HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-21-2013 - 5g1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 21, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -g
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance —Approval and Certification of
2013 Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. 2013 SAPFOTAC Annual Report Perdita Holtz, 919 - 245 -2578
2. Town of Carrboro Resolution Craig Benedict, 919 - 245 -2592
3. Comments from Chapel Hill - Carrboro City
Schools
4. 11x17 Copies of Student Projection Charts
PURPOSE: To approve and certify the 2013 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Technical Advisory Committee ( SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report.
BACKGROUND: At the December 3, 2012 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the
Board approved the November 15, 2012 actual membership and capacity numbers for both
Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS). Additional
approvals /certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO partners
MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding).
At the March 19, 2013 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2013
SAPFOTAC Report. The draft report was also posted on the Orange County Planning
Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report were sent to all
SAPFO partners on March 20, 2013 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and
inviting comments. Comments were requested for submission by April 19, 2013.
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen received the 2013 SAPFOTAC Report at its April 16, 2013
meeting and approved the attached Resolution (see Attachment 2). The Board of Aldermen had
no comments on the report. The Hillsborough Town Board received the 2013 SAPFOTAC
Report at its April 8, 2013 meeting and offered no comments. The Chapel Hill Town Council
received the 2013 SAPFOTAC Report at its April 10, 2013 meeting and had no comments.
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS) administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC
report to the CHCCS Board of Education at the May 2, 2013 meeting. The CHCCS Board of
Education did not recommend any changes to the report. However, Attachment 3 contains a
memorandum from CHCCS administration summarizing the discussion which includes
comments on Culbreth Science Labs, Pre -K and impacts to school capacity, current student
generation rates, and the Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) process. CHCCS also
requested that the Pre -K memo that was part of the April 25, 2013 BOCC /School Boards
meeting materials be included as part of the SAPFO comments. No comments were received
from OCS.
The exact pages of the 2013 SAPFOTAC report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and
certifying are listed below. The context (i.e.- definitions and standards) of the various SAPFO
elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full Report.
Element
Page in
Certification to be made by BOCC
SAPFOTAC
Report
Building capacity
11 through 16
Building capacity and current year
with CIP changes
membership for OCS and CHCCS were
approved at the December 3, 2012
(Change from previous year)
meeting.
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
35 and 36
. Orange County Elementary, Middle, and
High Schools Student Projections (row
that notes average only) (p. 35)
• Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary,
Middle, and High Schools Student
(Change from previous year)
Projections (row that notes average
only) (p. 36)
Student Growth Rate
37
. 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 High Schools
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Based on 10 -year student growth projections, CHCCS has projected
capital facility construction needs as follows:
New Elementary #11 needed now; scheduled to open in August 2013
New Elementary #12 2021 -2022
New Middle School #5 2017 -2018
Expanded High School 2020 -2021
Based on 10 -year student growth projections, OCS has no projected capital facility construction
needs in the next 10 years.
K
Section 7 of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
states, "Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the Capital
Improvement Plan referenced in Section 1 above."
Neither Orange County Planning nor non - departmental budgets have added any contractual
services monies for re- analysis of student generation rates or school impact fees. The final
phase of a 4 -year school impact fee escalation concluded on January 1, 2012 (fee schedule
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /PDFs/ fees /School %20Impact %20Fees.pdf). These fees
reflected an approximate 60% recuperation of actual costs to provide for `student stations'
based on a 2007 -08 consultant study. SAPFOTAC partners have discussed the desirability of a
new study to ensure the data and fees are kept up -to -date but, due to budget constraints, a new
study has not been funded.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve the 2013
SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the summary
table above.
m
Attachment 1
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ORDINANCE
PREPARED BY A STAFF COMMITTEE: PLANNING DIRECTORS,
SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(SAPFOTAC)
(PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 2003)
(ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN JULY 2003)
Annual Report
2013
(BASED ON NOVEMBER 2012 DATA)
CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON XXX, 2013
Table of Contents
Page
ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................. ............................... i
Introduction.......................................................................................... ............................... V
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ............. ............................... Vi
Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) members ........................................ ............................... Vii
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding
A. Level of Service .............................................. ............................... 1
B. Building Capacity ......................................... ............................... 2
Attachment:
IB.1.
- Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2011- 12) ...................
5
Attachment:
IB.2.
- Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2011- 12) ............
8
Attachment:
IB.3.
- Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012 - 13) .....................11
25
Attachment:
IB.4.
- Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012-13).............
14
C. Membership Date ............................................. ............................... 17
II. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System
A. Capital Investment Plan ( CIP) .......................... ............................... 18
B.
Student Membership Projection Methodology ....... ...............................
19
Attachment: IIB.1. —Student Membership Projection Descriptions ........................ ...............................
20
Attachment: II B. 2. Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2011- 12 ..................
21
Attachment: IIB.3. Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2012- 13 ..................
25
C.
Student Membership Projections ....................... ...............................
29
Attachment: II C.1. Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2011- 12) ..............
33
Attachment: II C.2. Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2011- 12) .......
34
Attachment: II C.3. Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012 -13) .........
35
Attachment: II C. 4. Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012- 13) .......
36
D.
Student Membership Growth Rate ............................... ...............................
37
Attachment: IID.1. Orange County & Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2012 2022 based on 11 /1S /11 membership numbers (2011 -12) ... ...............................
38
Attachment: IID.2. Orange County & Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2013 2023 based on 11/15/12 membership numbers (2012 -13) ...... ...............................
39
E.
Student / Housing Generation Rate ..................... ...............................
40
Attachment: IIE.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 ...... ............................... 45
Attachment: III B.1. Process 2 Certificate ofAdequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation .......................... 47
2013 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding
A. Level of Service .................. ............................(No Change) ......... Pg. 1
B. Building Capacity and Membership ......................... (Change) .......... Pg. 2
Chapel HillICarrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
Elementa
105%
105%
Middle
107%
107%
High
110%
110%
B. Building Capacity and Membership ......................... (Change) .......... Pg. 2
C. Membership Date — November 15 ........................(No Change) ....... Pg.17
II. Annual Update to SAPFO System
A. Capital Investment Plan ( CIP) . ............................(No 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 2012 -13 School Year — Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
Chapel HiltlCarrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
projection was high comp ared to the actual.
