HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-17-2015 - 6cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 17, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 6 -c
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO) — Receipt and
Transmittal of 2015 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections
1
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. SAPFO Partners Transmittal Letter Ashley Moncado, 919 - 245 -2589
2. Draft 2015 SAPFOTAC Annual Report Craig Benedict, 919 - 245 -2592
and Larger Scale Projection
Worksheets
PURPOSE: To receive the 2015 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, since 2004, 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 1, 2014 Board of County Commissioners
meeting, the Board approved the November 14, 2014 actual membership and capacity
numbers (i.e. first part) for both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro 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.
P�
3. Membership Data
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS) total decreased from the previous year: 44
students
(13) Elementary School
3 Middle School
(34) High School
Orange County Schools (OCS) total decreased from the previous year: 78 students
(174) Elementary School
15 Middle School
81 High School
( ) denotes decrease
4. Capacity Data
Capacity for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools was increased by 104 students as a result
of the opening of the Culbreth Middle School addition. 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 should not be reflected in the County's SAPFO.
This year, CHCCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service established in the
SAPFO at this time nor do projections show a potential need at the high school level
within the 10 -year planning period. However, projections do show potential needs at the
elementary and middle school levels within the later years of 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 elementary and middle
school levels within the 10 -year planning period. However, projections do show a
potential need at the high school level within the 10 -year planning period. Projected
needs are noted below.
6. Student Projection Analysis
CHCCS
Student membership projections show an increase at all levels within the 10 -year
planning period. Projections are shown on page 38 (at the bottom of the page) of the
report.
OCS
Student membership projections show a mix of increases and decreases at all levels
within the 10 -year planning period. Projections are shown on page 37 (at the bottom of
the page) of the report.
3
7. Orange County Schools Systems — Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Needs Analysis
CHCCS
Projected needs:
New Elementary #12 2023 -2024 (projected capacity for 2 students; 105.0% LOS)*
New Middle School #5 2023 -2024 (projected overage of 17 students; 107.6% LOS)
High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
* Due to the rounding off of level of service numbers, student projections are showing a
need for Elementary School #12 in 2023 -2024 with projected remaining capacity for 2
students. However, in 2024 -2025 the projections show an overage of 65 students.
OCS
Projected needs:
New Elementary # 8 Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
Middle School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
High School 2022 -2023 (projected overage of 4 students; 110.2% LOS)*
*Projections show the adopted level of service standard being surpassed in 2022 -2023
with an overage of 4 students. However, immediately following the 2022 -2023 school
year, the projections show that the level of service may decrease below the adopted level
of service standard with remaining capacity for 31 students in 2023 -2024 and 84 students
in 2024 -2025.
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.
However, new construction activity that had slowed in recent years due to the economic
downturn has now increased. 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
At the January 2014 SAPFOTAC meeting, committee members discussed the increased
number of students generated in both school districts from new development, particularly
multifamily housing. At that time, 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 entered into a contract with
TischlerBise to study student generation rates in newer housing (defined as units
constructed in the most recent 10 -year period) and also disaggregated by the number of
bedrooms contained in each unit. The process outlined in the SAPFO MOU to update
student generation rates as they pertain to the SAPFO process has been followed.
Previous numbers used for SAPFO and CAPS purposes were from the 2007 Impact Fee
Study which developed student generation rates based on the entire housing stock in
each school district. New rates from the 2014 Student Generation Rates for Orange
County Schools and Chapel Hill- Canrboro School District Report are based on an
analysis of recently built units from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013.
C!
Recommendation: The SAPFOTAC reviewed and discussed the most recent student
generation rate analysis included in the 2014 TischlerBise report. The SAPFOTAC
recommends the BOCC and other governing boards accept the new rates as reported
in Attachment II.E.1 on page 44 (at the bottom of the page) of the report as the
standard for the SAPFO and CAPS system. Once the report is adopted by the BOCC
at the May 19, 2015 meeting, these new rates will become the standard for the SAPFO
and CAPS system.
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 2015 SAPFOTAC report will be brought back
to the BOCC for certification at the May 19, 2015 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
2023 -24 and Middle School #5 is projected to be needed in 2023 -24. In the OCS District,
additional High School level capacity 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 2015 SAPFOTAC Annual Report; and
2. Authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained
in Attachment 1.
DRAFT Attachment 1 5
March 18, 2015
Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr.
