI Its)t ~t•+,.
riit~ KI : M" .e~
r , rui
r i. L -"
~ 'tR': !C: <a
iEC: tKt...TA2~: <vt
-
Pf! _ .._ .tai
_... -.
-isn't 2kK .oa' iea: ~ mkt ,ONC ».: st
_ __
- -
Itt,f vr\ i+aY ,4rvY flat f•t'•
i•i-s sfll'L 1l1. •KS ysr6 _ _
_._ . _
KKK ~ p.vgs u-t1Y. ustX tislK <WRS IIIaR t.rt:K tt~l+x ~
a••l r r
u,l:K t. ~-.aYYJJi ~ 9[•WOC 10 .10( f
""'-"` Fonnt n
o7n> aunp~ufwd tusiRltS Sao
M
r
- ,4, suopsb[Nd 7lippnlS SDD
~X•:IKtR+'At+41[a'l n44 •s•asr.r,•(•arry• itYte. aN'.(,iglR+ttMA MuKtrlt! •em+r•n••.rt•t•• rn~t'~p• y ,,,
YAtY 4.mrAbs(+[nv]+•++rl•neswru •+iw.se.... awna•iw.•ry«Lww•MS ^.»>X.YJ1r,aVtq•wc>rc i.t.vm...tl rr+ ~.H hjywin:r, ,..
.a..xrtrt av xMle~•wiV gK1K>i h..wo•m••!'wm•.r.wwv~)lstl~ .i.aW.N.4vu W W ra::arsev a,,,,
CHCCS Stlulpnc Pmjcpfimvz I'i`°
'.• luw• :Y-~ a.r..'~ e. --], )mna_ )
.. t'<.! )0 _i~r2
~ iN!-li
'. i::., irot a)st+
fms- r:)
.J w-
la
F-
is Yav4alr - •'• •.! ] rr -w i:13 d,B4)
r:g ~+:4. rA10.
. ;...
I .1 )!C.
I~ ~0>
_.-.. ___.._.__. _. .. -- f.':t I
_.._.r~_~_ a v, 'q,.l, ... eEiY :' ~'~Y. -. `v -" 1i .. m
.,Nati 'J~ of M1bfe[r P yi_._.. ,..a :M
!!r g- ]e:+ aei. ' -.:~aY..
..,.?N1.;.,~us!.
.. __Jl.. _ ally: --::! r _ ]iN
-?r!Q .__ sen
_
~_~._.aM: ~_
~w.dxvM.r •, .; r , wr i ~ f
!
L a _ -
r __
a
,.~v.Y•r ura lswla.~atYanY O.wa raMi~c_c!t : v. ~:a' -_'61:i_~+!: ~.' :~. rr _;_ _~iK ~_._I?1 _~_
~ r -N` ill -1
IixYlanlNYa _ n: a7, i ^, yry} tl ) 1
-.-~ -
Mrl. ~_.:
_
rR1
MnanYVyar '^I l- -~ " aGYrfx „75+.~._-lY® NrY
~~' W~A.~
a:ae «~•r x..:. i a}a».i wA ar Y•n os. lP•v. Mxa W]Y
N'aY
)+nJ- 'law+...n. -... tl~ M
r i+rl
•
•
.
.
•rv
MMalt)xiW'4we~1W}
r .~
_~ -.
-
,m.n
r ". v . 'narc
rw JrvY
,~ Ia)tb "-[
;tl+t t r
W
N
II a nublNnv %. wvb%r+ae Pl.rax. i -»b an nrmar.,, N xMai to)%4zwlekN.W •t W' ~%<v.(xrva.n re>sa.w.:xl}r CI•LC:a4Lrx YinNiaN IYp%s.lxr.