Capacity
Membership
Increase from
Prior Year
Capacity
Membership
Increase from
Prior Year
Elementary
5244
5543
79
3694
3403
55
Middle
2840
2785
32
1 2166
1684
(20)
High
3875
3796
82
1 2439
2315
32
C. Membership Date — November 15 ........................(No Change) ....... Pg.17
II. Annual Update to SAPFO System
A. Capital Investment Plan ( CIP) . ............................(No 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 2012 -13 School Year — Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
(The number in brackets [n] is the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. A number in parenthesis
within the brackets [ (n) ] indicates the projection was low compared to the actual whereas a number not in parenthesis indicates the
projection was high comp ared to the actual.
Year Projection Made for 2012 -13 Membership
Actual 2012
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
Membership
Elementary
5543
5817 [274]
5703 [160]
5604 [61]
5489 [(54)]
5572 [29]
Middle
2783
3003 [220]
2960 [177]
2848 [65]
2795 [12]
2796 [13]
High
3796
3959 [163]
3930 [134]
3792 [(4)]
3733 [(63)]
3783 [(13)]
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2012 -13 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
projection was high comp ared to the actual.
Orange County
School District
Year Projection Made for 2012 -13 Membership
2008 -09
Actual 2012
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
Membership
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
Elementary
3403
3556 [153]
3337 [(166)]
3355 [(48)]
3435 [32]
3438 [35]
Middle
1684
1 1748 [64]
1708 [24]
1751 [67]
1732 [48]
1716 32]
High
2315
1 2250 [(65)]
2254 [(61)]
2298 [(17)]
2258 [)57)]
2278 [(37)]
D. Student Growth Rate ............................................ (Change) .......... Pg. 37
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate
over Next 10 Years
Chapel HillICarrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
Year
Projection
Made:
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
Elementary
1.5%
1.72%
1.44%
1.59%
1.18%
1.16%
1.34%
1.57%
1.6%
1.31%
Middle
2.03%
1.93%
1.67%
1.94%
1.59%
1.44%
1.53%
1.84%
2.01%
1.64%
High
2.21%
1 1.8%
1 1.57%
1 1.730/.
1.60%
1.0%
1.38%
1 1.59%
1 1.61%
1 1.43%
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate ....................(No Change)...........Pg. 40
SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS
(based on future year Student Membership Projections)
CHAPEL HILLICARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School Level
A. Exceeds 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 105.7 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years but
remain positive (average —1 .2% per year compared to 2.0% over the past 10 years).
C. Elementary School 411 is slated to open in the fall of 2013 which currently resolves the
temporary overcapacity circumstance since housing can be timed with the under -
construction school. The projections show Elementary School 412 will be needed in
2021 -22; this is 3 years later than last year's projections (which projected a need in 2018-
19) and is attributable to the projected slower rate of growth (which may increase if
economic activity improves).
Middle School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standards (current LOS is98.1 %).
11
7
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the
next 10 years than it has in the previous 10 years (average —1. 6% compared to an average
of 0.67% over the past 10 years).
C. Chapel Hill / Carrboro Middle School 45 is projected to be needed in 2017 -18 (no change
from last year).
High School Level
A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is98.0 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease but remain positive over
the next 10 years (average —1.6% compared to 1.86% over the past 10 years.
C. Expansion of Carrboro High School from the initial capacity of 800 students to the
ultimate capacity of 1,200 students is projected to be needed in 2020 -21 (no change from
last year).
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is92.1 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected decrease but remain positive over the
next 10 years (average —1.3% compared to 1.6% over the past 10 years).
C. Projections are not showing a need for an additional Elementary School in the 10 year
projection period. This is a change from last year which showed a need for a new
Elementary School in 2020 -21. This year's projections show a LOS of 104.9% in 2022-
23.
Middle School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is77.7 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the
next 10 years (average —1.6% compared to 0.36% over the past 10 years).
C. Projections are not showing a need for an additional Middle School in the 10 year
projection period. Staff continues to monitor 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 Level
A. Does not currently exceed 110% LOS (current LOS is94.9 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease but remain positive over
the next 10 years (average —1.4% compared to 2.4% over the past 10 years).
C. Projections are not showing a need for an additional High School in the 10 year
projection period although capacity at the High School level decreased by 119 students
this year as a result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction (DPI) study. This
year's projections show a LOS of 109.3% in 2022 -23.
Changes in CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) System
As a result of a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in August 2012, it is anticipated that the
local governments that are party to the SAPFO will consider modification of their development
regulations as they pertain to CAPS in 2013. New language for consideration is being developed
iii
that will address the outcome of the court ruling. The primary work of the SAPFO system
regarding projections and CIP planning will continue.
Legal staffs of the Towns and County are also evaluating if changes to the SAPFO MOUs may
be desirable as well.
1v
9
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.
v
10
ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum
of Understanding (Schools APFO MOU)
SECTION Id
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORDINANCE PARTNERS
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School APFO
Orange County School District
School APFO
i
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
11
vi
Planninp- Directors /School Representatives
Technical Advisory Committee
(aka SAPFOTAC)
Town of Carrboro
Trish McGuire, Planning Director
301 West Main Street
Carrboro, NC 27510
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 Planning Department
Craig Benedict, Planning Director and
Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator and
Paul Laughton, Deputy Director of Finance and Administrative Services
131 W. Margaret Lane
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Orange County School District
Patrick Rhodes, Superintendent
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District
Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services and
Catherine Mau, Coordinator of Student Enrollment
750 Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
12
vii
13
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 —
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
Recommendation—
No Change from above standard No Change from above standard
14
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 for:
Orange County School District
The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective
superintendent and incorporated in the initialization 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
School levels.
2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
County School District April 30, 2002 - Base)
Capacity changes were made each year as
follows:
2003: No net increase in capacity at
Elementary level. No changes at Middle
School level. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge
2
Section I
School levels.
2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2007: An increase of 800 at the High School level
with the opening of Carrboro High School.
2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary School
level due to the opening of Morris Grove Elementary
School and the implementation of the 1:21 class size
ratio in grades K -3
2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
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
2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2012: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
15
High School.
2004: No net increase in capacity at
Elementary level. No changes at Middle or
High School levels.
2005: An increase in capacity of 100 at
Hillsborough Elementary with the completion
of renovations.
2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the
Middle School level with the completion of
Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of
15 at the High School level with the temporary
location of Partnership Academy Alternative
School. An increase of 2 at the Elementary
level due to a change in the capacity
calculation for each grade at each school.
2007: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2008: A decrease of 228 at the Elementary
School level due to the implementation of the
1:21 class size ratio in grades K -3 and an
increase of 25 at the High School level with the
completion of the new Partnership Academy
Alternative School.
