HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-18-2014 - 6dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 18, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 6 -d
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO) — Receipt and
Transmittal of 2014 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. SAPFO Partners Transmittal Letter
2. Draft 2014 SAPFOTAC Annual Report
& Larger Scale Projection Worksheets
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ashley Moncado, 919 - 245 -2589
Perdita Holtz, 919 - 245 -2578
Craig Benedict, 919 - 245 -2592
1
PURPOSE: To receive the 2014 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee
( SAPFOTAC) and transmit it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in May.
BACKGROUND:
1. Annual Report
Each year the SAPFOTAC Report is updated to reflect actual changing conditions of
student membership and school capacity. This information is analyzed and used to
project future school construction needs based on adopted levels of service standards.
There are two steps to the full report. The first part (Student Membership and Capacity) is
certified in the fall and then this full report, in the following spring, is to keep the SAPFO
system calibrated. At the December 2, 2013 Board of County Commissioners meeting,
the Board approved the November 15, 2013 actual membership and capacity numbers
(i.e. first part) for both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill- Canrboro City Schools.
A draft of the full annual SAPFOTAC Report is complete and has been reviewed by the
SAPFOTAC members.
2. SAPFOTAC
The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning
Directors of the County and Towns, is tasked to produce an annual report for the
governing boards of each SAPFO partner outlining changes in actual membership,
capacity, student projections, and their collective impacts on the Capital Investment
Program (CIP) and the future issuance of Certificates of Adequate Public Schools
(CAPS). Orange County's Planning Staff compiles the report, holds a meeting
discussing the various aspects, and then prepares a draft report, which is reviewed by
the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee.
3. Membership Data
CHCCS total increase from the previous year: 52 students
11 Elementary School
73 Middle School
I
(32) High School
OCS total increase from the previous year: 199 students
30 Elementary School
63 Middle School
106 High School
( ) denotes decrease
4. Capacity Data
Capacity for Chapel Hill /Carrboro City Schools was increased by 585 students as a result
of the opening of Northside Elementary School. There were no changes to school
capacities this year for Orange County Schools.
5. Capacity Issues
SAPFO vs. DPI
The SAPFO is a local ordinance, independent of State Department of Public Instruction
(DPI) projections and rules regarding class size. The SAPFO, for instance, does not
count temporary modular classrooms as fulfilling the capacity level of service outlined in
the SAPFO interlocal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU requires `bricks
and mortar' instead of temporary facilities and also requires its own set of future student
projections to identify long -term capital school construction needs. However, the County
did phase in the smaller class size in previous years that decreased capacity. Decisions
will have to be made if new discussions at the state level create any class size changes
that should or shouldn't be reflected in the County's SAPFO.
This year, CHCCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service established in the
SAPFO. Projections do show potential needs at the elementary, middle, and high school
levels within the 10 -year planning period. Projected needs are noted below.
Additionally, OCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service established in the
SAPFO at this time nor do projections show potential needs at the middle school level
within the 10 -year planning period. However, projections do show a potential need at the
elementary and high school level within the 10 -year planning period. Projected needs are
noted below.
6. Student Projection Analysis
Student membership projections show an increase at all levels in both school systems,
except for a small projected decrease in 2014 -15 at the high school level for OCS. The
projections are shown on pages 37 -38 of the report.
7. Orange County Schoi
CHCCS
Projected needs:
New Elementary #12
New Middle School #5
High School
As Systems; CIP Needs Analysis
2020 -2021 (projected overage of 45 students; 105.8% LOS
2020 -2021 (projected overage of 39 students; 108.3% LOS
2023 -2024 (projected overage of 6 students; 110.1% LOS)
OCS
Projected needs:
New Elementary # 8 2023 -2024 (projected overage of 28 students; 105.7% LOS)
Middle School projections show no needs in the next 10 years
High School 2022 -23 (projected overage of 59 students; 112.4% LOS)
The SAPFOTAC report notes that there are a significant number of approved, but
undeveloped lots within the portion of the City of Mebane that lies within Orange County.
t
However, new construction activity has slowed in recent years due to the economic
downturn. Because the City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO at this time, CAPS
are not required by the local government to be issued prior to development approvals.
However, once students generated from Mebane development actually enter the school
system, faster enrollment increases would affect projections and may identify CIP needs
within 10 years, unless enrollment is balanced by slower growth in other areas of the
district.
8. Student Generation Rates and New Study
On October 6, 2009, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the updated
Student Generation Rates, as recommended by the SAPFOTAC. The updated Student
Generation Rates became effective with the November 15, 2010 CAPS system update.
Both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools report having
observed an even larger increase in students generated from new developments in both
districts.
The SAPFOTAC discussed the increased number of students generated in both districts
and proposed multi - family projects that may continue to have an effect on student
membership numbers. While this may be a short term trend caused by the current
economic climate or other factors, the SAPFOTAC recommended further evaluation of
the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts different types of housing may
have on student membership rates. As a result, Orange County will be entering into a
contract with Tischler -Bise to study student generation rates for newer housing in the
Orange County and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City School Districts.
9. Access to Full Report
The draft SAPFOTAC report will be posted on the Orange County Planning Department's
web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report will be sent to all SAPFO
partners after this BOCC meeting advising them of the availability of the draft report and
inviting comment. It is anticipated the draft 2014 SAPFOTAC report will be brought back
to the BOCC for certification at the May 8, 2014 regular meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current 10 -year student growth projections show future needs for
additional schools in the CHCCS District. Elementary School #12 is projected to be needed in
2020 -21, Middle School #5 is projected to be needed in 2020 -21, and additional High School
level capacity in the CHCCS District is projected to be needed in 2023 -24. In the OCS District,
Elementary School #8 is projected to be needed in 2023 -24 and additional High School level
capacity in the OCS District is projected to be needed in 2022 -23.
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."
