The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 09-24-2001 - 4 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 24, 2001 Action Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: County/OCS/CHCCS Informational Reports DEPARTMENT: Budget/Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: As listed in "Background" Donna Dean, ext 2151 Craig Benedict, ext 2592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive reports from staff regarding several school related issues. BACKGROUND: This portion of the meeting provides an opportunity for the three elected boards to receive updates on the topics noted below. As time permits, the Boards may wish to discuss some or all of these topics, and to identify any points that staffs may need to research and bring back as the subject of subsequent reports. a. Approved 2001-02 School Budgets Attachment 4a — 1 Comparison of CHCCS Requested to Approved Budget Attachment 4a — 2 Comparison of OCS Requested to Approved Budget (To be Provided at the Meeting) b. CIP Revenue Update Attachment 4b 9121101 Memo from Budget Director c. 10th Day/20th Day Student Population/Membership Attachment 4c— 1 OCS Student Membership Tables Attachment 4c— 2 CHCCS Student Membership Tables d. Review of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance & Levels of Service Attachment 4d— 1 9120101 Memo from Planning Director on Schools APFO Attachment 4d- 2 914101 Letter to Orange Community Housing 2 Attachment 4d- 3 Proposed Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Attachment 4d - 4 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 4d- 5 Projections Flow Chart Attachment 4d - 6 CAPS Allocation Fact Sheet FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the review/discussion at this meeting of these reports. However, any discussion is likely to influence future school operating and capital budgets. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards receive the reports for information only. s g Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Current Expense Appropriation FY 2001-02 Total Local Funds Total Per Pupil General Fund Proceeds from the Received by CHCCS Equivalent(including Average Daily Current Expense CHCCS Special (General Fund and General Fund and Per Pupil Allocation(General Fund Only)i'i Membership' Appropriation District Tax Special District Taxes) Special District Taxes) 00-01 Approved Appropriation $2,395 9,470 $22,680,650 $10,584,593 $33,265,243 $34513 01-02 District Requested Appropriation $2,617 10,180 $26,636,590 $11,514,025 $38,150,615 $3,748 01-02 Manager Recommended Appropriation $2,437 10,180 $24,808,660 $11,635,859 1 $36,444,519 $3,580 01-02 BOCC Approved Appropriation $2,437 10,180 $24,808,660 $11,635,859 $36,444,519 $3,580 Total Approved Increase Current Expense(General Fund Only) ti42 710 (1)CHCCS also receives additional operating funds from the special district tax. •m projected by State DPI Local Revenue 2001-02 2000-01 BOE BOE Approved Requested Budget Budget BOE Approved Property Tax A General Fund Budget(Supported by Ad Valorem Tax Revenue) 22,680,650 26,636,590 24,808,660 B District Tax Revenue 10,093,228 11,514,025 11,635,859 Total Property Tax $ 32,773,878 $ 38,150,615 $ 36,444,519 Other Local Revenue D Appropriated Fund Balance 900,000 900,000 1,513,123 F Additional Prior Year Revenue from Special District Tax 107,000 107,000 90,000 G Fines&Forfeitures 300,000 300,000 300,000 H Miscellaneous Revenue 53,000 53,000 59,662 1 Indirect Costs 63,000 63,000 63,000 J Investment Income 290,000 300,000 300,000 K Tuition 375,000 479,500 508,500 L State Inventory Tax 62,000 70,000 70,000 M Sales Tax Refunds 100,000 100,000 260,000 Total Local Revenue Adjustments $ 2,250,000 1$ 2,372,5001$ 3,164,285 ° Total Local Revenues I $ 35,023,878 $ 40,523,115 $ 39,608,804 P increase from 2000-01 $ 5,499,237 $ 4,584,926 f Chapel HWPCarrboro Schools 812011 1 How CHCCS Appropriated the Revenue Increase Mandates BOE Request BOE Approved 1 Teacher &Principal Salary Increase (3%included in BOE request;approved BOE budget provided for 2.86%;at this time,the State has not approved pay plans or budget) 348,905 348,905 2 Other Salary Increases(in accordance with current information from State budget office,approved BOE budget provides for$625 increase per non-teacher/rinci)al position) 149,846 125,000 3 Social Security Increase 3%) 38,154 36,300 Health Insurance Increase(30%increase 4 included in BOE requests from$2,256 per employee to$2,933 per employee) 399,430 399,430 5 State Retirement Increase(BOE request included increase from 7.13%to 8.01%) 206,052 = 0 5 Utility Rate Increase 270,869 270,869 7 Postage Increase 1,740 1,740 9 Total Funding for Mandates $ 1,414,996 $ 1,182,244 Start-Up Costs for New or Renovated Facilities BOE Request BOE Approved Smith Middle School Personnel Costs FTE 9 Principal 1.00 State Funded State Funded 10 Principal Supplement 19,560 19,560 11 Assistant Principal 1.00 State Funded State Funded 12 Assistant Principal Supplement 8,857 8,857 13 Classroom Teachers 29.80 Regular Allotment Regular Allotment 14 Workforce Development 2.00 State Funded State Funded 15 Academical) Gifted AGYResource/Enrichment 1.00 53,268 53,268 16 Reading Teacher 2.00 106,536 106,536 17 Guidance Counselor 2.00 State Funded State Funded 18 Family Specialist 1.00 State Funded State Funded 19 Media Specialist 1.00 53,268 53,268 20 Technology Specialist 0.50 26,634 26,634 21 Nurse(system allocated) 1.00 53,265 53,268 22 Exceptional Education Resource 2.00 106,536 106,536 23 Speech/Language Pathologist 1.00 53,268 53,268 24 ESL 1.00 53,268 53,268 25 In School Suspension/Behavior Specialist 1.00 53,268 53,268 Self Cont:Learning Disabled/Mental 28 Health/Behaviorally Emotionally Handicapped 2.00 106,536 106,536 27 Program Facilitator 0.50 26,634 26,634 28 AVID/Minority EnrichmenUCIS 0.50 26,634 26,634 29 Administrative AssistantlSecretary 5.00 180,248 180,248 30 Media Assistant 1.00 24,856 24,856 31 Teacher Assistant 4.00 Regular Allotment Regular Allotment 32 S ecial Education/EESS 3.00 74,568 74,568 33 Custodian 7.0 192,256 192,256 34 Total Smith Middle School Personnel Costs (Annual) 70.30 1,219,46J 1,219,46 Page-2 Chapel Hill-CeMwro Schools 912012001 BOE Request BOE Approved 35 Operating Costs 36 Coaching/Co-curricular Stipends 61,000 61,000 37 Extra Duty Pay/Lead Teacher 5,392 5,392 38 Safe SchoolsNiolence Prevention 13,000 13,000 39 Field Trips 2,688 2,688 40 School Governance Council(SGC)Supplies 2,142 2,142 41 After School Program(Staffing,supplies&snacks 52,000 52,000 42 Media Center Supplies 6,541 6,541 43 At Risk Funds 1,478 1,478 44 Co-curricular activities per