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
BOCC Letterhead
Dr. Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair
Orange County Board of Education
Blvd. 200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Mike Kelley, 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 2015 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. In accordance with the
SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the
November 14, 2014 actual membership and capacity numbers for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill —
Carrboro City Schools at its meeting on December 1, 2014.
The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County
and Towns has produced the 2015 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 2015
Executive Summary and the March 17, 2015 BOCC meeting agenda item abstract when the BOCC received the
draft report.
Last year, Orange County entered into a contract with TischlerBise to update the student generation rate
analysis after concerns with existing rates were identified by SAPFOTAC committee members. The new
student generation rates are included in Attachment II.E.1 on page 44 of the report and are being recommended
for adoption by the BOCC as the standard for the SAPFO and CAPS system. The process outlined in the
SAPFO MOU to update student generation rates as they pertain to the SAPFO process has been followed.
r
The full draft SAPFOTAC report is available on the Orange County Planning Department website in the
Current Interest Projects section
htlp://www.co.oraitge.nc.us/planning/SpecialProjects.asp
The 2015 Annual SAPFOTAC Report is scheduled to be certified by the BOCC at a regular meeting in May
2015. 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 18, 2015. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at (919)
245 -2592, by e -mail at cbenedictgorangecountync.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 2015 SAPFOTAC report with your respective boards.
Sincerely,
Earl McKee
Chair
Enclosures
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Bonnie Hammersley, 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
Del Burns, Interim 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
Mary Jane Nirdlinger, Planning and Sustainability Executive Director, Town of Chapel Hill
Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, Town of Hillsborough
Trish McGuire, Planning Director, Town of Carrboro
rA
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
2015
(BASED ON NOVEMBER 2014 DATA)
CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY X, 2015
Table of Contents
A. Level of Service ........ ...............................
B. Building Capacity and Membership.....
2
Attachment LB.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) ( 2013- 14) ...................... ..............................5
Attachment LB.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) ( 2013- 14) ............ ............................... 8
Attachment LB.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) ( 2014- 15) ..................... .............................11
Attachment LB.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) ( 2014- 15) ............ .............................14
C. Membership Date ................................................................................................................... .............................17
71 1011111H
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) ............................................................................................. .............................18
B. Student Membership Projection Methodology ................................................................... .............................19
Attachment ILB.I — Student Membership Projection Descriptions .............................................................. ............................... 21
Attachment ILB.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis ( 2013- 14) ................ ............................... 22
Attachment ILB.3 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis ( 2014- 15) ................ ............................... 26
C. Student Membership Projections ......................................................................................... .............................30
Attachment ILC.1 — Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) ( 2013- 14) .......... ............................... 35
Attachment ILC.2 — Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2013 -14) ............................... 36
Attachment ILC.3 — Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) ( 2014- 15) .......... ............................... 37
Attachment ILC.4 — Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2014 -15) ............................... 38
D. Student Membership Growth Rate .................................................................................... ............................... 39
Attachment ILD.1 — Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates
(Chart dates from 2014 -2024 based on 11/15/13 membership numbers) (2013 -14) ................................... ............................... 40
Attachment ILD.2 — Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates
(Chart dates from 2015 -2025 based on 11/15/14 membership numbers) (2014 -15) ................................... ............................... 41
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate ................................................................................... ............................... 42
Attachment ILE.1 — Current Student Generation Rates (2015) ................................................................... ............................... 44
111. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process ...................... .............................45
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Process 1) ........................................................................ ............................... 45
Attachment IILA.I — Process 1 Capital Improvement Plan ......................................................................... ............................... 46
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Update(Process 2) ............................................................................................................... ............................... 47
Attachment IILB.1 — Process 2 Certificate of Adequate Public Schools ( CAPS) Allocation ...................... ............................... 50
X
2015 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%
Hi h
110%
110%
B. Building Capacity and Membership .................................. (Change) .............. Pg. 2
C. Membership Date — November 15 ........... ............................(No Change) ........ Pg.] 7
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, 5, and 10 year history /cohort survival, linear and arithmetic projection models.
C. Student Membership Projections ....................................... (Change) .............. Pg. 30
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2014 -15 School Year — Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools
Chapel HiltlCarrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
was low compared to the actual, whereas an "H" indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.