.eNr. •orfM,aaaar. to aonU~<C: r<PC:.gpep • b.+rye%alr:ta:r.nrw..va.r+a an lvw[6~yeaw. VafN}'W [rIXA
» n. a.wrcl~,,.y,»m.mrc>aa a. »,nra. ]Na inli•x. r+~.an~nn an
CHCCS Sludrmt Projatlions it,. N
__ _.... )wo • ~ Nabn aau S
]rtt~ -O.1 .'AI ] b al« srwi mw.___ )
1<'"i~- nre >
1Aa )f:.5 x.n se.:) xN~n+
i6'9 )W u )
; ' a+. r w irni r bar
__._ .. ..
r
rn
ra
1. -. __ ss
su x, ]Yk _
1
~'
_
__
- r 1 .. -
...•
) n
'a ana
Ir xs r
tarp
-
~'~'~ H _ .~:'4t_
- Tl t l!
.. ~ m..ae+aemalw.a.xuNe.•. m
~ :., „' ... t~ w ~'
.- -_ --- n- =-~ ~ .~ - •~
_
` ~ N .n
.
N
rN.eY•.tlawl..w: aYaa ^.: . 7 -.. i:Jj, -.~`Jt ri iR;].-.-..I LLL
~ ~
'
~ 7 ~ )
l .
; _ _
x sa <mw.Nrv)xtYY aranwowlr». 1. o;. .. a. ~ r e )B »a
~
_•.~
n
~: ;
~ ~
v an lar _ _
aaca,r+a. alGwN lab ) i
~. r~ a r -) i a ti a. 11
- T_.
':I +rrr ~. r.nl
.]•9
1 IY
a'a
41N -
+r+a
rlrP
x •NN.cvu YNl eplywrl.Mr-r.laMmnlalx
L
MMrYiOWCWM+WM fl - 'rN
M -
~i
i -- ~1
,ieanrrM,+a„awwaalwNi ..Nwae.au,Ya N.wa -. .N,e r.ve.uw.. xra ~9
"'It}eu+bla+<nl.yl:+,+strl)eMw+w'1]Ntlav~NnnavaaaNw:eNr.ryla vrlw+lrhara p.wc G.v a+a:ytawr IlNVI rN r<a%[:KVi vabaa NaNNle Hwta'Yantill
"' T.w'x)M NaktsvMn lv IN l xrv »rlqu•er pNn'r:+ra Ir aN• C1~:.:.4 c:a OCR /p}x Vitw4vanwN aw• rva'a argn»-nnru„1M ca'1 ru•[YaradYw NKtf NCbC::.
•..aa V-+U Ux+a _vaN ..iP VerY'%Pby.wvM(M1_ar-wapn MOti:s-a urpor+varwrGra l+Raall'.a.rr }.a~,F(a:M
m
c~
o'
~!-
O W
I^~1
N
u..wa*tN.x-a:.eNrao-,...K•ar.ry.arw,..w..,,r..,.:..as,.,a.e: i.e.w,:».wrlear.•.aa,oi...., rm...xrw.a.Nec:,Nxaa. aa.INe'..ir.. m.%.
m'aNLr NaIYpwM>M :•e :rlas V4lwJ'vliryMW.lp'b'eJ.G-.i:::.veY txpdaYacieraNNeP~NTN 1aya4anrn+xn.wwr ar t:a.r:~vaeW Waxa'ta GlrC.::.
k. r1GV•nraNriaJU wriaxe:nnNMYVaea,-al~N[n nrvpr.»g14r.+arvprmm]a~rayMraa:616111•.wJrtl':'I:V
.aw..-n tv..waK,, r.Ifr Wm yas 9oWrnu;r:xV.:fMw.wvr..w»n:lroCe-avxaa Mrauaaarwa+.-asaw as.witia..mrta wn an ~error/~t:itxwu-;NkY.:sauasa.aa Li'~utvw.alarwlv.exN.aw. a::4.
CHCCS S1wWnt Pwjptlions p'
OCS Stutlenc Projedion5'"'"
_ ?~K
._._._ ~, r-- L~---,~~
~, ,~ _ ,.~F-. - n
a r~. ~ ti.
.., -~
~sre
_.
t a
r ~!