school 16,000 16,000 45 Staff Development per teacher 3,548 3,548 46 Staff Development -first year only 25,000 25,000 47 Travel-Assistant Principals 478 478 48 Travel-Principal 1,350 1,350 49 Administrative Supplies&Postage 1,837 1,837 50 Property Insurance 10,000 10,000 51 Telephone 15,000 15,000 52 Water 10,000 30,000 53 Electricity 70,000 100,000 54 Natural Gas(Heating) 70,000 20,000 55 Custodial Supplies 10,426 10,426 56 Total Smith Middle School Operating Costs(Annual) 377,880 377,880 57 Less: Start-up costs for Smith Middle School included in FY 2000-01 Budget 201,556 201,556 58 Total FY 2001-02 Smith Middle School Budget 1,395,784 1,395,787 59 Additional Expenses Associated with Opening of Smith Middle School eo Additional operating expenses in Facilities Department 44,675 44,675 Grounds Helper(BOE request included funding for 12 61 months;approved BCE budget provided funding for 8 - months) 19,385 19,385 Total Costs Associated with Opening of Smith 62 Middle School $ 1,459,844 $ 1,459,847 Budget Impact of Charter Schools BOE Request BOE Approved Charter school 63 students included in 0 total ADM sa Total Impact of Charter Schools I$ is Expansion or New Initiatives Budget BOE Request BOE Approved 65 Local Teacher supplement for new state-paid teacher positions 89,913 89,913 66 Additional Teacher Assistants for Grades 4-5 99,424 99,424 Items 65 through 68 considered 67 Items allocated on a per-student or per-teacher basis 93,989 93,989 "Continuation/State budget Mandates/Inflationary BOE b Costs"items in the BOE budget Webmaster for full year(in ty 2000-01,BOE funded 68 Webmasterfor 112 year;the 2001-02 funding provides for full year funding of$54,200 for salary and frin es) 27,100 27,100 69 Increase half-time 504 Coordinator position to FT at each high school 53,268 53,268 70 Half-time LEA rep for Scroggs Elementary 26,634 26,634 Items 69 through 74 considered 71 CAPS administrator(1/2 year) 27,500 0 "Overcrowding/Growth"items in the BOE budget 72 Increased position allocations for overcrowded schools 106,536 106,536 73 Full-time teacher assistant for ECHHS 24,856 24,856 74 Full-time Electrician in Facilities Department 44,330 44,330 Page-3 920/200f Chapel Hill-Carrtoro Schools BOE Request BOE Approved 75 ESL Coordinator(1/2 year) 33,000 33,000 � Items 75 through 76 considered"ESL/Dual Language Program"items in the BOE budget 76 Additional ESL resource teachers 3 FTE) 159,804 159,804 77 Teacher Supplement Increase for teachers with 0 to 9 years of experience;increases from 10%to 12% 128,854 128,854 78 Central Office salaries/upgraded position-5% 102,544 102,544 i 79 Upgrade lowest paid employees from grade 52 to 53 36,687 36,687 80 Full-time NC WISE Data Mgr position for each elementary school 232,000 232,000 81 Peer Assistance and Review 178,500 40,000 Items 77 through 86 considered"Quality Staff and Support"items in the BOE budget 82 Teacher Recruitment Initiatives 38,534 38,534 83 Reclassify an Office Asst position at each middle school to FT NC WISE Data Mgr position 13,000 13,000 84 Increase pay grade of HS NC WISE Data Mgrs from grade 59 to 61 4,400 4,400 85 Benefits Specialist 43,680 43,680 86 Professional Certification for office personnel 1,722 1,722 87 Addition of Executive Director of Instruction and Curriculum 1.0 FTE 96,000 96,000 88 Addition of Math/Science Coordinator 1.0 FTE 78,000 78,000 Items 87 through 91 considered a new 89 Addition of Administrative Assistant 1.0 FTE 42,000 30,000 program"Curriculum Development-ISD Restructuring"items in the BOE budget 90 ISD Curriculum Development Project 60,000 60,000 91 ISD Character Education and Anti-Bullying Program 12,000 12,000 92 AVID-one planning period for junior/senior class ' AVID teachers 53,268 53,268 93 Expansion/Enhancement of Phoenix Academy 64,946 64,946 Items 92 through 98 considered"Proficiency 94 Proficiency lead teacher 100,000 100,000 and Graduation Standards"items in the BOE 95 Third Grade gateway strategies 100,000 100,000 budget 96 School reading partners 23,000 23,000 97 Expansion of School Writing Program 17,000 17,000 98 Clerical Assistant for Writing Program 10,000 10,000 99 Minority Student Achievement Program(specifics to be Item 99 considered"Minority Student determined after BOE receives MSA report) 200,000 200,000 Achievement"in the BOE budget 100 Addition of MIS Support Specialist 1.0 FTE) 33,600 33,600 101 Addition of Support Technician I for High Schools 33,600 33,600 Items 100 through 103 considered 102 Addition of Support Technician for Smith Middle School and "Technology-Increases in Technology other under-served schools 33,600 33,600 Support"items in the BOE budget 103 Convert art-time Technical Assistant to full-time 6,459 6,459 104 Additional maintenance budget for facilities due Item 104 considered"Safety/Healthy to condition and age of buildings 50,531 0 School Climate"in the BOE budget 105 Japanese Language Program 17,756 17,756 106 Increase of school copier maintenance budgets by$5 per student 50,585 50,585 Items 105 through 110 considered 107 Increase in co-curricular athletic budgets for high "Technology-Increases in Technology schools 20,000 20,000 Support"items in the BOE budget 108 Co-curricular athletic stipends 42,774 42,774 109 Grant Writer 56,000 56,000 110 Increase staff development budget for BOE 7,000 7,000 111 Program Reductions and Savings 112 2000-01 Staff Bonus one-time $500 per staff) 150,000 150,000 113 Reduce PREP Academy teacher allocation by 2.0 FTE 0 102,612 114 Reduce PREP Academy teacher assistant allocation by 2.0 FTE 0 47,974 115 Reallocate Non-Instructional Support budget 0 102,442 116 Estimated net savings from legislative action 0 200,000 117 Total Expansion or New Initiatives Budget $ 2,624,394 1,942,835 118 Total 2000-01 Local Expenditure Increases $ 5,499,234 $ 4,584,926 Page-4 Chapel Hill-Carrhoro Schools 9/20/1001 4 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET OFFICE Donna Dean, Budget Director 208 South Cameron Street, Post Office Box 8181 • Hillsborough, NC • 27278 Phone: 919-245-2151 • Fax: 919-644-3324 E-Mail: ddean @co.ora,rige.nc.us To: John Link, County Manager From: Donna Dean, Budget Director Subject: Update on CIP Revenues Date: September 21, 2001 Now that last fiscal year has ended and the-audit is nearing completion, I would like to update you on two major revenue sources that fund the County and Schools long-range capital projects-Y2 Cent Sales Tax Collections and School Construction Impact Fees. '/2 Cent Sales Tax Over the past few years, Y2 cent sales tax revenues have increased around 7 to 8 percent. You may recall, that last fall as we began planning for the current year's Capital