2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2010: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
2012: No changes at Elementary or Middle
School levels. A decrease of 119 at High
3
Section I
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
16
School level as a result of a N.C. Department
of Public Instruction (DPI) study.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to system to calculate capacity. Any changes
year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and
the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved
SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by
the Board of County Commissioners each year
The requested 2012 -13 capacity is noted on
Attachment LB.4
forms distributed to SAPFO partners and
certified upon approval by the Board of
County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2012 -13 capacity is noted on
Attachment LB.3
5. Recommendation — Accept school capacities Recommendation — Accept school capacities
at all levels, as reported by CHCCS and shown at all levels, as reported by OCS and shown in
in Attachment LB.4. Attachment LB.3.
Section I
Attachment I.B. 1 17
(page lof 3)
2011-12
SPOCIal Notofs)' 1, For the Novcrnber 15, 2002 Nise year the board aceejAed capacifies as pod orfliQ SOwl Facilities
Tnsk F"tgee review sand 2003 Phinners and Scholl Reprcsc3rialivc TechikM Advisory Conunittec Report, These wipacilic! witl qamupll erfeclive unfit
changed Pry (1) the Sclumil CW or (2) an amended version W'flris fonn lhat ri certified by Ehu BOCC
",rrl-nTlffT.Tff M
Capacity Ceirtificatio
IN4
Sup�,,,nt,n Date
mom
lru4 ar' / Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .......... ,,, . . . . . . . . . . .
BOCC Chair Date
BOCC Chaiir Date
Attachment I.B. 1 18
Section I (page 2 of 3)
2011-12
Spe-Wal Note(s): O. For the November O 5, 2002 basso yoar the board accepted! the supermtendcnWxffified �Mpnckws as parl orthe School Facififies
"Wash Force reviem, and 20.'3933 Marmas and School Representative'redmical Advisory Committee kuport. I'hese upa :idjc 1011 relillain 01100livo u"M
01"Illged by (' 9 ) the schw)O CIP or (2) an amended version ofNq Form that K, txaffied b,y Me BOOC,
UTIM Tffmd T.77,
Capacity Certification-
�uperinte�ndent Ciata
Membership Ceirtification.-
/I
9, LLk
-16
Superinte. vdent Date
B4OCC Chair Date
L3tCC Chair fate
me
Attachment I.B. 1 19
Section I (page 3of 3)
2011-12
Special Note(q). 1. 1"or Ific NovV,bCT 15, 1002 tMSC )VUr the board a"uptud the superiatendent-cerflified cttpaJfies as part of 8'011(g l Fa6lifi(s
tank Fork rmew and 2003 Plannuis and Schooi Advisory Cornmiuct Report. These upacities wall Tunriin dfe%�6vv, until
dratigcd by (1) Vise Schooi Clill or (2) an amended version offlik, fitrin that is certified by tile HO(T-
Capacity Certification;
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification-
SupeNntendlent Date
BOCC Chair Date
.... . . . ...
BOCC Chair Date
Section I
Attachment I.B.2 20
(page lof 3)
2011-12
Special Note(s): 1. For the Novernber IS, 2002 base year the board accepted the sul)ciiiitei)deiit-ceplifie(I capacities as part of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School RepResernativeTechnical Advisory Conuiii1teelkeport, These capacities will remain effective Lartil
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is ctrdfied by the BOCC,
�1061
H'.
Section I
Attachment I.B.2 21
(page 2 of 3)
2011-12
Special Nate(s): t. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the supernitendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technicid Advisory coonnittee izcport. "These capacities will nnuain effictive until
changed by (L) the Sclurol CIP ot, (2) an amended version of this Corm that is certified by the BOCC
Cap 'CitCO! i imatl
Superintendent 7-Date
Membership e firi calt"on:
Superintendent Date
I
L
BOCC Chair Date
BOCC Chair Date
E
Section I
Attachment I.B2 22
(page 3 of 3)
2011-12
3pecial Not (s1; L Far the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the, superintendent- certified capacities as part of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Reporc 'these capacities will remain effective until
changed by (1) the School OP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Capajclty CerjHfjcafi
Ac-
L
Superintendent Date
Me , ershop CWT ati n.
VE
Superintend—en—i --------[Ta—te
OCC Chair Date
17CC- Chair Date
10
Section I
Attachment I.B.3 23
(page I of 3)
2012-13
Special Note(s)-. 1, For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities
"bask Force review and 2003, Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report, These capacities will remain effective until
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that as certified by the BOCC
Justification:
Capacity Certific
Superintendent Date
Membeirship Certification:
Supedritendent Date
I I
Section I
4
Attachment I.B.3
(page 2 of 3)
2012-13
A,L,,$ Wk
136,000
740
7401
740
. ...... 70
740
C.W. $Wbrd
107,620
726,
7261
726
126
726
Gravelly Hill
123,000
1 1
700
700
i
7010
700
700
Specla I Note(s). L For the November 15, 2002 base year the board' the superintendcnt•colified capacities as part ot'llre School Facit [ties
Task Force review and 2003 Planitem and Schnell Representaflve'l'echrn"l Advisory Committee Ropm "Phest eapacifics wilt remain efftolive unlit
changed by (t) tho School CIP or (2) an amended version or this forte that is cerfified by the BBC C
Capacity Certification:
- �Ll
L it
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
J
Supehntendent Date
12
Section I
Attachmentl.B.3 25
(page 3 of 3)
2012-13
Special Note(s): 1, For the November 15,2OD2 base year the board accepted the superintendent - certified oapacitics as part of theSclml Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Manners and School Representative Technical Advisory COUnraittee Report. These capaoides will rmaor effective oritit
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) air amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC
Justification;
1. The new capacity requested for Orange High School (1,399) is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study
completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012.
Capacity Certification;
1(2".:1L
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
22,LL " u
9—upeeintendent I - Date
13
Section I
Attachment I.B.4
(page I of 3)
2012-13
Special Hoto(s). L for the November 15,2002bguyear the board accepted the superinlendem-certified capacities as part of die School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 planners, and School Representative TechnieW Advisory Cortmikitte Report, Tbesc capacities wiH remain effiective until
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version ofthis form That is catifled by rite BOCC.
Justification:
C" city C rt -.
Tup6rintt ndent Date *90 CC r Date
'JRA faoprshi WIV,
uLtD -, 4 1 L
Superintendent Date
Date
PT.