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the 2014 SAPFOTAC Annual Report; and
2. Authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained
in Attachment 1.
BARRYJACOBS, CHAIR
EARL MCKEE, VICE CHAIR
MARK DOROS /N
AL.ICEM GORDON
BERNADETTE PELISSIER
RENEE PRICE
PENNYRICH
March 19, 2014
Attachment 1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
POST OFFICE BOX 81 81
200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Lydia Lavelle, Mayor
Town of Carrboro
301 W. Main Street
Carrboro, NC 27510
Tom Stevens, Mayor
Town of Hillsborough
P.O. Box 429
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Donna Coffey, Chair
Orange County Board of Education
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
4
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board of Education
750 Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Subject: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee
( SAPFOTAC) Annual Report
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to update you on the status of the 2014 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. In accordance with the
SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the
November 15, 2013 actual membership and capacity numbers for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill —
Carrboro City Schools at its meeting on December 2, 2013.
The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County
and Towns has produced the 2014 Annual Report. As per the SAPFO MOU, the annual technical report
contains information on Level of Service, Building Capacity, Membership Date, Capital Investment Plan,
Student Membership Projection Methodology, Student Membership Projections, Student Membership Growth
Rate, Student/Housing Generation Rate, and the SAPFO Process. Enclosed for your use are copies of the 2014
Executive Summary and the March 18, 2014 BOCC meeting agenda item abstract when the BOCC received the
draft report.
WWW. CO. ORANGE NC. US
PROTECTING AND PRESERVING -PEOPLE, RESOURCES, QUALITY OF LIFE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - YOU COUNT.I
(9 19) 245 -2130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246
The full draft SAPFOTAC report is available on the Orange County Planning Department website in the
Current Interest Projects section
htlp://www.Co.orange.nc.us/planning/SpecialProjects.asp
The 2014 Annual SAPFOTAC Report is scheduled to be certified by the BOCC at a regular meeting in May
2014. Therefore, if you have any comments pertaining to the report, please forward them to Craig N. Benedict,
Planning Director, no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2014. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at (919)
245 -2592 by e -mail at cbenedict(ae,oran eg countync.gov, or by fax at (919) 644 -3002. Any comments received
will be part of our agenda package in May.
Please share this information and the 2014 SAPFOTAC report with your respective boards.
Sincerely,
Barry Jacobs
Chair
Enclosures
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Michael Talbert, Interim Orange County Manager
Roger L. Stancil, Manager, Town of Chapel Hill
David Andrews, Manager, Town of Carrboro
Eric Peterson, Manager, Town of Hillsborough
Tom Forcella, Superintendent, Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
Gerri Martin, Superintendent, Orange County Schools
Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools
Catherine Mau, Coordinator for Student Enrollment, Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Orange County
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director, Town of Chapel Hill
Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, Town of Hillsborough
Trish McGuire, Planning Director, Town of Carrboro
WWW. CO. ORANGE. NC. US
PROTECTING AND PRESERU/NG - PEOPLE, RESOURCES, QUALITY OF LIFE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROL /NA - YOU COUNT!
(9 19) 245-2130 • FAX (9 19) 644 -0246
u
Attachment 2
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
2014
(BASED ON NOVEMBER 2013 DATA)
CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY X, 2014
Table of Contents
Page
7
ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................... ............................... i
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... ............................... iv
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ................................. ............................... V
Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory
Committee (SAPFOTAC) members ................................................ ............................... Vi
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding
A.
Level of Service ........................................................................ ...............................
1
B.
Building Capacity .................................................................... ...............................
2
Attachment: IB.1. - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) ( 2012- 13 ) ..............................
5
Attachment: IB.2. - Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012 -13) ...................
8
C.
Attachment: IB.3. - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) ( 2013- 14 ) ..............................
11
Attachment: IB.4. - Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High) (2013 -14) ...................
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 2012 -13 ..........................
21
Attachment: II B.3. Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2013 -14 ..........................
25
C.
Student Membership Projections ........................................... ...............................
29
Attachment: II C.1. Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012 -13) ....................
34
Attachment: II C.2. Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2012 -13) ..........
35
Attachment: II C.3. Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2013 -14) ....................
36
Attachment: II C. 4. Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High) (2013 -14) ..........
37
D.
Student Membership Growth Rate ................................................................... ...............................
38
Attachment: IID.1. Orange County & Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2013 -2023 based on 11/15/12 membership numbers ( 2012- 13) .................... ...............................
39
Attachment: IID.2. Orange County & Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2014 -2024 based on 11/15/13 membership numbers ( 2013- 14) .................... ...............................
40
E.
Student / Housing Generation Rate ....................................... ...............................
41
Attachment: IIE.1. — Current Student Generation Rates (2007) .................................................. ...............................
43
III. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process
A. Process 1 - Capital Investment Plan .............................................................. ............................... 44
Attachment: III A.1. — Process 1 Capital Investment Plan ......................................................... ............................... 45
B. Process 2 - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance;
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) System ...... ............................... 46
Attachment: III B.1. Process 2 Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation .... ............................... 48
2014 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 Hill/Carrboro
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 2013 -14 School Year — Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
Chapel HiltlCarrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
projection was high compared to the actual.)
Capacity
Membership
Increase from
Prior Year
Capacity
Membership
Increase from
Prior Year
Elementary
5829
5554
11
3694
3433
30
Middle
2840
2858
73
1 2166
1747
63
High
3875
3764
(32)
1 2439
2421
106
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 2013 -14 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 compared to the actual.)
Year Projection Made for 2013 -14 Membership
Actual 2013
Membership
2008 -2009
2009 -2010
2010 -2011
2011 -2012
2012 -2013
Elementary
5554
5703 160
5604 61
5489 54
5572 29
5612 58
Middle
2858
2960 [177]
2848 [65]
2795 [12]
2796 [13]
2862 [4]
High
3764
3930 [134]
3792 [(4)]
3733 [(63)]
3783 [(13)]
3828 [64]
1
9
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2013 -14 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 compared to the actual.)