Investment Plan (CIP) update, the economy was beginning to slow, and we were beginning to experience a slight decrease in our sales tax collections. At final count, Y2 cent sales tax collections for last fiscal year (2000-01) totaled $8,582,546. This was $325,740 less than budget. Fortunately, both the County and the School Capital Fund Balances hade sufficient balances to cover the shortfall we experienced, and we did not have to reduce funding for any projects. During the budget planning process this past spring, we anticipated that the economic slowing would continue, and we anticipated a 5 percent growth in budget for the Y2 cent sales tax revenues. In light of our experience over the last twelve months and the more recent national events, we may see further declines in our collections. The first quarter collections are due from the State in mid-November. I will provide an update for you at that time. School Construction Impact Fees Over the past few months the Board has discussed the potential use of School Construction Impact Fees as one method of paying for school projects that are not included on the November bond. Following the Towns' submission of the impact fees that they collected through June 30, 2001, 1 confirmed the impact fee amounts available for both school districts. - Chapel Hill-Carrboroa City Schools - The amount available in the CHCCS impact fee fund is $6.2 million. For the most part, this amount is the result of higher than anticipated collections over the past three years. Since fiscal year 1998-99, impact fees collected in the CHCCS district has ranged from $2.3 million to $2.7 Page 1 of 2 million per year while the District has allocated a total of just over $2 million for the same period. The projects that the District has partially funded with impact fees over the last three years include Scroggs Elementary and Smith Middle Schools. In addition, interest earnings for the District are just over$811,000. Beginning with the current fiscal year, the projected amount to be collected in impact fees is almost $2.3 million per year. This projection reflects the impact fees of $4,407 per single-family dwelling and $1,979 for all other, residential dwellings, effective July 1, 2001. Prior to July, the impact fees for the District were $3,000 per dwelling. • Orange County Schools — The amount available in the OCS impact fee fund is $537,264. Over the past three years, annual collections have averaged about $385,000 per year. During this same period, the District has used impact fees to partially fund construction of Pathways Elementary (just over $1 million) and Cedar Ridge High School ($365,000). Interest earnings for OCS are about $300,000. In light of the July 1, 2001 increase in impact fees, annual collections for the OCS district are anticipated to increase significantly. Annual collections are projected to be about $1 million per year compared to the previous years' average of $385,000. This is a result of the impact fees for the District increasing from $750 per single dwelling unit to $3,000 for single-family dwellings and $1,420 for other residential dwellings. In accordance with the Impact Fee Ordinance, school construction impact fees can be used by each district for construction of new school space including new buildings or additions to existing buildings or otherwise converting existing buildings into new public school space where the expansion is related to new residential costs. These capital costs include actual building construction; design; engineering, and/or legal fees; land acquisition and site development; equipment and furnishings; infrastructure improvements; and/or debt service payments and payments under leases through which to finance such costs. I will be glad to answer any questions that you or the Board may have. Page 2 of 2 I OC 9/19/2001 Final ADM-Elementary School Level Total Annual Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Elementary Increase 95-96 494 500 447 460 436 445 2782 96-97 529 547 528 481 505 453 3043 261 97-98 477 564 543 529 453 521 ./ 3087 44 98-99 445 510 540 566 519 467,' 3047 -40 99-00 494 492 500 562 571 500 3119 32 L49100-01 456 508 470 1 509 541 578 3062 15 01-02 Membership* 443 463 493 455 548 2893 -169 *Twentieth Day Total 6 Year Increase 143 6 Year Average Annual Increase 24 Total 5 Year Increase -118 5 Year Average Annual Increase -24 Total 3 Year Increase -122 3 Year Average Annual increase -41 Final ADM-Middle School Level Annual Year 6 7 8 Total Middle Increase 95-06 472 417 435 1324 96-97 483 438 409 1330 6 97-98 462 489 436 1387 57 98-99 510 455 462 1427 40 99-00 473 506 470 1449 62 00-01 501 489 504 1494 67 01-02 Membership* 556 490 478 1524 30 *Twentieth Day Total 6 Year Increase 262 6 Year Average Annual Increase 44 Total 5 Year Increase 256 5 Year Average Annual increase 51 Total 3 Year Increase 159 3 Year Average Annual Increase 53 Final ADM-High School Level Annual Year 9 10 11 12 Total High Increase 95-96 530 371 301 253 1455 96-97 526 413 299 307 1545 90 97-98 493 407 305 314 1519 -26 98-99 533 402 319 296 1550 31 99-00 534 410 316 320 1580 30 00-01 549 425 338 299 1611 31 01-02 Membership* 630 455 370 314 1769 189 *Twentieth Day Total 6 Year Increase 345 6 Year Average Annual Increase 58 Total 5 Year increase 255 5 Year Average Annual Increase 51 Total 3 Year Increase 250 3 Year Average Annual Increase 83 Ocs 9/19/2001 t Final ADM-All Levels Year 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Total#Students 5,561 5,918 5,993 6,024 6,148 6,167 6,186 Total 6 Year Increase 750 6 Year Average Annual Increase 125 Totals Year Increase 393 5 Year Average Annual Increase 79 Total 3 Year Increase 287 3 Year Average Annual Increase 96 Prepared by Orange County Budget Office September 19,2001 Comparison of DPI March Planning ADM and Final ADM Orange County Schools Difference in DPI March DPI Projected Actual Projections School Year Planning Increase in Increase in and Actual# Ending ADM (2) #Students Final ADM #Students Students 1991 5103 4991 1992 5148 45 5088 97 52 1993 5204 56 5256 168 112 1994 5444 240 5354 98 -142 1995 5582 138 5464 110 -28 1996 5617 35 5561 97 62 19970 5680 63 5918 357 294 1998 6081 401 5993 75 -326 1999 6202 121 6024 31 -90 2000 6250 48 6148 124 76 2001 6342 92 6167 19 -73 2002 6302 -40 6186 19 59 Total Increase 1199 1195 Average Annual Increase 109 109 (1) Twentieth day membership reflected in Final ADM column (2) Does not include charter students (estimate for FY 2000-01 =254) (3) Aamance County students transferring back to home county of Orange OCS Student Projections ' Elementary 9/19/01. #Students 