~........ M M1
Nit
...._wr.rYa.nr..ia-.)..ssuwn:t~s M..n>~ni..Lnx.~+wx~rn~smY+m.:e.~aamnt.wp~rs{r~av~, ~ege.~t~~_.ti.^LSxMl~evnx.ry ~ ~w~. (.~.wrysuc_~.auvn~~ S~a~n-uw~rvwu.W ~uenssr.
005 51u6ent Projuttlon•:"
u aa~
W
;..wa. uasa ~ rw ~ sr a s .« m' .L_:r.~`1
4., __.. e.• w..; - as • ~• •~ mu.+s .uu
.~7Y ,w
a~o~. :n•n•
~
nna ••. a
.aa
t
...~~:~. ~..:
.~. ..
ew >ce:
:cea
i -'la~oeu__
mt' rw
_. __..
_
. ._...
.
i!n c K y M
z..,n>..~ta r,N ~Urt rw2:ve.ew.N~ ih:WO:oaFrnr-.ha....:.+..b:h:.m+~.a~.b Yak:: Mx:.+.o~un>
n, _..sxm. uaaw~vt~'WUr a .u~ av GS y ~~,y,.,..n to :rss C+Cyw::-.xMm'K~_~.:C
OCS SlutlxotProjections"'~
o'
ti
O ~
O ~,
~.+
"" (D
~ ~
r~
n
W
CriCCS SiuEeru irojaC2igt5 n'~ '~.. ~.~ y,•,
ti
W
v
GHCCS SIYUaf1[irgacuons1-... r~.....,..,.n,-»-...: ~-.. ~a........,.,.~ ,~.,.......,.. ,...,..,...~
O
A
O ~„
~ ~
~ ~
H
-~
n
A
:......,,w.,.;...a.,n,.,~«.,..:x...,.c--so~« .~e.~~...U.ws,s,c........,n..a,.n:.-.«,.w...a.::a:r.:rc.,...,ew..~.,.wrorc,ec~c.~,.QYna ~.,c......N„s, ....a«..,., ~e ~+~.-..~.,.,~..~-
CHCCS SIUGVnI Pro~actions "'
Section II
D. Student Growth Rate
1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -'The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) each year and referred to the BOCC for annual report
certification.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC
prior to certification.
2. Definition -The annual percentage growth rate calculated from the projections resulting
from the average of the five models represented by 10 year numerical membership
projections by school level for each school district. This does not represent the year-by-
year growth rate that may be positive or negative but rather the average of the annual
growth rates over ten (10) years.
3. Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment II.D.2
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis of Existing Conditions
The membership figures and percentage The membership figures and percentage
growth on the attachments show continued growth on the attachments show continued
growth at each school level within the growth at each school level within the
system.
Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years:
system.
Average Annual Growth Rate over ten years:
Year Projection
Made:
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Elementa 2.03% 1.85% 1.5% 1.72% 1.44%
Middle 2.35% 2.58% 2.03% 1.93% 1.67%
Hi h 2.04% 2.31% 2.21% 1.8% 1.57%
S. Recommendation
Use statistics as noted.
Year Projection
Made:
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Elementary 1.49% 1.84% 1.16% 1.34% 1.57%
Middle 1.42% 1.78% 1.44% 1.53% 1.84%
High 0.98% 1.49% 1.0% 1.38% 1.59%
Recommendation
Use statistics as noted
38
V.1
Middle
iaa~-aria
Chape! Hill/Carrhoro Student Projections
S°urcc: S:~fodcl (:ampilalun:tnm PSfAC ncmbrn b dclum:ina awaay~r baxJ uu Vur:nlrcr 13, 2°DB,mmbcnhip aam6cn and
- Orange C°,ttty Pla,min{; and Inepcaimis fk•P:mmeut Hau~.aaian of .4iu~m1 Cirw.;It hate f.
o'
o~
o~
~ ~
o~
K
H
~H
V
o--+
Orange County Student Projections
~ ,4 - .- ~ 2Q1S a3013~21Q146µ~Q4~-1At-~ Q'11 0,~$+ 2018-50,19 ~ X034 _020
z
'3,C~_4T~Y~ear;, • .~ ; ..a .:"~.'~ , . ..~~> ~v ~.=: ~ - max ~ . ,,
~~~ ~~
4lcmberslu 1,665 1,711 1,732 1,751 1,787 1,827 1,817 1,816 1,836 1,511 1,937
_ ___.