14
Section I
27
Attachment I.B.4
(page 2 of 3)
2012-13
0
4pocial Noto(a). 1, For the November IS, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-ceftified capacities as part of the School Facilities
Task force review and 2003 Nartners and School Representalive Technical Advisory Committee Repo". These capacifies will reinain effective Limit
ch,anoed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version ofthis form that is certified by the HOCC.
Justification:
:7 ic �Y,,
Superintendent Date
NI bership 0 lficatbm:
'Superintendent Date
B OC C Chair Dat e
B Chair Date
15
Section I
School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year. November 1 1, 2012 - November 14, 2013
Capacity ana Mer"GersGip Submittal Date. November 15, 2012
Attachment I.B.4 28
(page 3 of 3)
2012-13
Special Note(s). E For the November 11, 2002 base year the hoard accepted the suWintendent-certifled capacities as part of1he School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Advisory Committee Report. 'These capacities will rernam effective until
changed by (I ) The School Clare or (2) area amended version of this fortn that is certified by The BOCC
Justificattom
o
Superintendent Date
M .—A
berqhill�C Ific , n.-
lic
fl Tacr-i
4/ 7,777, lVdd�
Tuperinteindent Date
BOCC Chal' Date
BOCC Chair Date
16
e
Section I
1
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
November 15
of each year
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Standard for:
Orange County School District
November 15
of each year
This will be analyzed in the future years to determine if it is an exemplary date.
S. Recommendation - No change at this Recommendation - No change at this time
time
17
Section II
II. ANNUAL UPDATE TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
1
2
3
0
5
FACILITIES ORDINANCE SYSTEM
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) after review of the CIP
requests from the School Districts. Action regarding CIP programs usually occurs during
the BOCC budget Public Hearing process in the winter and spring of each year. The
development of the CIP considers the conditions noted in the SAPFOTAC report released
in the same CIP development year including LOS (level of service), capacity, and
membership projections.
Definition — The process and resultant program to determine school needs and provide
funding for new school facilities through a variety of funding mechanisms.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District
Not Applicable
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. A new Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior
to June 30,2013.
Recommendation —
Not subject to staff review
W.
30
Section II
B. Student Projection Methodology
31
1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — This section is reviewed and recommended
by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC) to the BOCC for change, if necessary.
2. Definition — The method(s) by which student memberships are calculated for future
years to determine total membership at each combined school level (Elementary, Middle
and High School) which take into consideration historical membership totals at a specific
time (November 15) in the school year. These methods are also known as `models'.
3. Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Presently, the average of five models is being used: namely 3, 5, and 10 year
history /cohort survival methods, Orange County Planning Department Linear
Wave and Tischler Linear methods. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of
each model.
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Performance of the models is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its
prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the
annual Capital Investment Plan (CIP) updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and
construction. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment ILB.3 shows
the performance of the models for the 2012 -13 school year from the prior year projection.
5. Recommendation —
More than ten years of projection results are now available. Analysis on the accuracy of the
results is showing that some models have better results in one district while others have better
results in the other district. The historic growth rate is recorded by the models but projected
future growth is more difficult to accurately quantify. In all areas of the county, proposed
growth is not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment.
The system is updated in November of each year, becoming part of the historical projection
base. This is especially pertinent in the Orange County School District which serves students
living within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane which had had little historic
enrollment impact. The significant proposed residential growth occurring within Mebane's
jurisdiction has yet to be fully entered into the historically based projection methods. Although
construction activity in this portion of the county has slowed, there are still a substantial number
of approved but undeveloped residential lots.
19
Section II
•
ut
h.
I Attachment IT.B. I
20
32
(n
z
7.E5
D
E
<
T
<
14
IM E
'E
'r
L:
2 E'
-j
Lu -9
w 5, -g
P&
14
+ C
Tr P 21
R
LL
a,
E
2
KV
Z5
:E
S E
11
+
� E 75
It LE
!L
E
12
O
.Lg1L
E
k2 q
mp
A2
—G
J2 b
R1 Vl
j
9-A
m —
75
g
-5
-E
g i8 :E
>v 2
a
20-
E
(0
uj
7-0 w
LU
el.
In
0
fn
v
3:
LU
0
CL
a-
a
U 0
a.
A2
0
L)
20
32
Section II
Attachment II.B.2 3
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2011 -12 School Year (November 15, 2011)
H means High L means Low
21
11/15/10
Actual
2010 -11
2011 Report
Projection for
2011 -12
11/15/11
Actual 2011 -12
Change between actual
Nov 2010 - Nov 2011
Elementary
3285
3348
+63
Model
Projection is
T
3343
L5
OCP
3348
accurate
10C
3366
H18
5C
3373
H25
3C
3379
H31
AVG
3362
H14
11/15/2011
Middle
1698
1704
+6
Model
Projection is
T
1728
H24
OCP
1729
H25
10C
1698
L6
5C
1713
H9
3CI
1714
H10
AVG
1716
H12
11/15/2011
High
2222
2283
+61
Model
Projection is
T
2261
L22
OCP
2249
L34
10C
2258
L25
5C
2273
L10
3C
2276
L7
AVG
2263
L20
11/15/2011
Totals
Elementary
3285
3348
Middle
1698
1704
High
2222
2283
7205
7335
+130
Model
Projection is
T
7332
L5
OCP
7326
L9
10C
7322
L13
5C
7359
H24
3CI
7369
H34
AVGJ
7342
H6
H means High L means Low
21
Attachment II.B.2 34
Section II (page 2 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2011 -2012 School Year (November 15, 2011)
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 primarily high, ranging from 5 students low to 31 students high. The
average of the projections was 14 students higher than actual student membership.
• The membership actually increased by 63 students between November 15, 2010 and
November 15, 2011.
Middle School Level
• Projections were primarily high, ranging from 6 students low to 25 students high. On
average, the projections were 12 students higher than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 6 students between November 15, 2010 and
November 15, 2011.
High School Level
• Projections were entirely low ranging from being low by 7 students to 34 students. On
average, the projections were 20 students lower than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 61 students between November 15, 2010 and
November 15, 2011.
TOTAL
• The totals of all school level projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 13 below
actual membership to 34 above actual membership. On average, the projections were
high by 6 students.
• The membership increased in total by 130 students, which is the sum of +63 at
Elementary, + 6 at Middle and +61 at High.