4th Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 3,078 20th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 2,893 Tischler 2,961 OC Planning 3,049 10 Year Growth 3,000 5 Year Growth 3,015 3 Year Growth 2,986 Capacity 3,820 1105% Level of ervice 4,011 Middle #Students 4th Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 1,504 20th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 1,524 Tischler 1,481 OC Planning 1,528 10 Year Growth 1,584 5 Year Growth 1,574 3 Year Growth 1,570 Capacity 1,466 1107% Level of ervice 1,569 High #Students 4th Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 1,672 20th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 1,769 Tischler 1,968 OC Planning 2,037 10 Year Growth 1,768 5 Year Growth 1,782 3 Year Growth 1,785 Capacity 11518 110% Level of ervice 1,624 All Levels Combined #Students 4th Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 6,254 _ 20th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 6,186 Tischler 6,410 OC Planning 6,614 10 Year Growth 6,352 5 Year Growth 6,371 3 Year Growth 6,341 Capacity 6,804 otal Level of ervice 7,204 C H C C S .4-46t444 He. - ;;� 9/19/2001 Final ADM-Elementary School Level Total Annual Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Elementary Increase 95-96 575 638 688 655 648 634 3838 96-97 608 605 647 679 648 663 3850 12 97-98 556 665 634 673 685 662 3875 25 98-99 576 635 704 671 710 722 4018 143 99-00 628 667 682 741 734 757 ,:' 4209 191 00-01 687 719 717 743 800 803" 4469 260 01-02 Membership* 651 724 746 750 793 848 4512 43 *Tenth Day Total Year Increase 674 6 Year Average Annual Increase 112 Total 5 Year Increase 662 5 Year Average Annual Increase 132 Total 3 Year Increase 494 3 Year Average Annual Increase 165 Final ADM-Middle School Level Annual Year 6 7 8 Total Middle Increase 95-96 617 648 621 1886 96-97 661 647 661 1969 83 97-98 665 680 667 2012 43 98-99 697 692 673 2062 50 99-00 747 709 727 2183 121 00-01 794 796 746 2336 153 01-02 Membership* 910 801 841 2552 216 *Tenth Day Total 6 Year Increase 666 6 Year Average Annual Increase 111 Total Year increase 583 5 Year Average Annual Increase 117 Total 3 Year Increase 490 3 Year Average Annual Increase 163 Final ADM-High School Level Annual Year 9 10 11 12 Total High Increase 95-96 669 515 472 431 2087 96-97 691 576 487 476 2230 143 97-98 697 618 553 426 2294 64 98-99 732 659 554 491 2436 142 99-00 761 6.83 637 511 2592 156 00-01 836 731 647 579 2793 201 01-02 Membership* 901 780 717 609 3007 214 *Tenth Day Total Year Increase 920 6 Year Average Annual Increase 153 Total 5 Year Increase 777 5 Year Average Annual Increase 155 Total 3 Year Increase 571 3 Year Average Annual Increase 190 C H C C S 9/19/2001 Final ADM-All Levels Year 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Total#Students 7,811 8,049 8,181 8,516 1 8,984 9,598 10,071 Total 6 Year Increase 2,260 6 Year Average Annual Increase 377 Total 5 Year Increase 2,02 5 Year Average Annual Increase 404 Total Year increase 1,555 3 Year Average Annual Increase 518 Compiled by Orange County Budget Office 9/19/01 Comparison of DPI March Planning ADM and Final ADM Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools i erence in DPI March DPI Projected Actual Projections School Year Planning Increase in Increase in and Actual# Ending ADM (2) #Students Final ADM #Students Students 1991 6014 6005 1992 6293 279 6300 295 16 1993 6791 498 6822 522 24 1994 7218 427 7133 311 -116 1995 7580 362 7509 376 14 1996 7860 280 7811 302 22 1997 8127 267 8049 238 -29 1998 8317 190 8181 132 -58 1999 8441 124 8516 335 211 2000 8760 319 8984 468 149 2001 9353 593 9598 614 21 20021 10063 710 10071 473 -237 Total Increase 4049 4066 17 Average Annual Increase 368 370 Tenth day membership reflected in Final ADM column (2) Does not include charter students (estimate for FY 2000-01 = 117) CHCCS Student Projections 9/11/01 -- r Elementary #Students 3rd Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 4,444 10th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 4,512 Tischler 4,501 OC Planning 4,585 10 Year Growth 4,541 5 Year Growth 4,560 3 Year Growth 4,643 Capacity 4,302 105% Level of ervice 4,517 Middle #Students 3rd Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 2,326 10th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 2,552 Tischler 2,251 OC Planning 2,297 10 Year Growth 2,487 5 Year Growth 2,469 3 Year Growth 2,478 Capacity 2,840 o 7 Level ot Service 3,039 High #Students 3rd Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 2,815 10th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 3,007 Tischler 2,991 OC Planning 3,063 10 Year Growth 2,897 5 Year Growth 2,902 3 Year Growth 2,929 Capacity 3,035 110% Level of ervice 3,339 All Levels Combined #Students 3rd Month Membership School Year Ending 2001 9,585 10th Day Membership School Year Ending 2002 10,071 Tischler 9,743 OC Planning- 9,945 10 Year Growth 9,925 5 Year Growth 9,931 3 Year Growth 10,050 Capacity 10,177 ITotal Level of ervice 10,895 L4 4 - 1, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING&INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict,AICP,Director Administration 306F Revere Road (919) 245-2575 P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us °<<5 Cato�co North Carolina,27278 1 MEMORANDUM TO: John M. Link,Jr., County Manager Board of County Commissioners FROM: Craig N. Benedict, AICP,Planning Director DATE: September 20,2001 RE: Schools APFO Attachments: Response to Community Housing Corporation Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding Projections CAPS Allocation This memo serves as an update to the progress of the Schools APFO. Based on comments made during public hearing in Chapel Hill in May, 2001 and following correspondence from their attorney,Ralph Karpinos, a few issues regarding implementation and timing was brought forward. To address these operative and legal issues,the Attorneys,Planners, School Representatives (APS) subgroup of the Schools Land Use Councils was reconvened. Approximately five meetings have been held in May, June, July,August and September and one final draft session to be held on September 24. The attendance, at times,was weak due to the summer break that slowed the coalescence of the collective wisdom of the group. However, a general understanding of the group and redrafting of certain sections of the Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)by the attorneys has brought forth a document that addresses the issue of timing of Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)to a reasonable conclusion. On this issue,the CAPS would be formally issued after the local government approves a development