Year
Projection
Made:
Year Projection Made for 2013 -14 Membership
10 -11
Actual 2013
2012 -13
2013 -14
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
Membership
2008 -2009
2009 -2010
2010 -2011
2011 -2012
2012 -2013
Elementary
3433
3337 [(166)]
3355 [(48)]
3435 [32]
3438 [35]
3433 [0]
Middle
1747
1708 24
1751 67
1732 48
1716 32
1733 14
High
2421
2254 [(61)]
2298 [(17)]
2258 [)57)]
2278 [(37)]
2355[(66)]
D. Student Growth Rate ...................................................... (Change) .................... Pg. 39
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over Next 10 Years
Chapel Hill/Carrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
Year
Projection
Made:
10 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2013 -14
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2013 -14
Elementary
91-57%
44%
1.59%
1.18%
1.44%
1.34%
1.57%
1.6%
1.31%
1.30%
Middle
67%
1.94%
1.59%
1.58%
1.53%
1.84%
2.01%
1.64%
1.42%
High
1 1.73%
1 1.600/.
1.27%
1 1.38%
1 1.59%
1 1.61%
1 1.43%
1 1.35%
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate ... ............................(No Change) .............. Pg. 42
SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS
(based on future year Student Membership Projections)
CHAPEL HILLICARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 95.3 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years but
remain positive (average —1.4% per year compared to 2.0% over the past 10 years).
C. Capacity has increased by 585 students due to the opening of Northside Elementary
School. Projections show that Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary School 412 will be
needed in 2020 -21. This is one year earlier than last year's projections.
Middle School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 100.6 %).
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. The planned addition to Culbreth Middle School for the 2014 -15 school year is proposed
to increase capacity with the addition of 104 seats. As a result, projections show that
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Middle School 45 is projected to be needed in 2020 -21. This is
three years later than last year's projections
ii
High School Level
A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 97.1 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over
the next 10 years (average -1.3% 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 2023- 24.This is three
years later than last year's projections which showed a need in 2020 -21.
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 92.9 %).
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. Orange County Elementary School 4 8 is projected to be needed in 2023 -24. This is a
change from last year's projections which did not show a need for a new Elementary
School in the 10 year projection period.
10
Middle School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 80.7 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase at a greater rate over the
next 10 years (average -1.4% compared to 0.35% 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 standard (current LOS is 99.3 %).
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. Expansion of Cedar Ridge High School from the initial capacity of 500 students to the
1,500 students is projected to be needed in 2022 -23. This is a change from last year's
projections which did not show a need for additional capacity in the 10 -year projection
period.
Changes in CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) System
As a result of a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in August 2012, the local governments that
are party to the SAPFO considered modification of their development regulations as they pertain
to CAPS in 2013. However, at this time the local governments have not pursued revisions to
existing standards contained within the CAPS system or SAPFO MOUs.
iii
Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
11
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 affect 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.
1v
ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN
12
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
v
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
Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 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
Gerri Martin, 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
V1
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 —
No change from above standard
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
Recommendation —
No change from above standard
1
14
15
Section I
2
3
B. Building Capacity
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The Planning Directors, School Representatives,
and 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.
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
W
16
Section I
2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School level. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge
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.
2013: An increase in capacity of 585 students due to
the opening of Northside Elementary School.
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
3
9 I
Section I
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to
year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by
the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to
SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by
the Board of County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2013 -14 capacity is noted on
Attachment I.B.4
5. Recommendation —
Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported
by CHCCS and shown in Attachment I.B.4.
17
School levels. A decrease of 119 at High
School level as a result of a N.C. Department
of Public Instruction (DPI) study.
2013: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or
High School levels.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
system to calculate capacity. Any changes
year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and
recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved
forms distributed to SAPFO partners and
certified upon approval by the Board of
County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2013 -14 capacity is noted on
Attachment I.B.3
Recommendation —
Accept school capacities at all levels, as
reported by OCS and shown in Attachment
I.B.3.
4
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15, 2012 - November 14, 2013
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15, 2012
Attachment I.B.1
(page 1 of 3)
2012 -13
Special Note(s): I. for the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certi tied capacities as part of me scnoot racemes
Task Porcc review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain erfective until
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is ccrtiried by the BOCC.
Justification:
Capacity Certific
U-20-11-
Superintendent I Date
Membership Certification:
Superintendent Date
BOCC Chair Date
BOrC Chair Date
W
ta(-1111-
111 qj /7)
5
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15, 2012 - November 14, 2013
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15, 2012
Attachment LB.1
(page 2 of 3)
2012 -13
Special Nofe(s): I. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the supenmenuenrcenrricu eapacn,cb vl Nu:: x::1.1 • .1•••1111
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until
changed by (I ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this fort that is ccrtificd by the BOCC
Justification:
Capacity Certification:
/� • IaL Oil (t --20 -11—
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
-(<'). t X0'1
Superintendent Date
i
6erCC Chair ' Date
I f
BOCC Chair Date
19
20
Section I
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15, 2012 - November 14, 2013
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15, 2012
Attachment I.B.1
(page 3 of 3)
2012 -13
Special Note(s): t. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the 130CC.
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.