Capacity
Membership
Increase from
Prior Year
Capacity
Membership
Increase from
Prior Year
Elementary
5829
5541
(13)
3694
3259
(174)
Middle
2944
2861
3
1 2166
1762
15
High
3875
3730
(34)
1 2439
2502
81
C. Membership Date — November 15 ........... ............................(No Change) ........ Pg.] 7
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, 5, and 10 year history /cohort survival, linear and arithmetic projection models.
C. Student Membership Projections ....................................... (Change) .............. Pg. 30
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2014 -15 School Year — Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools
(The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2014 -2015 in that given year. The second column
for each year includes the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. An "L" indicates the projection
was low compared to the actual, whereas an "H" indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.
Year Projection Made for 2014 -15 Membership
Actual 2014
2009 -2010
2010 -2011
2011 -2012
2012 -2013
2013 -2014
Membership
Elementary
5541
5772
H231
5672
H131
5784
H243
5676
H135
5635
H94
Middle
2861
3006
H145
2894
H33
2930
H69
2934
H73
2925
H64
High
3730
3867
H137
3846
H116
3863
H133
3866
H136
3805
H75
1
10
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2014 -15 School Year — Orange County Schools
(The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2014 -2015 in that given year. The second column
for each year includes the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership. An "L" indicates the projection
was low compared to the actual, whereas an "H" indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.
Orange County
School District
Year Projection Made for 2014 -15 Membership
2010 -11
Actual 2014
2012 -13
2013 -14
2014 -15
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2013 -14
2009 -2010
2010 -2011
2011 -2012
2012 -2013
2013 -2014
1.44%
Membership
1.57%
1.6%
1.31%
1.30%
0.55%
Elementary
3259
3408
H149
3519
H260
3546
H287
3479
H220
3472
H213
Middle
1762
1827
H65
1842
H80
1815
H53
1772
1410
1789
H27
High
2502
2400
L102
2349
L153
2347
L155
2366
L136
2406
L96
D. Student Membership 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:
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2013 -14
2014 -15
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
2013 -14
2014 -15
Elementary
1.44%
1.59%
1.18%
1.44%
1.11%
1.57%
1.6%
1.31%
1.30%
0.55%
Middle
1.67%
1.94%
1.59%
1.58%
1.15%
1.84%
2.01%
1.64%
1.42%
0.09%
High
1.57%
1.73%
1.60%
1.27%
1.22%
1 1.59%
1.61%
1.43%
1.35%
0.39%
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate .................................. (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 95.1 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years,
but remain positive (average —1.1% per year compared to 1.7% over the past 10
years). A new charter school, The Expedition School, opened in Hillsborough this
year and accepts students from all over. Part of the slowing in growth rate could be
due to students transferring to the new charter school.
C. Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary School 412 will be needed in 2023 -24. This is three
years later than last year's projections.
Middle School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 97.2 %).
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 —1.2% compared to an average
of 0.91% over the past 10 years).
C. Capacity has increased by 104 students due to the opening of the Culbreth Middle School
addition. Projections show that Chapel Hill /Carrboro Middle School 45 is projected to be
needed in 2023 -24. This is three years later than last year's projections
ii
11
High School Level
A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 96.3 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive
over the next 10 years (average —1.22% compared to 1.24% over the past 10 years).
C. Projections are not showing a need for an expansion of Carrboro High School from
the initial capacity of 800 students to the ultimate capacity of 1,200 students in the 10
year projection period. This is different than last year's projections which showed a
need in 2023 -24.
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 88.2 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected decrease, but remain positive over the
next 10 years (average —0.55% compared to 1.5% over the past 10 years). A new charter
school, The Expedition School, opened in Hillsborough this year and accepts students
from all over. Part of the slowing growth rate could be due to students transferring to the
new charter school.
C. Projections are not showing a need for an additional Elementary School in the 10 year
projection period. This is different than last year's projections which showed a need in
2023 -24.
Middle School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 81.3 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over
the next 10 years (average —0.09% compared to 0.48% over the past 10 years).
C. Similar to last year, projections are not showing a need for an additional Middle School
in the 10 year projection period.
High School Level
A. Does not currently exceed 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 102.6 %).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over
the next 10 years (average —0.39% compared to 2.6% over the past 10 years).