permit but before final recordation. Previously, the issuance was suggested much earlier in the process. An interim CAPS analysis could be factored into the decision of a local government to evaluate the impact as it relates to phasing the project or examining the housing g:craig\correspondence\managersmemo09-20-2001\jb type and its differential impact. This CAPS issuance re-timing removes some of the `hoarding' aspects of potentially long approval processes. Another issue included the status of funding for schools and if a Schools APFO was to be implemented would the ordinance create a `defacto' moratorium if schools were presently over level of Service Capacity. This timing of implementation would relate to funding source options presently under discussion by the Board of County Commissioners. Planning Staff has also created a base mathematical formula that illustrates the CAPS issuance evaluation process. The base formula would,by intent, be static. The variables or input would be dynamic and be `plugged in' to the suggested multiyear base formula. The variables such as growth rate,projection methodology, background increases, student generation rates, capacity would be the product of joint actions of applicable parties Lastly, staff has prepared responses to public comments regarding housing affordability issues. The revised drafts of the Memorandum of Understanding are presently incomplete and the draft from the attorney is expected Monday, September 24, 2001 for review, consensus and forwarding to the SLUC. Copies of the present MOU and Schools APFO are attached. g:craig\correspondence\managersmemo09-20-2001\jb Attachment D ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration ��` ''� 306F Revere Road (919) 245-2575 P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us °<<4 �._ °° North Carolina, 27278 W ® MEMORANDUM To: Christine Westfall Orange County Community Housing Corporation From: Aaron Cain Orange County Planning Department Thru: Craig Benedict - Planning Director, Orange County Date: September 4, 2001 Re: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance The following response is in regard to your memorandum to the Orange County Board of Commissioners dated May 7, 2001 regarding the implementation of a schools adequate public facilities ordinance and its impact on affordable housing in the county. Below I address your comments, questions and concerns as fully as possible at the present time. Furthermore, these responses come from the point of view of Orange County Planning and our suggestions for the structure of the ordinance. Affordable housing is a prime concern in Orange County and county-wide task forces with broad support are addressing it. Your concerns are generally about whether or not the Schools APFO will restrict affordable housing. The suggestions you make as a possible remedy may actually cause more damage to school overcrowding. By exempting affordable housing projects,those students who do enroll because of the construction of the project will not count towards capacity. Undoubtedly,we will reach capacity through the disbursement of CAPS to higher-income developers. Therefore,we will always be above capacity and will stifle other types of development. This is a situation we hope to avoid,while yet attending to the needs of affordable housing developers. Such solutions that have been discussed so far by staff and elected officials are giving preference to affordable housing developments in the disbursement of CAPS and calculating multi-family and affordable housing projects at a lower student production ratio than standard single family detached dwelling developments. I welcome your comments and input on these responses. 1. The APFO could exempt proposed developments of 40 units or less. Unlike the private sector, affordable housing developers generally create small developments,which have a great deal less impact on their area school district's population. By exempting developments of less than 40 units from the APFO requirements, the County government could address concerns about larger developments,which have the most impact on schools,but avoid placing new burdens on the majority of affordable housing developments. The major problem with exempting developments of 40 units or less is that larger developments may attempt to avoid APFO by proposing their developments in phases. This would eventually lead to longer delays by tying up more time of the Board of Commissioners in approvals and actually increase the costs to all developers, including those of affordable housing. In the present version of the ordinance, the impact of multi-family housing, of which most affordable housing units are, is being treated as a lower impact in terms of CAPS, and would therefore require fewer CAPS for the same amount of units as a large, single family detached development. Furthermore, at the last Joint Schools and Land Use Committee meeting on June 13, 2001, suggestions were made to give developers of affordable housing preference in the CAPS approval process. A final decision on this proposal has not yet been made. 2. The APFO could exempt small houses of less than 1200 square feet. Most affordable homes are 1200 square feet or less in size,whereas most private sector homes are 2000 square feet and larger. This exemption would therefore ease the development process for low and moderately priced homes. Such a scenario has not yet been discussed by staff or elected officials. An alternative suggestion is to qualify detached homes under a certain square footage as multi-family so that their impact is not as great, yet the students they will produce are still counted toward membership additions. Your suggestion will be discussed at a future Joint Schools and Land Use meeting. 3. The APFO could require that in areas where developable land is scarce, such as in the southern part of the County, priority would be given to permitting affordable housing developments before private sector developments. This requirement would offset the extra burdens created by the APFO for affordable housing developers who are working in areas where it is most challenging to develop affordable housing. It would also help promote economic diversity in the southern part of the County. As mentioned above,priority to all projects that include an affordable housing component has been discussed at the committee level. No recommendation has yet to be made. We welcome your ideas and input, and I will be sure to share them with the committee chairperson. 