22
Section II
Attachment II.B.2 35
(page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2011 -2012 School Year (November 15, 2011)
H means High
L means Low
23
11/15/10
Actual
2010 -11
2011 Report
Projection for
2011 -12
11/15/11
Actual
2011 -12
Change between actual
Nov 2010- Nov 2011
Elementary
5296
5464
+168
Model
Protection is
T
5389
L75
OCP
5407
L57
10C
5419
L45
5CI
5395
L69
3C
5380
L84
AVG
5398
L66
11/15/2011
Middle
2722
2753
+31
Model
Projection is
T
2770
H17
OCP
2733
L20
10C
2764
H11
5C
2742
L11
3C
2734
L19
AVG
2749
L4
11/15/2011
High
3640
3617
+74
Model
Projection is
T
3704
L10
OCP
3743
H29
10C
3679
L35
5C
3665
L49
3CI
3645
L69
AVG
3687
L27
Totals
11/15/2011
Elementary
5296
5464
Middle
2722
2753
High
3640
3714
11658
11931
+273
Model
Projection is
T
11863
L68
OCP
11883
L48
10C
11862
L69
5C
11802
L129
3C
11759
L172
AVG
11834
L97
H means High
L means Low
23
Attachment II.B.2 6
Section II (page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2011 -2012 School Year (November 15, 2011)
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 low, ranging from 45 students to 84 students lower than the actual
November 15, 2011 membership numbers. On average, the projections were 66
students lower than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 168 students between November 15, 2010 and
November 15, 2011.
Middle School Level
• Projections were primarily low, ranging from 20 students low to 17 students higher than
the actual membership. On average, the projections were 4 students lower than the
actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 31 students between November 15, 2010 and
November 15, 2011.
High School Level
• Projections were primarily low, ranging from 69 students below to 29 students higher
than the actual membership. On average, the projections were 27 students lower than
the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 74 students between November 15, 2010 and
November 15, 2011.
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were low, ranging from 48 to 172 students below.
On average the projections were low by 97 students.
• The membership increased in total by 273 students, which is the sum of +168 at
Elementary, +31 at Middle, and +74 at High.
24
Section II
Attachment ILB.3 37
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2012 -13 School Year (November 15, 2012)
H means High L means Low
25
11/15/11
Actual
2011 -12
2012 Report
Projection for
2012 -13
11/15/12
Actual 2012 -13
Change between actual
Nov 2011 -Nov 2012
Elementary
3348
3403
+55
Model
Projection is
T
3407
H4
OCP
3407
H4
10C
3455
H52
5C
3447
H44
3C
3472
H69
AVG
3438
H35
11/15/2012
Middle
1704
1684
-20
Model
Projection is
T
1734
H50
OCP
1759
H75
10C
1691
H7
5C
1700
H16
3CI
1697
H13
AVG
1716
H32
11/15/2012
High
2283
2315
+32
Model
Projection is
T
2323
H8
OCP
2289
L26
10C
2248
L67
5C
2265
L50
3C
2264
L51
AVG
2278
L37
11/15/2012
Totals
Elementary
3348
3403
Middle
1704
1684
High
2283
2315
7335
7402
+67
Model
Projection is
T
7464
H62
OCP
7455
H53
10C
7394
L8
5C
7412
H10
3CI
7433
H31
AVGJ
7432
H30
H means High L means Low
25
Section II Attachment II.B.3
(page 2 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2012 -2013 School Year (November 15, 2012)
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 4 students to 69 students high. The average of
the projections was 35 students higher than actual student membership.
• The membership actually increased by 55 students between November 15, 2011 and
November 15, 2012.
Middle School Level
• Projections were all high, ranging from 7 students to 75 students high. On average, the
projections were 32 students higher than the actual membership.
• The membership actually decreased by 20 students between November 15, 2011 and
November 15, 2012.
High School Level
• Projections were primarily low ranging from being low by 67 students to 8 students high.
On average, the projections were 37 students lower than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 32 students between November 15, 2011 and
November 15, 2012.
TOTAL
• The totals of all school level projections were primarily high, ranging from 8 below actual
membership to 62 above actual membership. On average, the projections were high by
30 students.
• The membership increased in total by 67 students, which is the sum of +55 at
Elementary, -20 at Middle and +67 at High.
26
W
Section II
Attachment II.B.3 39
(page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2012 -2013 School Year (November 15, 2012)
H means High
L means Low
27
11/15/11
Actual
2011 -12
2012 Report
Projection for
2012 -13
11/15/12
Actual
2012 -13
Change between actual
Nov 2011- Nov 2012
Elementary
5464
5543
+79
Model
Protection is
T
5563
H2O
OCP
5531
L12
10C
5609
H66
5CI
5594
H51
3C
5565
H22
AVG
5572
H29
11/15/2012
Middle
2753
2785
+32
Model
Projection is
T
2803
H18
OCP
2796
H11
10C
2807
H22
5C
2802
L17
3C
2774
L11
AVG
2796
1-111
11/15/2012
High
3617
3796
+82
Model
Projection is
T
3781
L15
OCP
3829
H33
10C
3774
L22
5C
3765
L31
3CI
3766
L30
AVG
3783
L13
Totals
11/15/2012
Elementary
5464
5543
Middle
2753
2785
High
3714
3796
11931
12124
+193
Model
Projection is
T
12147
H23
OCP
12156
H32
10C
12190
H66
5C
12161
H37
3C
12105
L19
AVG
12151
H27
H means High
L means Low
27
Attachment II.B.3
Section II (page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2012 -2013 School Year (November 15, 2012)
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 primarily high, ranging from 12 students low to 66 students high. On
average, the projections were 29 students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 79 students between November 15, 2011 and
November 15, 2012.
Middle School Level
• Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 17 students low to 22 students high.
On average, the projections were 11 students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 32 students between November 15, 2011 and
November 15, 2012.
High School Level
• Projections were primarily low, ranging from 31 students low to 33 students high. On
average, the projections were 13 students lower than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 82 students between November 15, 2011 and
November 15, 2012.
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were primarily high, ranging from 19 below actual
membership to 66 student above actual membership. On average the projections were
high by 27 students.
• The membership increased in total by 193 students, which is the sum of +79 at
Elementary, +32 at Middle, and +82 at High.
Section II
2
3
C. Student Projections
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for annual report certifications.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC
prior to certification.
Definition — The result of the average of the five student projection models represented
by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level (Elementary, Middle, and
High) for each school district (Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District and Orange County
School District).