C. Expansion of Cedar Ridge High School from the initial capacity of 1,000 students to
1,500 students is projected to be needed in 2022 -23. This is the same as last year's
projections.
iii
12
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 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
13
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners
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
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
Mary Jane Nirdlinger, Planning and Sustainability Executive 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
Del Burns, Interim 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 2751
14
V1
15
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%
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
5. Recommendation:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
No change from above standard
105% 107% 110%
Analysis of Existing Conditions:
Orange County School District
These standards are acceptable at this time.
Recommendation:
Orange County School District
No change from above standard
1
i[:
Section I
B. Building Capacity and Membership
1. 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.
2. 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."
3. Standard for:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective
superintendent and incorporated in the
initialization of the CAPS system (Chapel Hill
Carrboro School District April 29, 2002 - Base)
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 of the CAPS system (Orange County
School District April 30, 2002 - Base)
Capacity changes were made each year as follows: 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
2003: No net increase in capacity at Elementary
level. No changes at Middle School level.
Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge High School.
2004: No net increase in capacity at Elementary
W
17
Section I
School levels. level. No changes at Middle or High School
2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High levels.
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.
2014: An increase in capacity of 104 students due
to the opening of the Culbreth Middle School
addition.
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 School level as a
result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction
(DPI) study.
2013: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
3
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 2014 -15 capacity is noted on
Attachment LB.4
5. Recommendation:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported
by CHCCS and shown in Attachment LB.4.
iR
School levels.
2014: 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 2014 -15 capacity is noted on
Attachment LB.3
Recommendation:
Orange County School District
Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported
by OCS and shown in Attachment LB.3.
il
Section I
19
Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2013-14)
Page I of 3
Special Niote(s): I For the ovenibtr 15,,2002 baic y"v lheboard accupWd capacAics as part offfiv Sdusol Fadlkics,
Task I 'wet revicm, and 12001 Plannws and School Advisory Committee Repal. I hese capacilies wiH remain ell clive unfil
changed by (i) the Sdwol CIP or (2) an nmended vermin of fins ffirm that is w0fied by the BOCCI
of
Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2013-14)
Page 2 of 3
School District- Orange County Scliools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15, 2013 -November 14, 2014
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 0, 21113
Special Note(s): I For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent_CeIrtified capackicsn pan ofthu School Facilities
Task Force review and 2.003 planners mid SchoO Representafivc Tcchifica Advisory Corrailittee Report. These e,ipacifies MU ranato effective until
cbaugd by (1) the School CIP or (2) an arnended version cif this farrit that is certified by the BOCC
Justification;
Capapity erti ication;
Sulpehritendent \. Date
M bership C
T-7m rtification:
/146J/3
edntehde D61e
u
no
21
Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2013-14)
Page 3 of 3
Special Note(a): 1, For the Novernber 15, 2002 base year the board accepted flit supoHniendent-oerfified uipackies as pars ofthe SchM Facilities
TRA Force review And 2003 Plannem and School Representative Techirfical AM&)ry Cornmiact Acpial, These cq)acWeru will remain effective unfill
changed by Q1) the Sclukil CIP or (2) ran amended verskm ufgiis Ibrin dial is certified by tbv, 130CC 2r 'I he 2(112-2013 capaOly numbers for 0tringe I ligh
Sdsoal (1,399) k bmerd (in a capacity analysis and faeflifits mudy tornpleled by the Department of Puld ir; Instruction in August 2012,
pFff 'Miff TITU.",
3-0
Section I
PA
Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2013-14)
Page I of 3
Special Note(s): 1. Far the November il 5, 2002 base year the board accepted the superinterident-certified capacities is part ol'the School Facithies
Tmk Force review and 2003 planners and Schoul RepiesentativeTcchnical Advisory (3oninnucc, Report. These capacities will remain effective until
changed by (t) the School CIF or t2) an amended version ofthis form that is certified by lite BOCC
Justification:
Capacity Certifieption:
Superint6nd'ent Date
Me' bershi C tification:
SOperintendenf Date
23
Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2013-14)
Page 2 of 3
School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
SA PFO CAP$ Year. November 15, 2013 -November 14, 2014
Capacity and MemSership Submittal Date. November 15,. 2013
Special Note(s): 1, For the November 15, 2002 haseyear die board accepted the superintendent-cerlified capacities as Van of the School Facilities
Task Force review and :2003 Phanners and School Represereadve'Fechnical Advisory Commince Reporc These capacities wiR remain effective until
changed by (I ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version anhis form that is certified by the BOCC.