Average°/ulncreasc 2.76% 123°k 1.1°~ 2.08% 2.24% -d.35% -0.06°,S. 1.196 4.08% 1.36%
H~5chool _
~ ~~o~s.+oi~n ~2b1t~~ari ~i411 ^2a,. ,~- -- - ~ ~ o-,~s -xos~ta~ ~ai~;2al~.. ze-7-sale. ~ Zola-zol9 ^_alvioio
Sc11aoL,Ycrar Cr I; fiz~> i..;x,~ _ _
AMit34 `~ .. -• ski -C: ,-, ~w• t~~_ ''~.r"- ._ ." :. ~ !- t. ~ ..
14e, l .,ship 3,606 3.662 3,724 • 3,792 3,1348 'ssb! ~ 4,000 4,098 4,193 _ 4,206 4,307
~ Avera~r%Inut,asc 1.55°k 1.69% 1.83% 1.489'° 0.49°k I 3.44% 2.45°h 2.32% 0.31% 2.4°!0
Flemeni-arv
®range County Student Projections
X010-20~.~.
School Yeac~a ~ D]zx
x2~~-
- °2 N~~2~I9' 39~~U?4
, 20x0-~b:1
..
~
g ~
of
. „r w. w
Membershi 3,285 3,362 3,435 3,473 3,519 3,617 3,661 3,705 3,750 3,795 3,839
Average % Increase 2.34% 2.18% 1.09% 1.34% 2.80% 1.21% 1.20% 1.20% 1.20% 1.17%
Mirltlla
Sc3p0 ~ ~:
~ 83b-2Q?,1
Membership 1,698 1,716 1,732 1,786 1,842 1,846 1,864 1,896 1983 2,011 2,037
Average % Increase 1.08% 0.93% 3.12% 3.11 % 0.22% 1.00% 1.67% 4.59% 1.41 % 1.30%
Hinh Sr-hnnl
0
-
Z
+
~
il
School Year- . , ~~. 2 >, 2011 ~4L
~ ~
L z20i:..~.0 '
~ h ~ ~'
~ '6 ~
1~Yf ~~2Q19-Zi134. ~0~2021
`
ll
~~
11
.~_
..
it YtU ".
t ... .
..- :s...... . ... u v. .v ~.. n ..:.. ,. ... i
Membershi 2,222 2,263 2,258 2,313 2,349 2,375 2,449 2,503 2,495 2,566 2,599
Averse % Increase 1.86% -0.25% 2.44% 1.57% 1.12% 3.11 % 2.19% -0.30% 2.82% 1.29%
Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections
Flomantarv
{ 201Q2011
School
Year-
~Oll 201 _
-,~.Qr1?~-eU~~
.r~1ya0
~(~~~
t~
{-~$
~,Sy~ "
'2QI~.}t,~ :7~1,~8-201~9S
Q19r2~0 ~20~1-21121
4 `
~
actusl
_:
~
..r-.~~:: .
a -
~~
_
-
r~ -
~
n; ,
Membershi 5,296 5,398 5,489 5,557 5,627 5,752 5,821 5,889 5,957 6,106
6,031
Averse % Increase 1.93% 1.68% 1.25% 1.27% 2.22% 1.19% 1.17% 1.16% 1.25% 1.24%
Mirirlla
eaxy ~. ~ I a ~
~~
Sehaol-Y ~ ~ .
t a-. ,~ ~ _ ,..
~ s •. - :
~ ~n
~~. o2 2A21
~ ~ ,-~-
. . .. ~
Membershi 2,722 2,749 2,795 2,879 2,894 2,951 2,993 3,037 3,139 3,175 3,212
Average % Increase 0.98% 1.69% 3.02% 0.49% 1.97% 1.42% 1.47% 3.37% 1.15% 1.15%
Flinh Sr•hnnl
..