Section I
Attachment I.B.2
(page I of 3)
2012-13
Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15, 2002 bnse year the board accepted ilie,,;tjperintendciii-cerlified capacities as part of tht School Facilities
'I ask Force review and 2003 Planners and School Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effec6ve onail
changed by (1) the School CEP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification:
Ca city C
Superintendent Date
M inbershl ific ion:
Superintendent Date
4
BOCC C it Date
600C Ch�' C1ate
21
Section I
School District: Chapel Hill -C an-boro City Schools
§APFO CAPS Year: November 15, 2012 - November 14, 2013
Capacity and MemSersglp Submittal Date: November l5, 2012
Attachment I.B.2
(page 2 of 3)
2012-13
Special Not l For the Nowamer l5, 2002 base year the board accepted the stmerintendent-certified capacifies as pin of the School Fudifics
Task Force reviov and 2003 Planners and School Representa6ve Technical Advisory CommMee Report These capacities vOl remoot of until
changed by (l ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of lon; torto that is cerfified by the B()CC
Justification:
Ca city Ce ➢fi �tlow
Superintendent Date
7 M
tership )CFeVificat
Superintendent Date
7—OCC their Date
r�I<
BOM Chair Date
22
I
Section I
Attachment I.B.2
(page 3 of 3)
2012-13
Special Note(s): S. For the November 15, 2002 base year the hoard accepted the superimendem-ettfified capactfies as part dthe Selwal Pacififies
Task Force review sud 2003 Manners and Schoot Represenuifive,reehnical Advisory Committee Report ]'best capamies wjH reirtar" effective until
charged by (1) the School CIP or (2) art amended versirm of this f6roi that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification-.
Ca city C i , 6171
Superintendent Date
6n:
Superintendent Date
BOCC Chai Date'
A10
E30CC Chair Date
�-j (�,L
hL
23
10
Section I
Attachment I.B.3
(page I of 3)
2013-14
Special Note(s): I . For the Novetriber 15, 2002 base your the board accepted the sup erintendent-cerfified capacity as part of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 20�03 Planners and School Repre.sentative'redurical Advisory Committee Rrporl, These tapacilies will rernant effective snail
changed by (l i, the Schooli CIP or 12) an aincirded version of this finrat that is certified by the BOCV,
M
9111
11
Section I
School District: orange County Schools
SAPIFOCAPSYear: November 15,2013 -November 14,2(114
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15, 2013
Attachment I.B.3
(page 2 of 3)
2013-14
Special Hotels)-. L ror this November 15, 2002 base year the board! accepted the superimardent-ceriffied capacities as pan of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Pianners and School Representative'rechnicat Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effieclive until
Ountpol by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification-.
0
Men)borship C rtification:
W44p= L & 4 Lis ai -
Superintende D61te
13M
25
12
Section I
School District: Orange County Sellools
IAPFO CIP9 Year- November 15, 2013 - November 14, 2014
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date. November 15,20B
Attachment I.B.3
(page 3 of 3)
2013-14
special Note(s). 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accupicd the capacities as pail of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School ReprrsorhativeTechnical Ads,hiory Committee Report. ']]test capaicifieN will remain effective until
changed by ( I) the Scher] ClPor (2) an amended version of this bIrru Ghat is certified by thr BOCC 2. The 2012-21013 capacity nurnbers for orange High
School (1,3,99,) is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study cornplocil by the Department of Public Instruction in Augum 2012
Justlificatiom
Capagity Cortific-9tion:
a
M
13
Section I
Attachment I.B.4
(page I of 3)
2013-14
Special Note(s): 1, For the November 13, 2002 base year the board accepted Ow superintendent - certified capacifics as part ofthe School Facilities
Task Forcoroviciv aml 2003 Phroncrs and School ReprcsontafiveTeclinical Advisory Corrunifte Report. These capacities will remain effective until
ehanged by ( 1) the School OP or (2) an amended version ofthis form that is certified by the B(X,'C.
Justification:
Capacity Certific
Lion:
V
up nden
Date
Me bershl Certification-.
7,77
S6liedntendenf Date,
27
14
Section I
School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15,2013 - Novenitter 14, 2014
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date. Noverriber 15, 2013
Attachment I.B.4
(page 2 of 3)
2013-14
Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15,12002 hase, year the board accepted the superintendent- certified capacities as part of the School Facilities
Task Force review and 20Y01 Planners and School Reprewinative Technical Advisory Coniondoe Report. These capacities will remain eflective until
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is ccAified by the BOC-C.
Justification:
C pacity e ficatiog:
TSup�ennitendent Date
M b 7 ertifiatio
0)" or 'c,,n-
Superintendent Date
,3,t3
3-0
NE;
15
Section I
Scho,ol Di8 tr1cf: Chapel MI-Carrboro City Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15, 2013 • Novernber 14, 2014
Capacity and MemSersAlp §MmMal Date: November 15, 20113
Attachment I.B.4
(page 3 of 3)
2013-14
Spectol Noto(s). I. Forithe November 15,2002 buw yea the board accepted the superintendern-terttfied capacities as pan or the SiAtow Facilities
'Nsk Force irevacvw and 2003 Platmicts and 150ioal Reprew-niative'lechnical Advisory Committee Report. Ptuse capacities will remain offectisv unad
changed by l 1 the,khool CIP or (2) an arnended version ofthis farrn that is curufled by the BOCC,
Justification-
Pacity 0 Aficati
Superintendent Date
M lb7i C rtifi ationi:
Superintendent Date
CO
16
Section II
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, and 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.
4. Recommendation —
No change at this time
Recommendation —
No change at this time
17
30
Section II
II.
1
2
3
11
5
Q
ANNUAL UPDATE TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ORDINANCE SYSTEM
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, 2014.
Recommendation —
Not subject to staff review
W.
31
Section II
B. Student Projection Methodology
2
3
11
32
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.
Definition — The method(s) by which student memberships are calculated for future
years to determine total membership at each combined school level (Elementary, Middle,
and High School) which take into consideration historical membership totals at a specific
time (November 15) in the school year. These methods are also known as `models'.
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Standard for:
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.