Jiustificationi:
C pacity e ficatio
8uperintendent Date
M b rs eirtification-
Superintendent Date
I'), -13
Section I
PZA!
Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2013-14)
Page 3 of 3
Sp4imcinl Note(%). I. For the November 1.5, 2002 base year the Lmrd acceptea the 3uperintendent-ocirlified capacilits as lsartof the School Facilities
Task Furer review aml 2(XG)3 Planners andl Seliml Representative Techniud Advisory Committee Report These capacities will
changed by (I t Ow Sehool CIP or (2) an asnorded version of this fonn that is cwtified by the BOCC
Justification:
pacity Ce Ifi til h:
(T 6 1
_ 1 1 ioli -e-
Superintendent Date
M b 7r.11 vCerfifi aflon.
Superintendent Date
10
Section I
040
Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2014-15)
(page I of 3)
Special Noto(s)e 1. Fortho November 1 5,'2002 NBC YWT I IIC llofndaccqje(� lead of the schwl raciliti"
I,Hsk Force mvicw and 2003 Plallnen and sdivol Relmsentalivc Tcchnieal Advisoly Commi [tee Rq5w L 'I he"secapnitie's will remain effective unfil
14, 2014
Capacity Certification:
Superintendent Date
Membership Certification:
i"Al't's
SupeOriterident Date
Yf/ LI �-- - -/
2�v
BOCC Chair Date
e-��r kill ZL- Z--al U
/t
L
BOCC Ctiair Date
11
Section I
041.1
Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2014-15)
(page 2 of 3)
Special Note(s): I. For l lie Novernbar l 5, 2002 base year the P board accepled the; upe5inwrident-cerfified cap wibec as rart of [lie School Facilities
rask Force review and 2003 Planners and Sdwol Relnentnafive'l echnical Advisory Conrinitwe Report, I liew. Capacities WH I I Unrain effective trinil
changed by (I) Ore School CIP or(2) an arnended ven',ion of this forni that is certified by the BOCCI. 2, Due o Novernber 15th failing Lin a Saturday (Ilk
year, niumbership and capa6ty numbers shall be jwovhled for Friday, November 14, 2014.
Capacity Certification-.
i4 7
Membership Certification:
Superintendent Date
pfi-f La-1201 t"
BOCC: Chair Date
BOCC Chair Date
12
Section I
PAIA
Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2014-15)
(page 3 of 3)
Special Note(s): I. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board ar4',VpfC l ciqia66cs as part of' flw SrhoiA Facilities
I'ask Force review and 2003 Playiners and Schvsl Rci)rcsewsaive Tee Ausical Advisory Conimilice Repml, 'iticse, eapacilies will terrain dfimdve iinI if
chariged by (1) the Seltool CIP m (2) an aoinded vensem oWils Rum that is colified by the BO `C7. 2. Thc 2012-20f3 calnicity numbels let 01a1190 H iPh
School (1,399) is basai, tin a calwOy ankilysk and Mcilities swdy completed by I lie Depa0i"mi, cal' Public histniolion in August 2012 3, Due to November
15th Calliq Ani a sawslay this year, inclubeiNhil) and capileily IIuirbera shall he Ixovided foi IMay, Novembet 14, 2014.
Justification:
Capacity Certification"
Date
Mornbership Certification-,
SUpertritendent Date
CE"Jl 0 t, LLW (Y
E3ibCC Chair Date
2AVI-1
5CC Chair Date
13
Section I
Oz.]
Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2014-15)
(page I of 3)
Special Note(s). 1. For the Nowniber 15, 2002 basT year the board accepted the capacities as part of the School Facififies
Task For" rcvicw and 2003 Planners and School Ruprmniative lecluncal Advisory Ciunnnifee Report, Thess, capacitieq wifl roanain effective until
changed by (1) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form dial is curfified by the HOCC. 2 Due too Novernbff 1501 filihng On 11 Saturday this
year, incinherslup and capacity ninubers shah he provided Cut Friday, November flail, 2014.
Justification:
Cap city Ce ffi!ation
Superintendent Date
Membership Ce ificatil n,
q
................