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Standard for:
Orange County School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.4
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.3
The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued
growth in both systems. Although in past years there was much more variability in
growth rates between the two school systems, averages projected growth rates in the
next 10 years for both school systems are quite similar. Both school systems are
showing a projected decrease in the increase (but still showing positive growth) at
Elementary and High School levels. At the Middle School level, both school districts
are projected to grow at a faster rate, on average, in the next 10 years than the average
for the last 10 years. 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.
Wei
41
Section II
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
42
Elementary
The previous year (2011 -12) projections for November 2012 at this level were overestimated by
29 students. The actual change was an increase of 79 students. Over the previous ten years, this
level has shown varying increases in growth rates including a decrease in actual membership one
year (2009 -10) which was most likely due to the shorter enrollment period caused by the
institution of the new date rising kindergarteners must be five years old. Following that dip,
membership numbers are again increasing, with a significant jump (168 students) last year.
Construction of Elementary School 411 is underway and the school is scheduled to open in the
fall of 2013. The projections this year are showing the need for Elementary School 412 in
2021 -22 whereas last year's projections showed the need in 2018 -19. This change is due to the
slowing of the growth rate which likely is at least partially attributable to the economic
conditions the country has been faced with the past four years.
Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre -K programs
continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre -K programs exist.
Middle
The previous year (2011 -12) projections for November 2012 for this level were overestimated by
11 students. The actual membership increased by 32. Over the previous ten years, growth has
been quite variable and included a decrease in actual membership in 2004 -05. Growth rates
during this time period have ranged from -1.99% to +2.86 percent with most years showing a
growth rate of around 1% or less. The projections show a need for Middle School 45 in 2017-
18, which is the same projection as last year.
High School
The previous year (2011 -12) projections for November 2012 for this level were underestimated
by 13 students. The actual membership increased by 82 students. Over the previous ten years,
change has been variable with actual decreases in membership in 2008 -09 and again in 2009 -10.
Growth rates during this time period have ranged from -0.66% to +5.31 %. This year's
projections show that additional capacity is needed in 2020 -21, which is the same as last year's
30
Section II
43
projection. Additional High School capacity is expected to be achieved by expanding Carrboro
High School from 800 students to 1,200 students, which was included in the construction plans
for the high school.
Orange County School District
Elementary
The previous year (2011 -12) projections for November 2012 at this level were overestimated by
35 students. The actual membership increased by 55 students. Over the previous ten years, this
level has experienced varying growth rates including a decrease in membership in 2005 -06.
Growth rates during this period have ranged from -0.33% to +2.80 %. 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,
existing housing stock. Last year's projections showed the need for an additional Elementary
School in 2020 -21 but due to the projected slowing of the growth rate, this year's projections do
not show the need for a new Elementary School in the 10 year projection period. However, it
should be noted that the Level of Service in 2022 -23 is projected to be 104.9% with only 4 seats
available before going over 105% level of service.
Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre -K programs
continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre -K programs exist.
Middle
The previous year (2011 -12) projections for November 2012 for this level were overestimated by
32 students. The actual membership decreased by 20. Over the previous ten years, growth has
varied widely and includes decreases in student membership in 5 of the 10 years, including this
year which saw a decrease of 20 students. Student membership has grown by only 13 students in
the past 10 years. 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.
31
Section II
High School
The previous year (2011 -12) projections for November 2012 for this level were underestimated
by 37 students. The actual membership increased by 32. Over the previous ten years, growth
varied considerably and included a decrease in membership in 2009 -10. Growth rates during this
period ranged from -1.12% to 9.01 %. Membership increased by 32 this school year. As a
result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction (DPI) study that occurred during the past year,
the capacity at Orange High School was decreased by 119 students. Even with the decrease in
capacity, the need for an additional High School is not anticipated in the 10 -year projection
period. However, the level of service in 2022 -23 is projected to be 109.3% which is only 16
students less than the 110% level of service.
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 require that CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public
Schools) be issued prior to development approvals. In previous years, development activity and
platting of new subdivisions increased within the Orange County portion of Mebane. However,
changed economic conditions have curbed new platting and new construction in the past few
years. An uptick in residential activity is likely as the country emerges from "The Great
Recession."
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
development in the Orange County portion of Mebane could quickly encumber available
capacity. However, this issue becomes slightly less relevant from a development activity
standpoint with the anticipated changes to the CAPS system in the coming months due to a N.C.
Supreme Court decision in August 2012. It is anticipated that the SAPFO and CAPS will
become more just a good planning tool if the ability of the school systems to deny CAPS due to
overcapacity is removed.
5. Recommendation
Use statistics as noted in 3 above
32
..
Section II
a
I`
I
A
u s
Attachment ILC.1
(2011 -12)
33
45
Section II
Attachment H.C2 46
(2011-12)
34
U
Ell I
11
Ell 1; i
5
Mill 1;
Attachment H.C2 46
(2011-12)
34
Section II
A Student Membership 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
anticipated growth rates over the next 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.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
i •
system.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
Year Projection
Made:
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
Year Projection
Made:
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
Elementary
1.5%
1.72%
1.44%
1.59%
1.18%
Elementary
1.16%
1.34%
1.57%
1.6%
1.31%
Middle
2.03%
1.93%
1.67%
1.94%
1.59%
Middle
1.44%
1.53%
1.84%
2.01%
1.64%
High
2.21%
1.8%
1.57%
1.73%
1.60%
High
1.0%
1.38%
1.59%
1.61%
1.43%
5. Recommendation
Use statistics as noted.
Recommendation
Use statistics as noted
37
Section II
N
N
rl
,i
O
N
N
C
O
'o
L
a
wC
W
V
Vl
Z4
C
O
U
G7
C1
C
2
0
M
C
O
V
Gl
'O
L
a
C
0)
V
7
O
L
L
M
V
Z
W
CL
M
s
V
Attachment ILD.1
(2011 -12)
Qa
„e
e�
�w
ea
_w
�v
z�
o�
�a
�V
N
e
d
a
U
.