ScbootY~i~'~x ' ~
: ~ ... ,
~
~'-'~
Membershi _µ 3,640 ._,:3 ~_ ~ r
,687
3,733
~ ~ _. _,
3,766 3,846 3,911 3,997 4,093 ..
4,108- 4190
4,252
Average % Increase 1.30% 1.24% 0.88% 2.12% 1.68% 2.20% 2.40% 0.39% 1.99% 1.47%
Sowce: 5 Model Compilation from PSTAC members ro determine avztage based on November 1 i, 20I0 membership numbers and historical data
- Orange County Planning and Inspections Depamnent Extraction of Annual Growth Rate Srom Averages
0
ti
i
Na
o~
o ~
~~
~~
~. ~
t7
lJ
Section II
E. Student /Housing Generation Rate
1.
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change -The updating of this section will be
conducted by Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for certification.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC
prior to certification.
2.
Definition - A projected number of students that are generated from four different types
of housing, "single-family detached", "single-family attached", "multifamily", and
"manufactured homes", as defined in Appendix C to the 2007 TischlerBise School
Impact Fee Report.
3. Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
See Attachment II.E.1
4
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Standard for:
Orange County School District
See Attachment II.E.1
On October 6, 2009, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the updated
Student Generation Rates as recommended by the SAPFOTAC. The newly adopted
Student Generation Rates became effective this school year with the November 15, 2010
CAPS system update. The new current standards are shown in Attachment ILE.1.
Also, note that students are generated from new housing as well as from existing housing
where new families have moved in. The CAPS system estimates new development
impacts and associated student generation but it is important to understand that student
increases are a composite of both of these factors. This effect can be dramatic and can
vary greatly between areas and districts where either new housing is dominant or new
families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock.
5.
Recommendation - No change
41
co
TischterBise~Student Generation Rates - 2007
N
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools
Elementary Middle High All Grades
Single-Family Detached 0.263 0.143 0.197 0.603
Single-Family Attached 0.158 0.077 0.115 0.350
Multifamily 0.038 0.015 0.017 0.070
Manufactured Homes 0.141 0.066 0.061 0.268
All Housing Types 0.149 0.078 0.105 0.332
Orange County Schools
Elementary Middle High Alf Grades
Single-Family Detached 0.168 0.090 0.126 0.384
Single-Family Attached / 0.066 0.022 0.034 0.122
Multifamily
Manufactured Homes 0.096 0.041 0.049 0,186
Ali Housing Types 0.145 0.074 0.102 0.321
Source: School Impact Fees -Orange Counry Schools, TischlerBise, December 31, 2007
o'
8
Section III
III. FLOWCHART OF SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORDINANCE PROCESS
Abstract: The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance process has two distinct
components:
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Process 1)
Timeframe: In November of each year, Student Membership and Building Capacity is
transmitted from the school districts to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for
consideration and approval and used in the following years CIP (e.g. November 15, 2004
membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June, 2005).
Process Framework
1. SAPFOTAC projects future student membership from historical data, current
membership and hypothetical growth rates from established methodologies.
2. School Districts and BOCC compare projections to existing capacity and
proposed Capital Investment Plan.
3. SAPFOTAC forwards data and projections to all Schools APFO partners.
4. School Districts develop Capital Investment Plan Needs Assessment during this
process
5. The Capital Investment Plan work sessions and Public Hearings are conducted by
the BOCC in the spring of each year.
6. The adoption of CIP that sets forth monies and timeframe for school construction
(future capacity) by BOCC.
43
Section III
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 1-Capital Investment Planning (CIP)
CIP
Projection Method
(Historical Membership)
plus Hypothetical Growth Rate
T
Approval
(Proposed New Construction
i.e. School Capacity
Added by number seats & yeaa
Actual Adjustments
(Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year
Membership Projection)
~ ~
CAPS
System2
(Certificate of
Adequate Public
Schools)
F- F--
1Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1)pre-existing/approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2)
existing housing stock with new families/children, and (3) newly approved housing development (in the future this component will be known as
CAPS approved development)
ZThe only part of the CAPS System (i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking) that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual
membership (November 15 of preceding CIP year) and new school capacity amount (seats) in a specific year pursuant to the CIP.