'-gu—perintendent Date
— &aj di �
BOCC Chair Date
2, 1
BOCC Chair Date
14
Section I
OW
Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2014-15)
(page 2 of 3)
Speciall Note(s): L Fur tlw November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superivIcndent-certified capacrian as part oftlw School Facilities
I ask Fo roe review and 2003 p linifle, arid School Representative Technica I Ad vmory Committee Report. 'I he vc capacitinq will remain cifficefive until
changed by( I) the SChOO➢ C I P OF (2) an amended version of this f6rin that is corffied by the BOCC 2 Drie to November 15th I al I ing on it Saturday this
year, in cinbrarship and caprainly numbers shan I be provided Roan Friday, Novenibew 14, 2014-
Justificatiom
Car acity Ca ifiea ion:
Superintendent Date
M 11 mbersh i fae f ti n:
'Z7
Superintendent Date
,FAJ /211/1t/
BOCC Chair Date
BOCC Chair Date
15
Section I
I
191f
Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2014-15)
(page 3 of 3)
Special Note(s): t For the November 15, 2002 base year (lie hom-el aecel)bed the superintendent-certified capackies n jxul ot'die School Facilities
rl",,.,k, Force review and 2003 Manners and Schod Representative Technical Advisory Comilvift" 11h... mpnifiv, Mil renium effective until
changed by ( I',) the School CIP or (2) an amended version at this ream that is cerl ified by the BOCC, 2 Due to November i 91h filling on a Swwday this
year, rnorribmihip as id capacay numbm shall he ptovidcd for Fridq, November 11,,:2014
Justification:
Ca city C irtJ11catio"..
Superintendent Date
Me7bersh I p CeT,,,t If I ca7t
Sup 1. a 11 r I i I nt I en d " e '. n I t Cate
ke- / a) q /I to
BOCC Chair Date
BOCC Chair Date
16
31
Section II
C. Membership Date
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
5. Recommendation:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
No change at this time
Recommendation:
Orange County School District
No change at this time
17
195%
Section II
II. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
System
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
1. 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.
2. Definition — The process and resultant program to determine school needs and
provide funding for new school facilities through a variety of funding mechanisms.
3. Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Not Applicable
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions:
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, 2015.
5. Recommendation:
Not subject to staff review.
W.
Section II
33
B. Student Membership Projection Methodology
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 ILB.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 ILB.1 includes a
description of each model. Attachment ILB.3 shows the performance of the models
for the 2014 -15 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
19
Section II
I
15!
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.
20
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS
PROJECTION TYPE
DESCRIPTION I CHARACTERISTICS
FORMULA
ASSUMPTIONS
Tischer 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
Base year growth reflects 10-year average:
OCP Linear Wave
Mathematical linear with percent variation among school
BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYl =year student membership increment
increase in BYI of 5 every other year reflects
(OCS)
levels; reflects progressing waves of membership
°
base; EYM= ensuing year membership; n- projection year; /oSL= ° total
increases in housing growth; reflects buildout
membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYMISL= e ns uing year
constraints
member by school level
BYM + (BYI - 15(n)) = EYM EYM * °/oSL = EYMISL
Base year growth reflects 10- year average;
OCP Linear Wave
Mathematical linear with percent variation among school
BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYl =year student membership increment
decrease in BY1 of 15 until school year 2010 -2011
(CHCCS)
levels; reflects progressing waves of membership
base; EYM = ensuing year membership; n= projection year; %SL =% 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„ =kn.t +(k.,1 *0.09)
Mathematical formula that computes the average
"=I
advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each
a =(£ G„ I g„_j)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 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
andfor historical growth rates
membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average
advancement rate; b= projected membership
K„= kn_i +(k�, *0.01)
Mathematical formula that computes the average
n =1
advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each
a =(£ G„ ! 9� 4) 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 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
andfor historical growth rates
membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average
advancement rate; b= projected membership
K„ =k.., +(k,.1 *0.01)
Mathematical formula that computes the average
n =1
advancement rate over the previous 10 years for each
a =(£ G„ 19,1) 110
Assumes a I% annual growth rate for the
10 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
bldg 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
andfor historical growth rates
membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average
advancement rate; b =projected membership
i
.ter
n
rD
0
00
lzCrD
rDi—r
0
r
E
C
rD
K
v,
0
r
0
0
d
rD
v,
o�
0
v,
!si
1Cr:
Section II Attachment ILB.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2013 -14)
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2013 -14 School Year (November 15, 2013)
H means High L means Low
22
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
1 13433
Equal
11/15/2013
Middle
1684
1747
+63
Model
Projection is
T
1712
L35
OCP
1709
L38
10C
1750
H3
5C
1755
H8
3C
1740
L7
AVG
1 11733
IL14
11/15/2013
High
2315
2421
+106
Model
Projection is
T
2354
L67
OCP
2356
L65
10C
12334
L87
5C
2362
L59
3C
2367
L54
AVG
2355
L66
11/15/2013
Totals
Elementary
3403
1
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
1 17521
IL80
H means High L means Low
22
Attachment 11.13.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Ana y sis (2013 -14)
Section II (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.