50
Section II
M
0
N
N
rl
G
N
Y/
v_
Y
.a
L
M
f
T
V
v
L
Lel
C
Qv
E
R7
W
`r�i 67 c
e o
N
N
� o
r4
N
O � o
N �
p T O
N
N Q G
O
N
a
CO 0
eq b N
N
00
G C4 e
N
cc
[� cc r
v r cV
N
r
C o
e ro
N
w
N f- °)
� �o
p T O
h
N � Q
4 �% N
IM r�
N
Co
N C7 CV
N
en
N 7 CO
N � �
N
7J
U
� V
V w
t �
_v
MV
W
�O
L
CL
wC
w
3
N
v
L
v
r
L
L
2
W
CL
fC
U
N
W
v
r
Ne CV r
N � T
N
tea � r
N
N OQ o CO
C T
6 � O
H
N v
� r �
p � r
N
�a r
p R
N
GO
q N
N
r
N O
a � T
N
o
Irl C7
c N T
ry
�r
N (1) v
Ln
a cv
oj
N
N �z L
ri 0:) r-
v ry CV
N
M
N 7 CQ
N
V
U
r
E2
c e�
z Q
Attachment ILD2
(2012 -13)
we,
51
Section II
1.
2
3
11
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee ( SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for certification.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC
prior to certification.
Definition — A projected number of students that are generated from 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.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
See Attachment II.E.1
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 the 2010 -11 school year with the November
15, 2010 CAPS system update. The current standards are shown in Attachment ILE.1.
Both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools have recognized a
larger increase in students generated from developments in both districts, particularly the
multi - family housing. The SAPFOTAC discussed the increased number of students
generated in both districts. While this may be a short term trend caused by the current
economic climate or other factors, the SAPFOTAC recommends further evaluation of the
adopted Student Generation Rates.
Also, it should be noted 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
.E
52
Section II
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.
53
It should also be noted that changes may be brought forward this calendar year in regards
to the CAPS system. It is possible that the potential changes may make the precise
student generation rates slightly less relevant for SAPFO /CAPS purposes. However,
student generation rates are relevant for other planning aspects and the impact different
types of housing has on students memberships still should be evaluated for new housing
trends.
5. Recommendation —No Change
The SAPFOTAC does not recommend a change at this time. However, the SAPFOTAC
continues to recommend further evaluation of the Student Generation Rates to determine
whether a change is warranted. The last impact fee level study (which includes the
calculation of student generation rates) was conducted in 2007 so it may be time to
initiate another study to ensure up -to -date data is used for both SAPFO purposes and
impact fee purposes.
41
54
Section II Attachment II.E. I I
cq
M
0
C
Ud
Ci
6
0
42
0
(D
"a
CO
0
0
w
0
LO
rl-
CO
C\l
Cf)
Irr
a
C7
C7
Ci
C
0
0
3:
Ca
CD
C)
0
C)
0
0
CD
05
0
C)
0
IM
CO
to
LO
E
(D
x.
0
ki
M
E
M
w
LO CO
0 w
't
-,t
CL
(LD
E
CO
E
M
LL
LL E
C�u
C4
=0
cv
(D
>*
E
E
E
:3
U) :2
LL
LL
E
49
6
0
42
ua
C\l
Cf)
Irr
a
C7
C7
Ci
C
0
0
0
CD
05
C14
CJ
C)
0
IM
CO
to
LO
E
(D
0
ki
M
E
75
Ca
0
to
(LD
E
CO
E
M
LL
LL E
C�u
C4
=0
E
Ch
:3
U) :2
6
0
42
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, 2012
membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June, 2013).
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
55
LO
I
0
U
V
• I�
c�c �
ICI
J
T
• 1
0 IEI
A�
A
O
�O
I�
V L
�I
P1
I�
1
V
H
O
N
N
a �
pow
O
U
�
U 7=
�
H
T
N
�C�
O
C�]
78
y � O
� x �
I
W
W
C�
ct
� a �
U
,Ct N
U
� � N
� N N
N
U
Attachment IILA1
C,
c
x
r"
to
cl
U � U
+C�
Cl
U
C
' c.
cl
to
O � �
to U
cl
CT
O
p�
to
U
'C '
O cn p.
cl
�-
Po
� U U
to -o p 0O
.� C 7
on C
U
O
N
O
U
�
o
�
O
N
�
OO
N
7�
T
N
�C�
O
C�]
78
y � O
� x �
I
W
W
C�
ct
� a �
U
,Ct N
U
� � N
� N N
N
U
Attachment IILA1
C,
c
x
r"
to
cl
U � U
+C�
Cl
U
C
' c.
cl
to
O � �
to U
cl
CT
O
p�
to
U
'C '
O cn p.
cl
�-
Po
� U U
to -o p 0O
.� C 7
on C
U
Section III
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Update (Process 2)
57
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," 10 lots to
"Year 2," 10 lots to "Year 3," 10 lots to "Year 4," and 5 lots to "Year 5." When "Year 1" is
updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The
students generated in "Years 2, 3, 4, and 5" are held in the CAPS system and added to the
appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated.
As was discussed in Section II.C, The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not
require that CAPS be issued prior to approving development activities. However, residential
development within the Orange County portion of Mebane has increased dramatically prior to
2009 but has slowed considerably due to the current economic climate. Currently, there are
approximately 1,000 approved by undeveloped residential lots in portion of Mebane that lies
within Orange County. 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
45
Section III
District. Although the SAPFO system is not formally regulated in Mebane, staff monitors
development activity and when students enter the school system their enrollment is calculated
and used in future school projection needs.
As has been noted in various preceding sections of this report, changes to the CAPS system are
anticipated to occur this year due to a N.C. Supreme Court ruling in August 2012.
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 2013 — 2023)
November 2012 — June 2013 (using 2013 SAPFOTAC Report)
Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2013— 2014)
November 2012 - November 2013
we
rn
LO
�V
�I
I��II
u
T
I�
O
�O
I�
V L
.0
V
V
0
V
V
• �I
�I
W
V
�I
,e
U
z
rA
a�
M_
O
N
S-i
N
Z
b�A
OO
N
O
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
M
O
N
O
U �
CX
U O
3 0
g-. .> .>
O N U
U �
� O
t.0
ct �_o
U
N �
U � �
a N �
N
N ^�
(>j
f—I �
� O Ct
Ct
� O �
U
N
0 3
a
o
[� Ct C�
N^^
N �
V�
o
R
U
O
� N
� N
U
vUi
'C
4-1O
�O
cl
�
+'
O
N
�
OU
� U
NII
i
O
Al
i
O
V
a�
Attachment IILB1
N �
C�
o
R
U
O
� N
U
vUi
'C
�O
cl
�
+'
O
V1
OU
� U
clilo
a�
V
Q
C�j N
�_,.-0 C�j
~
~
C�j C
U . cd O
O
>
N
V^1~���
po
�I
�
C�j p
'C
� U U
•
�
Cj
U
p
U F.