44
a
3
~_
Y
:~
Section Ill
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Update (Process 2)
Timeframe: The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the
school districts report actual membership and `pre-certified' capacity, whether it is CIP
associated or prior `joint action' agreement. `Joint action' determinations of changes in capacity
due to State rules or other non-construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the
November 15 capacity and membership reporting date. This update may reflect the Board of
County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects
capacity and addition of new actual fall membership. The Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year
- (e.g.: November 15, 2005 to November 14, 2006).
New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated, each
CAPS projection year is `absorbed' by the actual estimate of a given year. Later year CAPS
projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For
example, if a 50-lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 lots may be assigned to "Year 1," l O lots to
"Year 2," l O lots to "Year 3," 10 lots to "Year 4," and 5 lots to "Year 5." When "Year 1" is
updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The
students generated in "Years 2, 3, 4, and 5" are held in the CAPS system and added to the
appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated.
As was discussed in Section II.C, The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not
issue CAPS. However, residential development within the Orange County portion of Mebane
has increased dramatically in the last two years and over 1,000 residential lots are currently
undeveloped. Increasing development within this area of the county has the potential to
encumber a significant portion of the available capacity within the Orange County School
District.
45
Section III
Please note that the two processes (CIP and CAPS) are on separate but parallel tracks. However,
the CIP does create a crossover of capacity information between the two processes. For
example, the Schools APFO system for both school districts that will be established /initiated /
certified each year in November and is based on prior year created and / or planned CIP capacity
and current school year membership. The SAPFOTAC report including new current year
membership and projections are to be used for upcoming CIP development as noted in Process 1.
CIP Process 1 (for CIP 2009 - 2019)
November 2008 -June 2009 (using 2009 SAPFOTAC Report)
Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2009- 2010)
November 2009 -November 2010
46
Section III
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 2 -Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation
2008 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2007 through November 14, 2008.
The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC/School District joint
action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2007. This information is received within 5 days of November 15
and posted within the next 15 days. This CAPS system recalibration is retroactive to November 15, 2007.
CAPS Allocation System
1. Certified Capacity
2 LOS Capacity
3. Actual Membership
4. Year Start Available Capacity
5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity (includes available
capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by
year)
6. CAPS approved development
a. Total units
b. Single Familys
c. Other Housings
CAPS System
AC2=SC2 - (ADM2~'ND12~'ND22--'...)
AC>_0 -Issue CAPS
AC<0 -Defer CAPS to later date
'Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate. Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is
different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1. This estimate only captures new
development impact, which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate. y
ZAC - Available Capacity -Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system. ~
SC - Certified School Level Capacity
ADM -Average Daily Membership
ND - New Development; NDl means first approved CAPS approved development
47
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 7, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. .S °i'l
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) -Approval and
Certification of 2011 Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. 2011 SAPFOTAC Annual Report Shannon Berry, 245-2589
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER) Craig Benedict, 245-2592
2. Resolution from Town of Carrboro
3. Memorandum from CHCCS
PURPOSE: To approve the 2011 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical
Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report.
BACKGROUND: At the December 6, 2010 Board of County Commissioners' meeting,. the
Board approved the November 15, 2010 actual membership and capacity numbers for both
Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). The BOCC
approved revised OCS membership and capacity numbers at the February 1, 2011 meeting.
Additional approvals/certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO
partners MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding).
At the April 5, 2011 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2011
SAPFOTAC Report. The draft Report was also posted on the Orange County Planning
Department's web site. A" letter and the Executive Summary of the Report were sent to all
SAPFO partners on April 6, 2011 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and inviting
comments. Comments were requested for submission by May 10, 2011.