23
Attachment ILB.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance AnaPsis (2013 -14)
Section II (page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2013 -2014 School Year (November 15, 2013)
H means High
L means Low
24
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
Proiection is
T
5643
H89
OCP
5643
H89
10C
5603
H49
5C
5583
H29
3C
5589
H35
AVG
1 15612
H58
11/15/2013
Middle
2785
2858
+73
Model
Proiection is
T
2835
L23
OCP
2840
L18
10C
2888
H30
5C
2873
H15
3C
2872
H14
AVG
2862
H4
11/15/2013
High
3796
3764
-32
Model
Proiection is
T
3864
H100
OCP
13890
H126
10C
3794
H30
5C
3782
H18
3C
3810
H46
AVG
3828
IH64
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
1 112,302
IH126
H means High
L means Low
24
Attachment IL13.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance AnaPy9 s (2013 -14)
Section II (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.
25
CA If
Section II Attachment ILB.3 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2014 -15)
(page 1 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2014 -15 School Year (November 14, 2014)
H means High
L means Low
26
11/15/13
Actual
2013 -14
2014 Report
Projection for
2014 -15
11/14/14
Actual
2014 -15
Change between actual
Nov 2013 - Nov 2014
Elementary
3433
3259
-174
Model
Projection is
T
3493
H234
OCP
3492
H233
10C
3457
H198
5C
3471
H212
3C
3488
H229
AVG
1 13472
H213
11/14/2014
Middle
1747
1762
+15
Model
Projection is
T
1778
H16
OCP
1777
H15
10C
1796
H34
5C
1799
H37
3C
1793
H31
AVG
1 11789
IH27
11/14/2014
High
2421
2502
+81
Model
Projection is
T
2463
L39
OCP
2434
L68
10C
2404
L98
5C
2436
L66
3C
2294
L208
AVG
1 12406
IL96
Totals
11/14/2014
Elementary
3433
3259
Middle
1747
1762
High
2421
2502
7601
7523
-78
Model
Projection is
T
7734
H211
OCP
7703
H180
10C
7657
H134
5C
7706
H183
3C
7575
H52
AVG
7667
H144
H means High
L means Low
26
Attachment 11.13.3 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2014 -15)
Section II (page 2 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2014 -2015 School Year (November 14, 2014)
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 198 students to 234 students high. On average,
the projections were 213 students higher than actual membership.
• The membership actually decreased by 174 students between November 15, 2013 and
November 14, 2014. Part of this decrease could be due to the opening of a new charter
school in Hillsborough this year. It is suspected that many of the charter school students
were previously enrolled in one of the school districts located in Orange County.
Middle School Level
• Projections were all high, ranging from 15 students to 37 students high. On average, the
projections were 27 students higher than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 15 students between November 15, 2013 and
November 14, 2014.
High School Level
• Projections were all low, ranging from 39 students to 208 students low. On average, the
projections were 96 students lower than the actual membership.
• The membership actually increased by 81 students between November 15, 2013 and
November 14, 2014.
TOTAL
• The totals of all school level projections were high, ranging from 52 to 211 above actual
membership. On average, the projections were high by 144 students.
• The membership decreased in total by 78 students, which is the sum of -174 at
Elementary, +15 at Middle, and +81 at High.