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 ILB.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment ILB.3 shows
the performance of the models for the 2013 -14 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 have 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
N
O
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS
PROJECTION TYPE
DESCRIPTION I CHARACTERISTICS
FORMULA
ASSUMPTIONS
Tischler Linear (OCS &
CHCCS)
Mathematical formula; straight line projection
y= ((c*b) *x) +b
y--projected population; c= historical annual change, b =base year; x= projection years
Historical growth is reflected in projected growth
BYM + (BYI + 5(n)) = EYM EYM * %SL =EYMISL
Baseyeargrowth reflect 10- yearaverage;
OCP Linear Wave
Mathematical linear with percent variation among school
BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYI =year student membership increment
increase
increase in BYI of 5 every other year reflects
(OCS)
levels; reflects progressing waves of membership
o o
base; EYM = ensuing year membership; n= projection year; /oSL =/o of total
in housing growth; reflects buildout
membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYMISL= ensuing year
constraints
member by school level
BYM + (BYI - 15(n)) = EYM EYM * %SL = EYMISL
Base year growth reflects 10 -year average;
OCP Linear Wave
Mathematical linear with percent variation among school
BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYI -year student membership inclement
decrease in BY] of 15 until school year 2010 -2011
(CHCCS)
CHCCS
levels; reflects progressing waves of membership
p g g p
u c
base; EYM = ensuing year membership; n= projection year; /oSL= /o of total
reflects decreases in housing growth; reflects
membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYM /SL= ensuing year
buildout constraints
member by school level
K„ =k,,.r +(kn.r *0.01)
Mathematical formula that computes the average
n =1
advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each
a =(Y G„ I g,,) 13
Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the
3 -Year Cohort (OCS &
grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
n =3
kindergarten grade level; assumes the same
CHCCS)
projected membership by school level; an assumed
b=g mr (a)
percentage of students in each grade level
kindergarten membership is based on birth records
K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G =given grade's
graduate to the next level each year
and/or historical growth rates
membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a =ave €age
advancement rate; b= projected membership
K„= k„- 1+(k„1 *0.01)
Mathematical formula that computes the average
n =1
advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each
a =(Y G„ 1 g,,.r)15
Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the
5 year Cohort (OCS &
grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
n =5
kindergarten grade level; assumes the same
CHCCS)
projected membership by school level; an assumed
b =g .,r (a)
percentage of students in each grade level
kindergarten membership is based on birth records
K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G =given grade's
graduate to the next level each year
andlor historical growth rates
membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average
advancement rate; b= projected membership
K„ =k,,.1 + Ilk, *0.01)
Mathematical formula that computes the average
n =1
advancement rate over the previous 10 years for each
a =(Y G„ 1 9„.1) 110
Assumes a 1% annual growth rate for the
1 D year Cohort (OCS &
grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
n =10
kindergarten grade level; assumes the same
CHCCS)
projected membership by school level; an assumed
b =g n.1 (a)
percentage of students in each grade level
kindergarten membership is based on birth records
K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G=given grade's
graduate to the next level each year
andlor historical growth rates
membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average
advancement rate; b= projected membership
n
O'
W
W
34
Section II Attachment ILB.2
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2012 -13 School Year (November 15, 2012)
H means High L means Low
21
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
5CI
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
3C
7433
H31
AVGI
7432
H30
H means High L means Low
21
Section II
Attachment ILB.2
(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.
22
35
Section II
36
Attachment ILB.2
(page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2012 -2013 School Year (November 15, 2012)
H means High
L means Low
23
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
Projection 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
3CI
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
5CI
3765
L31
3C
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
23
37
Section II Attachment ILB.2
(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.
24
L(pa chment ILB.3
Section II e I of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2013 -14 School Year (November 15, 2013)
H means High
L means Low
25
11/15/12
Actual
2012 -13
2013 Report
Projection for
2013 -14
11/15/13
Actual
2013 -14
Change between actual
Nov 2012 - Nov 2013
Elementary
3403
3433
+30
Model
Projection is
T
3460
H27
OCP
3462
H29
10C
3416
L17
5C
3415
L18
3C
3411
L22
AVG
3433
11/15/2013
Middle
1684
1747
+63
Model
Projection is
T
1712
L35
OCP
1709
L38
10C
1750
H3
5C
1755
H8
3CI
1740
L7
AVG
1733
L14
11/15/2013
High
2315
2421
+106
Model
Projection is
T
2354
L67
OCP
2356
L65
10C
2334
L87
5C
2362
L59
3CI
2367
L54
AVG
2355
L66
11/15/2013
Totals
Elementary
3403
3433
Middle
1684
1747
High
2315
2421
7402
7601
+199
Model
Projection is
T
7526
L75
OCP
7527
L74
10C
7500
L101
5C
7532
L69
3C
7518
L83
AVG
7521
L80
H means High
L means Low
25
Section II
Attachment ILB.3
(page 2 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2013 -2014 School Year (November 15, 2013)
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 mixed low and high, ranging from 22 students low to 29 students high.
The average of the projections equaled actual student membership.
• The membership actually increased by 30 students between November 15, 2012 and
November 15, 2013.
Middle School Level
Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 38 students low to 8 students high.
On average, the projections were 14 students lower than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 63 students between November 15, 2012 and
November 15, 2013.
High School Level
• Projections were all low ranging from 54 students to 87 students low. On average, the
projections were 66 students lower than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 106 students between November 15, 2012 and
November 15, 2013.
TOTAL
• The totals of all school level projections were low, ranging from 69 to 101 below actual
membership. On average, the projections were low by 80 students.
The membership increased in total by 199 students, which is the sum of +30 at
Elementary, +63 at Middle, and +106 at High.