4d " AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS// WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] school system, has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth in population; and WHEREAS,this rapid growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school facilities lies primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange County School Board],with funding provided by Orange County; and WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District] have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; and WHEREAS, to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School Board], the [governing body] desires to provide a mechanism to assure that, to the extent possible, new development will take place only when there are adequate public school facilities available, or planned, which will accommodate such new development; NOW THEREFORE, [THE GOVERNING BODY] ORDAINS: Section 1. Section of the Development Ordinance is amended by adding a new to read as follows: ADEQUATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that, to the maximum extent practical, new residential development will be approved only when it can reasonably be expected that adequate public school ,facilities will be available to accommodate such new development. 2. Certificate of Adequacy of Public Schools Facilities. (a) No application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit for a project containing a residential use may be accepted as complete unless on the date of such acceptance there exists a valid and current Certificate of Adequacy of Public Schools Facilities (CAPS) applicable to the project for which such approval is sought. (b) A CAPS shall not be required for a general use or conditional use rezoning or for approval of a master land use plan. However, if a rezonin&or master plan is approved, a CAPS will be required before any residential development of the property is authorized pursuant to any of the approvals specified in subsection (a) of this section, and the rezoning of the property or approval of a master plan provides no indication as to whether the CAPS will be issued. The application for rezoning or master plan approval shall contain a statement to this effect. (c) A CAPS must be obtained from the School District. The School District will issue or deny a CAPS in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District] dated (d) An applicant shall seek from the School District a CAPS for a proposed residential development before an application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permits submitted to the [town] [county]. The CAPS, if issued, shall expire as provided in Section 4. (e) A CAPS attaches to the land in the same way that development permission attaches to the land. A CAPS may be transferred along with other interests in the property with respect to which such CAPS is issued, but may not be severed or transferred separately. 3. Service Levels. (a) This section describes the service levels regarded as adequate by the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding described in subsection (b) with respect to public school facilities. (b) As provided in the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District], adequate service levels for public schools shall be deemed to exist with respect to a proposed new residential development if, given the number of school age children projected to reside in that development, and considering all the factors listed in the Memorandum of Understanding, the number of students projected to attend the elementary schools, the middle schools, and the high school[s] within the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School District will not exceed the following percentages of the building capacities of each of the following three school levels: elementary school level f05% middle school level 107% high school level 110% For purposes of this ordinance, the term "building capacity" means the capacity of permanent buildings, not mobile units or trailers, and shall be determined as provided in the Adequate Public School Facilities Memorandum of Understanding among the Towns 2 of and Orange County and the Board of Education. 4. Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools Facilities. (a) A CAPS that has been obtained pursuant to Subsection 2(d) before an application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit has been submitted shall expire unless the developer submits and the [Town] [County] accepts as complete an application for approval of that subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit within 90 days of the date of the CAPS and receives the requested approval within'two years of the date of the CAPS. (b) A CAPS issued in connection"with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat,plan, or permit approval. 5. Exemption From Certification Requirement for Development with Negligible Student Generation Rates A CAPS shall not be required under the following circumstances: (a) For residential development permanently restricted to dormitory housing for university students. (b) For a residential development permanently restricted by law and/or covenant to housing for the elderly and/or adult care living and/or adult special needs. 6. Applicability to Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending Approval. (a) This ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding between the [governing body], Orange County and the School District are general in nature and applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the [governing body]. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this ordinance shall apply to applications for approval of subdivision preliminary plats, site plans and conditional or special use permits that are submitted for approval after r I the effective date of this ordinance (b) ' The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to subdivision preliminary plats, site plans and conditional or special use permits that have expired. (c) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to amendments to subdivision preliminary plat, site plan,,or special or conditional use permit approvals issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance so long as the approvals have not expired and the proposed amendments do not increase the number of dwelling units authorized within the development by more than five percent or five dwelling units,whichever is less. (d) The [governing body] shall issue a special exception to the CAPS requirement to an applicant whose application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor 1 3 subdivision final plat, site plan or conditional or special use permit covering