C�j C�j
CA
U
p
Attachment IILB1
IZT
C�
o
U
�
U
vUi
'C
�O
cl
Cl.
� U
+'
O
OU
clilo
a�
IZT
C�
o
�
U
vUi
'C
�O
cl
clilo
a�
po
:z
c
po
O.
'C
� U U
•
�
U
p
U F.
cj
cl
CA
U
p
o cl U U
+
po
+
'C Cd
"C
�
bA C, '
�
,
�
U
cd
4a
U
O �
0
�
�
�
�
CA
�
P- 0 O
O U
M c
U) p.. R"
I
U
l U
cl
CZ
cn U
U
U
U
cl O
P.
.O U cl
Q
un
IZT
Attachment 2
A motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman Johnson, that this resolution be
adopted.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND COMMENTING ON THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ORDINANCE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) DRAFT 2013
REPORT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen, that the Aldermen have received Schools
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee Drat 2013 Annual Report.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alderman Gist, Alderman Haven - O'Donnell, Alderman Johnson, Alderman Lavelle, Alderman
Slade and Alderman Seils
1, Catherine C. Wilson, Town Cleric for the Town of Carrboro, NC do hereby certify that the foregoing is
a true and correct copy of a rmlution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen_
.9
61
Attachment 3
HMEL HILL -
ARMOR0
x C I T Y SC H 00 LS
Date: May 3, 2013
To: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
From: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments
On May 2, 2013, administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC annual report to the
Board at the regular Board of Education meeting. As requested, Board members shared
their thoughts and feedback with respect to the draft report. A summary of that feedback
is contained below.
Culbreth Science Labs: The Board previously made a formal request to the
Commissioners for funding to construct a 6 room science lab addition. The science room
addition has been in our CIP since 2002. Students at Culbreth are not having the same
experience as our other middle school students due to the inadequacy of the existing
spaces at Culbreth. Teachers are struggling to provide hands on learning opportunities
simply for the fact they lack access to water. Furthermore, teachers report having to
teach lessons out of sequence due to the facility limitations. It is estimated that the
proposed addition would increase the capacity of Culbreth Middle School by 104
students. Based on the current projections, this would result in a two year delay in the
need for Middle School #5. The Board wishes to reaffirm the continued need and
prioritization of this project.
Pre -K: Currently SAPFO doesn't reflect the impact of having Pre -K in our schools
although this has a significant capacity impact, especially at our older schools. Our
district has over 250 pre - school students enrolled in our program. This equates to
eighteen classrooms that are utilized for this purpose located on all of our ten elementary
school campuses. After accounting for schools that were built with a Pre -K classroom, a
recent analysis (see attached) shared at the Joint Boards meeting suggests that this
equates to the loss of 294 capacity seats. The Board appreciates that there continues to be
an ongoing dialogue about the importance of Pre -K along with the need to recognize the
impact of Pre -K on building capacity. The Board also recognizes that there are details,
including current space and financial constraints that still need to be discussed. The
Board looks forward to continued collaboration on this topic.
Student Generation Rates: We are concerned that the student generation rates currently
in use may not accurately reflect the impact of new development that is occurring in our
Lincoln Center, 750 S. Merritt Mill Road - Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -2878 - (919) 967 -8211 - www.chccs.k12.nc.us
62
school system. Many of the recently approved developments have exceeded the
anticipated student generation rates prior to the completion of the development. We are
also seeing more students than anticipated from recently approved multi - family housing
developments. It is requested that the County consider whether a new study should be
performed.
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) and the SAPFO Process: There have
been recent discussions about the legality of the CAPS system if a developer was denied
a permit. Since there is not a pending concern about space in our schools, the Board
appreciated the flexibility provided on this aspect of the SAPFO process and the
willingness of the Commissioners to delay a modification to the ordinance. The Board
reiterated the importance of maintaining close collaboration and communication as the
various components of the SAPFO process are discussed moving forward. This will help
all parties understand how different factors impact the decisions as well as understand
when and how projects are funded in the CIP and how they align with the SAPFO
ordinance and student projections.
Please let me know if you have any questions and thanks to both you and Perdita for
leading this process.
Lincoln Center, 750 S. Merritt Mill Road - Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -2878 - (919) 967 -8211 - www.chccs.k12.nc.us
63
HMEL HILL
ARRBORO
,C
"tl` C ITY SC H 00 LS
Date: April 15, 2013
To: Frank Clifton, Orange County Manager
From: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: Pre -K Program Space Overview
Attached is a spreadsheet overview of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Pre -K
Program. This is for sharing purposes for the discussion at the April 25 Joint Boards
Meeting. Included on the spreadsheet are details with respect to the number and types of
classrooms at each of our elementary schools. Information about the program structure,
funding sources, enrollment levels, classroom type, and staffing are included.
At the bottom of the spreadsheet is a capacity analysis with respect to the impact Pre -K
students have on the district elementary level capacity. The analysis is included below for
convenience purposes. In total the district will have 19 Pre -K classrooms next year. Of
the 19 classrooms, 12 are in located within the school and 7 are located in mobile
classrooms.
Our newer elementary schools are designed and "constructed" with one Pre -K classroom.
Therefore a total of five schools with a "constructed" Pre -K classroom exist in the district.
The remaining 14 classrooms have to be absorbed into our existing school capacities. The
impact of this results in the loss of seats that could otherwise be utilized for elementary
purposes. The problem is exacerbated as our other 6 schools not only do not have a
"constructed" Pre -K classroom, but they are also below standard (fewer number and
smaller sizes) for classroom, support, administrative, and other core spaces. For SAPFO
calculations we utilize a 1:21 ratio which equates to an equivalent loss of capacity of 294
students across our elementary schools. Staff will be available to answer questions at the
meeting next week.
2013 -14 CHCCS Pre -K Classrooms and SAPFO
In buildings
12 classrooms
In mobiles
7 classrooms
Total classrooms
19 classrooms
Less "Constructed" Pre -K Rooms
5 classrooms
Net absorbed Classrooms
14 classrooms
Lost Capacity @ 1:24
336 students
Lost Capacity @ 1:21
294 students
IT
(D
6
0
m
y
CL
m
u
0
w
CL
z
\�
\\
\
)f!
\ }�
j
/ /(>:i::
)]()/
z I
} /(1) z I-
z I-
! /()/
))\)
/
\�
\\