26
39
Section II
M
Attachment ILB.3
(page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2013 -14 School Year (November 15, 2013)
H means High
L means Low
27
11/15/12
Actual
2012 -13
2013 Report
Projection for
2013 -14
11/15/13
Actual
2013 -14
Change between actual
Nov 2012- Nov 2013
Elementary
5543
5554
+11
Model
Projection is
T
5643
H89
OCP
5643
H89
10C
5603
H49
5C
5583
H29
3C
5589
H35
AVG
5612
H58
11/15/2013
Middle
2785
2858
+73
Model
Projection is
T
2835
L23
OCP
2840
L18
10C
2888
H30
5C
2873
H15
3CI
2872
H14
AVG
2862
H4
11/15/2013
High
3796
3764
-32
Model
Projection is
T
3864
H100
OCP
3890
H126
10C
3794
H30
5CI
3782
H18
3C
3810
H46
AVG
3828
H64
Totals
11/15/2013
Elementary
5543
5554
Middle
2785
2858
High
3796
3764
12,124
12,176
+52
Model
Proiection is
T
12,342
H166
OCP
12,373
H197
10C
12,285
H109
5C
12,238
H62
3C
12,271
H95
AVG
12,302
H126
H means High
L means Low
27
41
Section II Attachment ILB.3
(page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2013 -2014 School Year (November 15, 2013)
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 29 students to 89 students high. On average, the
projections were 58 students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 11 students between November 15, 2012 and
November 15, 2013.
Middle School Level
• Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 23 students low to 30 students high.
On average, the projections were 4 students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 73 students between November 15, 2012 and
November 15, 2013.
High School Level
• Projections were all high, ranging from 18 students to 126 students high. On average,
the projections were 64 students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership decreased by 32 students between November 15, 2012 and
November 15, 2013.
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were all high, ranging from 62 students to 197
students above actual membership. On average, the projections were high by 126
students.
• The membership increased in total by 52 students, which is the sum of +11 at
Elementary, +73 at Middle, and -32 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 ILB The 5 model average discussed in Section ILB
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment ILC.4
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
(Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment ILC.3
The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued
growth in both systems. Average projected growth rates in the next 10 years for both
school systems are quite similar and follow the same growth pattern for each individual
school year. Both school systems are showing a projected decrease in the increase, but
are still showing positive growth at the Elementary and Middle School levels. Orange
County High School is projected to experience a negative growth rate in 2014 -15
followed by positive growth rates for the remaining 10 year projections. Chapel
Hill /Carrboro High School is showing varying positive growth rates over the next ten
years. Year -by -year percent growth is shown on the attached table as well as the
projected LOS. The projection models were updated using current (November 15,
2013) memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter.
29
42
Section II
43
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Elementary
The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 at this level were overestimated by
58 students. The actual membership increased by 11 students. Over the previous ten years, this
level has shown varying increases in growth rates including a decrease in actual membership in
2009 -10 which was most likely due to the shorter enrollment period caused by the institution of
the new date requiring kindergarteners to be five years old. Following that dip, membership
numbers are again increasing, with a significant jump (168 students) in 2011 -12. This large
increase was followed by smaller increases in 2012 -13 of 79 students and in 2013 -14 of only 11
students. Growth rates during the past ten years have ranged from -1.57% to +3.92 %.
Elementary School 411 (Northside Elementary) opened for the 2013 -14 school year with a
capacity of 585 seats. The projections this year are showing the need for Elementary School 412
in 2020 -21, which is one year earlier than last year's projections.
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.
Specific impacts of Pre -K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed
and discussed in the coming year.
Middle
The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were overestimated by
4 students. The actual membership increased by 73. Over the previous ten years, growth has
been quite variable and included a decrease in actual membership in 2004 -05. Following this
decrease, membership and growth rates have experienced increases every school year since.
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 planned addition to Culbreth Middle School
for the 2014 -15 school year is proposed to increase capacity with the addition of 104 seats. As a
result, projections show that Chapel Hill /Carrboro Middle School 45 is projected to be needed in
2020 -21. This is three years later than last year's projections. The proposed addition to Culbreth
Middle School was approved in the 2013 -14 CIP for the 2014 -15 school year. Although capacity
was projected to be available, a decision was made to fund the expansion and increase capacity.
30
Section II
MA
The additional capacity resulting from the approved addition has been included in the student
projections.
High School
The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were overestimated by
64 students. The actual membership decreased by 32 students. Over the previous ten years,
change has been variable with decreases in membership in 2008 -09 and in 2009 -10. Following
these decreases, membership and growth rates began increasing again within the last three years
before experiencing another decrease this year (2013 -14). Growth rates during this time period
have ranged from -0.84% to +5.31 %. This year's projections show that additional capacity is
needed in 2023 -24, which is three years later than last year's 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.
Additional Information for Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Currently, one Charter School, PACE Academy, serves high school students residing in the
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District. This school is not included as part of the SAPFO Annual
Report and, as a result, its membership and capacity is not monitored or included in future
projections. On February 6, 2014 PACE Academy had their charter revoked for the 2014 -2015
school year. Administrators are currently exploring the appeal process with the State Board of
Education. However, CHCCS student membership may experience an increase in 2014 -15 due to
the influx of students from PACE Academy becoming part of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School
District if the school's charter is not renewed through the appeals process.
Orange County School District
Elementary
The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 at this level were equal to student
membership. Actual membership increased by 30 students. Over the previous ten years, this
level has experienced varying growth rates including a decrease in membership in 2005 -06.
Following this decrease, membership and growth rates have experienced increases every school
year since. 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
31
Section II
45
older, existing housing stock. Projections this year are showing the need for Elementary School
48 in 2023 -24 when the LOS is expected to be 105.7%
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.
Specific impacts of Pre -K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed
and discussed in the coming year.
Middle
The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were underestimated
by 14 students. The actual membership increased by 63. Over the previous ten years, growth
has varied widely and includes decreases in student membership in five of the ten years. Growth
rates during this period have ranged from -4.67% to +4.00 %. The district's third Middle School,
Gravelly Hill Middle School, opened in October 2006. The need for an additional Middle
School is not anticipated in the 10 -year projection period. However, staff is closely monitoring
new sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough.
High School
The previous year (2012 -13) projections for November 2013 for this level were underestimated
by 66 students. The actual membership increased by 106. Over the previous ten years, growth
varied considerably and included a decrease in membership in 2009 -10. Following this decrease,
membership and growth rates have experienced increases every school year since. Growth rates
during this period ranged from -1.12% to 9.01 %. In 2011 -12 student membership increased by
32 while capacity decreased by 199 at Orange County High School as a result of a N.C.