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen received the 2011 SAPFOTAC Report at its April 19, 2011
meeting and approved the attached Resolution (see Attachment #2). The Board of Aldermen
had no comments on the report. The Chapel Hill Town Council received the 2011 SAPFOTAC
Report at its April 25, 2011 meeting and had no comments. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
(CHCCS) administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC report to the CHCCS Board of
Education at a May 5, 2011 meeting. The Board of Education did not recommend any changes
to the Report. However, attached is a memorandum from CHCCS administration summarizing
the discussion, with substantial emphasis on the funding of Elementary School #11 (see
Attachment #3). No comments were received from the other SAPFO partners.
The exact pages of the 2011 SAPFOTAC Report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and
certifying are listed below. The context (i.e.: definitions and standards) of the various SAPFO
elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full Report.
2
Element Page in Certification to be made by BOCC
SAPFOTAC
Re ort
Building capacity 11 through 16 Building capacity and current year
with CIP changes membership for CHCCS was approved at
the December 6, 2010 meeting, and OCS
Chan a from revious ear at the Februa 1, 2011 meetin .
Student membership projection 19 Certification that the average of 5 models
methodology will be used, as noted in #3 on page 19
(No Change from previous year)
Student membership projections 36 and 37 . Orange County Elementary, Middle,
and High Schools Student Projections
(row that notes average only) (p. 36)
• Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
Middle, and High Schools Student
(Change from previous year) Projections (row that notes average
onl . 37
Student Growth Rate 38 Orange County Elementary, Middle,
and High Schools
• Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
(Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools
Student/housing generation rate 42 Orange County Elementary, Middle,
and High Schools
(No Change from previous year) • Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary,
Middle, and Hi h Schools
FINANCIAL IMPACT: CHCCS has projected capital facility construction needs as follows:
Projected need for:
New Elementary #11 2013-2014
New Middle School #5 2018-2019
Expanded High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
OCS is not expected to have new school construction needs in the 10-year planning period, but
continued development within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane may impact
future projections and needs.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve the 2011
SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the summary
table above.
3
Attachment 2
The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Coleman and duly seconded by Alderman
Haven-O'Donnell:
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND COMMENTING ON THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE
PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC)
DRAFT 2011 REPORT
Resolution No. 109/2010-11
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Carrboro that the Aldermen have received
the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee Draft 2011 Annual
Report.
The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote received the following vote and was duly adopted
this 19th day of April 201 l;
Ayes: Dan Coleman, Sammy Slade, Lydia Lavelle, Mark Chilton, Joal Hall Broun, Jacquelyn Gist,
Randee Haven-O'Donnell
Noes: None
Absent or Excused: None
4
Attachment 3
Date: May 10, 2011
To: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
From: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments
On May 5, 2011, administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC annual report to the Board on
work session at their regular Board of Education meeting. Based on the projected need for
Elementary #11 to open in the beginning of the 2013-14 school year, the request for funding was
reiterated. If the school is to be constructed in time, we need to receive funding authorization for
the project this spring. A brief timeline is included below.
Timeline to meet 2013-2014 School Year Opening:
• Funding Authorization: Late Spring 2011
• Bidding: Summer 2011
• Deconstruction/Recycling of existing buildings: Fa112011
• Construction: March 2012-Spring 2013
• FF&E and Move in: Summer 2013
We are currently over capacity and we have had to do some spat redistricting to alleviate severe
overcrowding at Morris Grove Elementary. In addition, we will be adding a mobile unit at
Glenwood this summer. This year we were also forced to relocate pre-k students from one
school to another because of school capacity issues. As we continue to grow, it is becoming
more and more difficult to identify and provide the adequate spaces to meet the needs of our
students and programs.
Please let me know if you have any questions and thanks to both you and Shannon for leading
this process.
CC: N. Pedersen
~i~cain Cen3.~y, 750 g. Fk~e!'ritt RisEl R~ac _ Cl~~p~ H?i!, NG 2751E-28?8 - iE19 9E?-8211 ._ u:~rw.ehcts.kl2.nc.us