property J within a planned unit development or master plan project that was approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance, if the [governing body] finds, after an evidentiary hearing, that the applicant has (1) applied to the School District for a CAPS and the application has been denied, (2) in good faith made substantial expenditures or incurred substantial binding obligations in reasonable reliance on the previously obtained planned unit development or master plan approval, and (3) would be unreasonably prejudiced if development in accordance with the previously approved development or plan is delayed due to the provisions of this ordinance. In deciding whether these findings can be made, the [governing body] shall consider the following, among other relevant factors: (1) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such facilities which were designed to serve or to be paid for in part by the development of portions of the planned unit development or master planned project that have not yet been approved for construction; (2) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such facilities that directly benefit other properties outside the development in question or the general public; (3) Whether the developer has donated land to the School District for the construction of school facilities or otherwise dedicated land or made improvements deemed to benefit the School District and its public school system; (4) Whether the developer has had development approval for a substantial amount of time and has in good faith worked to timely implement the plan in reasonable reliance on the previously obtained approval; (5) The duration of the delay that will occur until public school facilities are improved or exist to such an extent that a CAPS can be issued for the project, and the effect of such delay on the development and the developer. The decision of the [governing body] is subject to review by the Orange County Superior Court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court shall be filed with the Clerk of Superior Court within 30 days after a written copy of the decision [of the governing body] is delivered to every aggrieved parry who has filed a written request for such copy with the Clerk to the [governing body] at the time of its hearing on the application for a special exception. The written copy of the decision of the [governing body] may be delivered to the aggrieved party either by personal service or by certified mail,return receipt requested. The [chair or the mayor] of the [governing body] or any member temporarily acting as [chair or mayor] may, in his or her official capacity, administer oaths to witnesses in any hearing before the [governing body] concerning a special exception. 4 1 7. Appeal of School District Denial of a CAPS. The applicant for a CAPS which is denied by the School District may, within 30 days of the date of the denial, appeal the denial to the [governing body] of [local government from which development permit is sought]. Any such appeal shall be heard by the [governing body] at an evidentiary hearing before it. At this hearing the School District will present its reasons for the denial of the CAPS and the evidence it relied on in denying the CAPS. The applicant appealing the denial may present its reasons why the CAPS application should have, in its view, been approved and the evidentiary basis it contends supports approval. The [governing body] may (1) affirm the decision of the School District, (2) remand to the School District for further proceedings in the event evidence is presented at the hearing before the [governing body] not brought before the School District, or (3) issue a CAPS. The [governing body] will only issue a CAPS if it finds that the CAPS should have been issued by the School District as prescribed in the Memorandum of Understanding among the_ School District, Orange County and the [governing body]. A decision of the [governing body] affirming the School District may be appealed by the applicant for a CAPS by proceedings in the nature of certiorari and as prescribed for an appeal under Section 6(d) of this ordinance. 8. Information Required From Applicants. The applicant for a CAPS shall submit to the School District all information reasonably deemed necessary by the School District to determine whether a CAPS should be issued under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the [governing body], Orange County, and the School District. An applicant for a CAPS special exception or an applicant appealing a CAPS denial by the School District shall submit to the [governing body] all information reasonably deemed necessary by the [governing body] to determine whether a special exception should be granted as provided in Section 6(d) of this ordinance or for the hearing of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS as provided in Section 7 of this ordinance. A copy of a request for a CAPS special exception or of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS shall be served on the superintendent of the School District. Service may be made by personal delivery or certified mail,return receipt requested. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective The foregoing ordinance, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this day of 92000. Ayes: Noes: Absent or Excused: Isg:orangecounty\ORDINANCE3clean.8oc 5 qd- 4 SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of , 2000, by and between the Town of , the City of Orange County, and the (the"School District"). WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County, served by the [name of school district] has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth in population; and WHEREAS, this growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school facilities lies primarily with the (Orange County School District or Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District),with funding provided by Orange County; and WHEREAS, Orange County and the School District have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; WHEREAS, parties have worked cooperatively and developed a system wherein school facilities are currently adequate to meet the needs of the citizens of the county and will continue to maintain a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that is financially feasible and synchronized with historical growth patterns; NOW, THEREFORE,the parties to this memorandum hereby agree as follows: Section 1. The parties will work cooperatively to develop a realistic capital facilities program for the construction of schools such that, from