Department of Public Instruction (DPI) study. This year's projections show that additional
capacity is needed in 2022 -23. This is different from last year's projections which did not show a
need for additional capacity in the 10 -year projection period.
Additional High School capacity is expected to be achieved by expanding Cedar Ridge High
School from 1,000 students to 1,500 students. This addition is currently included in the five year
CIP as a request for funding. At this time, a decision has not been made approving the proposed
addition. Once a funding decision is made and approved, the increased capacity from the
proposed addition may be included in the student projections.
32
Section II
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.
Following the economic downtown, there has been an increase in multi - family residential
development which has added to increasing student memberships in both districts. The ongoing
future demand for multi - family housing is evident throughout the county, but especially within
the Town of Hillsborough which is facing the proposed development of 700 multi - family units in
the near future. Staff will need to continue monitoring and evaluating the demand and growth of
the multi - family market in Hillsborough and the entire county as well as its effect on student
membership rates.
Currently, one charter school is located in the Town of Hillsborough and serves students that
reside in the Orange County School District. This school is not included as part of the SAPFO
Annual Report and as a result its membership and capacity is not monitored or included in future
projections. An additional charter school is being proposed in the Town of Hillsborough for the
2014 -15 school year. As a result, OCS student memberships may experience a decrease in 2014-
15 due to a loss of students enrolling in the new charter school.
5. Recommendation
Use statistics as noted in 3 above
33
W.
Section II
51
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, and 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
growth on the attachments show continued
growth at each school level within the
system.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
Year Projection
Made:
2009-
2010
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
2013 -
2014
Elementary
1.72%
1.44%
1.59%
1.18%
1.44%
Middle
1.93%
1.67%
1.94%
1.59%
1.58%
High
1.8%
1.57%
1.73%
1.60%
1.27%
The membership figures and percentage
growth on the attachments show continued
growth at each school level within the
system.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
Year Projection
Made:
2009-
2010
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
2013
2014
Elementary
1.34%
1.57%
1.6%
1.31%
1.30%
Middle
1.53%
1.84%
2.01%
1.64%
1.42%
High
1.38%
1.59%
1.61%
1.43%
1.35%
S. Recommendation - Use statistics as noted. Recommendation - Use statistics as noted
38
K
2012 -2013 0'
Orange County Student Projections
Elementary
School Year
2012-2013
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
2015.2016
2016.2017
2017 -2018
2(118.2019
2019 -2020
20211 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -23
JCIU'1
\4 -nlLlc hi
3.403
3,433
3,479
3,574
3,622
3,654
3,698
3,742
3,786
3,830
3 875
Average °h/o increase
1
0.88%
1.35%
2 72%
1.34%
0.88%
1.21%
1 19%
1 18%
1.17%
1 1 16%
Middle
School Year
2012 -2013
2013.2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016.2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020.2021
2021 -2022
2022 -23
(actual)
.Membership
1 684
1.733
1,772
1, 777
1, 785
1.824
1,903
1,930
1,939
1,959
1,979
Average ° o Increase
1
2.92%
2.22%
030%
0.48%
218%
432%
1,41%
047%
1.04%
102%
Hiah School
School Year
21112 -21113
2013.2014
2014 -2015
2015.2016
2016.2017
21117.2018
2018 -2019
2019- 2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
21122.23
actual
Membemht.
2,315
2.355
2,366
2,359
2,429
2,472
2,460
2,520
2,555
2,591
2,667
Avcra e %Increase
1
171%
0.48%
-0.29%
2.97%
1.77%
-Ul%
2.45%
1.39%
1.41%
2.93%
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections
Elementary
School Year
2012-2013
2013.2014
2014 -2015
21115.2616
21116.21117
2017 -2018
2018.2019
2019 -2020
2020.21121
2021 -2022
2021 -23
(aqua
Members-hi
5,543
5,612
5,676
5,764
5,837
5,875
1 5,945
6,014
6,084
6,160
6,236
Average % Increase
1
1 25%
1.15%
1.55%
1 26%
065%
1 1.18%
117%
1.16%
1 24%
1.23%
Middle
School Year
21112-2013
2013.2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
21116-2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -23
aMual
Membership
2,785
2,862
2 934
2 972
3,004
3.072
3,133
3,179
3,188
3,225
3,261
Average % Increase
2.75%
2.53%
130%
107%
226%
1 200%
1 1.46%
1 028%
1 1.15%
114%
Hiah School
SCIIUUI Year
21112-261]
21113-21114
2014 -2615
21115-20%
201( 2017
2017 -2018
21118.2019
2019 - 2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
21122 -23
1CIUa1
Membershi
3,796-1
3.828
1 3,866
3,910
4,016
4,108
4.167
4,235
4,324
1 4,374
1 4,447
.4'.e c °.-b Increase
0 84%
0 98%
1.15%
2.72%
2.28%
143%
1 63%
2.09%
1 1.17%
1 1.67%
O �
>v
n
w CD
d
N
T
n
h
2013 -2014 0'
Orange County Student Projections
Elementary
School Year
2013-2014
2014.21115
20152016
2"16.2117
2017 -2U18
2018 -2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021 -2022
2022 -23
2021 -24
School Year
actull
1
1
1
1
IvIcmbetshl p
3 433
3,472
3 555
3,597
1 3,627
1 3,668
1 3,716
1 3,764
3,812
1 3,861
3,906
Averse °f Increase
1
1.14%
2.39%
1.18%
1 0.84%
1 1.13%
1 1.30%
1 1.29%
1.28%
1 128%
1 1 17%
Middle
Hinh School
School Year
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
2015-2016
2016.2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -21122
2022-23
2123 -24
School Year
(actual)
1
1
Membcrshl
1,747
1789
1.805
1824
1,862
1,933
1,951
1,953
1,967
1,987
2,010
Averse °S Increase
1
2 38 o
694 %
1.03%
2.07%
385%
090%
0 12%
0.71%
1.04%
1 12%
Hinh School
School Year
2013 -2014
2011.2015
211152016
21116 -21117
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019- 2020
211211 -21121
2021 -2022
2022-23
2023 -24
actual
Membership
2,421
2,406
2,411
2,468
2,533
2,534
2,600
2,642
2,67
2 742
2.767
Average %Increase
1
-0.61%
0.18%
2.40%
2.63%
0.03%
259%
1.62%
1 39%
2.36%
0.93%
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections
Elementary
School Year
2013 -2014
21114 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 - 2020
2020.2021
21121 -2022
2112b23
2023 -2d
actual
Membcrshl
5,554
5,635
5,748
5 845
5,927
6,021
6 090
6 166
6 241
61323
6.405
Acerac %Increase
1
1.47%
2.00%
1.69%
1 41%
1.57%
1,15%
1.24%
1 23%
1 31%
1.30%
Middle