the effective date of this Memorandum; a. No school level(i.e. elementary, middle or high)is more than 1. Elementary School 105%of Building Capacity 2. Middle School 107%of Building Capacity 3. High School 110%of Building Capacity (if number of schools within a level is very low the district may initiate a higher percentage limit and step down in percentage to the number above as new schools open) b. The term,"the school districts 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 districts and the Board of County Commissioners) and will be determined by joint action of the School Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. As used herein the term"school districts building capacity" refers to permanent buildings. Mobile classrooms and other temporary 1 student accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent buildings and may not be counted in determining the school districts building capacity. C. The capital facilities program shall utilize a projected growth rate for student enrollment agreed upon by the parties, which growth rate may differ from one school level to another. (i.e.,number of students per level per year.) Section 2. The towns and the county will adopt amendments to their respective ordinances, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to coordinate the approval of residential developments within the School District with the adequacy of existing and proposed school facilities. Section 3. The School District will establish an administrative process to receive and take action upon applications for Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools Facilities ("CAPS") submitted by developers who are required by an implementing ordinance conceptually similar to that attached as Exhibit A to have such certificates before obtaining development permission from the town or the county. The School District will issue a CAPS for a proposed development if it concludes that, given the number of school age children projected to reside in that development, and considering all of the factors listed immediately below, the number of students projected to attend the applicable school district elementary, middle, and high school levels will not exceed the capacities noted in Section 1 of this memorandum. Factors to be considered by the School District in making this determination include the following: a. The number of students attending elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools and the building capacity at each school,level. b. Projected or ongoing construction of new schools or permanent expansion of existing schools as planned in the adopted CIP. If the completion of such school construction is necessary for a CAPS to be issued for a particular development project, then there must be a reasonable expectation that such construction will be completed in time to be of benefit to such project. A "reasonable expectation"of a proposed completion date requires, at the very least, that construction of a proposed new school has received all necessary governmental approvals and that funding is in place, or that such approvals and funding appear"reasonably certain." C. Projected increases in enrollment due to residential growth. The following will be taken into consideration in determining projected enrollment increases: (i) Single-family residential building lots that have received final plat approval, or have been created by a plat exempt from subdivision regulation approval,but that do not contain a completed dwelling; (ii) Single-family or multi-family residential building lots for which: (1) preliminary subdivision plat approval, (2) minor subdivision final plat, (3) zoning compliance permit approval or special or conditional use permit approval have been granted so long as such approvals have not expired; 2 e (iii) Developments for which subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat or site plan approval applications have been submitted but not yet granted, so long as CAPS for such projects have been issued and remain unexpired or special exceptions that have been granted; (iv) Any phasing and time schedule for project development consistent with preliminary plat and/or master plan application and, if applicable, approval. d. Any other factors deemed relevant by the School District in determining whether each school level will meet the level of service described herein if the proposed project is constructed. Section 4. A CAPS that has been obtained before an application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit has been submitted shall expire unless the developer submits and the [Town/County] accepts as complete an application for its approval within 90 days of the date of the CAPS and receives the requested approval within two years of the date of the CAPS. A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat, plan, or permit approval. Section 5. The towns and the county will provide to the School District all information reasonably requested by the School District to assist the District in making its determination as to whether the CAPS should be issued, including without limitation all information the other parties to this agreement have regarding the matters specified in Section 3.c.(i)through(iv) above. Section 6. The School district will use its best efforts to construct schools and/or permanent expansion/additions in accordance with the CIP referenced in Section 1 above. Section 7. Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the capital facilities program referenced in Section 1 above. Section 8. In recognition of the fact that some new development will have a negligible impact on school capacity, a CAPS shall not be required under the following circumstances: (a) for a residential development permanently restricted by law and/or covenant to housing for the elderly and/or adult care living and/or adult special needs, (b) for residential development permanently restricted to dormitory housing for university students. Section 9. The parties acknowledge that this Memorandum of Understanding is not intended to and does not create legally binding obligations on any of the parties to act in accordance with its provisions. Rather, it constitutes a good faith statement of the intent of the parties to cooperate in a manner designed to meet the mutual objective of all the parties that the children who reside within the School District are able to attend school levels that satisfy the level of service standards set forth herein. lsg:orangecounty\MU-ORANG3clean.doc 3 ' � R V con cc3 O � V o � •� o a qd- 4-4 O O O VJ U � •� °o A4 � cz o Ct cc3 cn cn �✓ � U U � It