School Year
21113.2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
21116-21117
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
21122-23
21123 -24
actual
Membersh
2,858
2,925
2.947
2,962
2,999
3,063
3,134
3,190
3,257
3,299
3.342
Avera e "fu Increase
1
2 35%
0.76%
0.50%
124%
2.13%
2 32%
178%
2.11%
1.30%
1 1 30%
Hiah School
School Year
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
201.1,2"16
21116 -2017
11117 -2018
2018 -21119
2019 -2020
211211.2021
2021 -2022
21122-23
2(23 -24
actual
Membership
3,764
1 3,805
3,825
3,893
3,982
1 4,011 1
4,050
4,086
4,112
4,199
1 4,268
Averse %Increase
1 1.08%
0 54%
1.78%
2.27%
1 075% 1
096%
0.88%
1 0.65%
1 2.10%
1 165%
O
w
w �
d
N
UI
W
Section II
2
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory
Committee ( SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for certification.
54
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.
3. Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
See Attachment II.E.I
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Standard for:
Orange County School District
See Attachment II.E.1
On October 6, 2009, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the updated
Student Generation Rates as recommended by the SAPFOTAC. The newly adopted
Student Generation Rates became effective the 2010 -11 school year with the November
15, 2010 CAPS system update. The current standards are shown in Attachment II.E.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 and proposed multi - family projects that may continue to have
an effect on student membership numbers. 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 and the impacts different types of
housing may have on student membership rates. Orange County Planning staff has
contacted the consultant used to do this type of work in the past to obtain a cost estimate.
It is expected that a new study to update only student generation rates would cost
41
Section II
55
between $12,000 to $20,000 with the lower end of the range being more probable, given
knowledge of the types of data Orange County has ready access to.
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
that student increases are a composite of both of these factors. This effect can be
dramatic and can vary greatly between areas and districts where either new housing is
dominant or new families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock.
5. Recommendation —No Change
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. Alternatively, a study to analyze only student generation rates,
separate from any study regarding school impact fees, can be completed. The cost for
such a study is estimated at between $12,000 to $20,000.
42
TischlerBise Student Generation Rates - 2007
Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools
Elementary
Middle
High
All Grades
Single - Family Detached
0.263
0.143
0.197
0.603
Single - Family Attached
0.158
0.077
0.115
0.350
Multifamily
0.038
0.015
0.017
0.070
Manufactured Homes
0.141
0.066
0.061
0.268
All Housing Types
0.149
0.078
0.105
0.332
Orange County Schools
Elementary
Middle
High
All Grades
0.168
0.090
0.126
0.384
Single - Family Detached
Single- Family Attached /
Multifamily
0.066
0.022
0.034
0.122
Manufactured Homes
0.096
0.041
0.049
0,186
All Housing Types
0.145
0.074
0.102
0.321
o'
wSource: School Impact Fees - Orange County Schools, TischlerBise, December 31, 2007
(1
CF)
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, 2013
membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June 2014).
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.
I
57
99
Section III
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 1 - Capital Investment Planning (CIP)
Projection Method
(Historical Membership'
plus Hypothetical Growth Rate
T
CIP
Approval
(Proposed New Construction
i.e. School Capacity
Added by number seats & yeai
Actual Adjustments
(Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year
Membership Projection)
CAPS
System2
(Certificate of
Adequate Public
Schools)
'Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1) pre- existing /approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2)
existing housing stock with new families /children, and (3) newly approved housing development (in the future this component will be known as
CAPS approved development)
2The only part of the CAPS System (i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking) that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual
membership (November 15 of preceding CIP year) and new school capacity amount (seats) in a specific year pursuant to the CIP.
45
Section III
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Update (Process 2)
59
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 undeveloped residential lots in the 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
we
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.
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 2014 - 2024)
November 2013 — June 2014 (using 2014 SAPFOTAC Report)
Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2014— 2015)
November 2013 - November 2014
47
M-11
61
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation
2014 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2013 through November 14, 2014.
The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC /School District joint
action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2013. This information is received within 5 days of November 15
and posted within the next 15 days. This CAPS system recalibration is retroactive to November 15, 2013 .
CAPS Allocation System
1. Certified Capacity
2 LOS Capacity
3. Actual Membership
4. Year Start Available Capacity
5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity (includes available
capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by
year)
6. CAPS approved development
a. Total units
b. Single Family
c. Other Housings
CAPS System
AC2 =SC2 - (ADM2 +ND 12 +ND22 +... )
AC >_0 - Issue CAPS
ACO - Defer CAPS to later date
'Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate. Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is
different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1. This estimate only captures new
development impact, which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate.
2 A - Available Capacity - Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system.
SC - Certified School Level Capacity
ADM - Average Daily Membership
ND - New Development; ND1 means first approved CAPS approved development
48