27
Attachment ILB.3 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2014 -15)
Section II (page 3 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2014 -15 School Year (November 14, 2014)
H means High
L means Low
11/15/13
Actual
2013 -14
2014 Report
Projection for
2014 -15
11/14/14
Actual
2014 -15
Change between actual
Nov 2013 - Nov 2014
Elementary
5554
5541
-13
Model
Projection is
T
5647
H106
OCP
5655
H114
10C
5637
H96
5C
5610
H69
3C
1 5628
IH87
AVG
15635
H94
11/14/2014
Middle
2858
2861
+3
Model
Projection is
T
2906
H45
OCP
2889
H28
10C
2957
H96
5C
2930
H69
3C
2943
H82
AVG
2925
H64
11/14/2014
High
3764
3730
-34
Model
Projection is
T
3827
H97
OCP
3875
H145
10C
3761
H31
5C
3772
H42
3C
3788
H58
AVG
1 13805
IH75
Totals
11/14/2014
Elementary
5554
5541
Middle
2858
2861
High
3764
3730
12,176
12,132
-44
Model
Projection is
T
12,380
H248
OCP
12,419
H287
10C
12,355
H223
5C
12,312
H180
3C
12,359
H227
AVG
12,365
H233
H means High
L means Low
Attachment 11.13.3 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2014 -15)
Section II (page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2014 -2015 School Year (November 14, 2014)
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 69 students to 114 students high. On average,
the projections were 94 students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership decreased by 13 students between November 15, 2013 and
November 14, 2014. Part of this decrease could be due to the opening of a new charter
school in Hillsborough this year. It is suspected that many of the charter school students
were previously enrolled in one of the school districts located in Orange County.
Middle School Level
• Projections were all high, ranging from 28 students to 96 students high. On average, the
projections were 64 students higher than the actual membership.
• The actual membership increased by 3 students between November 15, 2013 and
November 14, 2014.
High School Level
Projections were all high, ranging from 31 students to 145 students high. On average,
the projections were 75 students higher than the actual membership.
The actual membership decreased by 34 students between November 15, 2013 and
November 14, 2014.
TOTAL
The total of all school level projections were all high, ranging from 180 students to 287
students above actual membership. On average, the projections were high by 233
students.
• The membership decreased in total by 44 students, which is the sum of -13 at
Elementary, +3 at Middle, and -34 at High.
29
Section II
CA EA!
C. Student Membership Projections
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) 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.
2. 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).
3. Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section
ILB (Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment ILC.4
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Orange County School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section
ILB (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 showing a projected decrease in the increase, but are still showing
average positive growth. Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools projected average annual
growth rates have decreased slightly, but remained positive. Future growth rates show
varying, but continuous positive growth in the 10 year projection period for
elementary, middle, and high school levels. Projected average annual growth rates for
Orange County Schools have significantly decreased, but remained positive. Orange
County Schools' future growth rates show varying positive and negative growth in
the 10 year projection period for elementary, middle, and high school levels.
Attachment ILC.3 and Attachment ILC.4 show year by year percent growth and
projected level of service (LOS). The projection models were updated using current
(November 14, 2014) memberships. Membership numbers were collected on
November 14 due to November 15 falling on a Saturday in 2014. Ten years of student
membership were projected thereafter.
30
CA lei
Section II
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
Elementary
The previous year (2013 -14) projections for November 2014 at this level were overestimated by
94 students. The actual membership decreased by 13 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 experienced an increase each year with a significant jump (168 students) in 2011 -12
before experiencing a decrease this year. Growth rates during the past ten years have ranged
from -1.57% to +3.92 %. The projections this year are showing the need for Elementary School
412 in 2023 -24, this is three years later 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 (2013 -14) projections for November 2014 for this level were overestimated by
64 students. The actual membership increased by 3. 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. The addition to
Culbreth Middle School opened for the 2014 -15 school year with a capacity of 104 seats. The
projections this year are showing that Chapel Hill /Carrboro Middle School 45 is projected to be
needed in 2023 -24. This is three years later than last year's projections.
High School
The previous year (2013 -14) projections for November 2014 for this level were overestimated by
75 students. The actual membership decreased by 34 students. Over the previous ten years,
change has been variable with decreases in membership in 2008 -09 and in 2009 -10. Following
31
CA
Section II
these decreases, membership and growth rates began increasing again before experiencing a
decrease in 2013 -14. Growth rates during this time period have ranged from -0.90 to +5.31 %.
The need for additional high school capacity is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period.
This is different than last year's projections which identified a need for the Carrboro High
School expansion in 2023 -24.
Additional Information for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
One Charter School, PACE Academy, is located within the Chapel Hill / Carrboro School District.
The newest charter school, The Expedition School, opened in the Town of Hillsborough for the
2014 -15 school year and currently serves elementary and middle school students. The opening of
this school may have affected CHCCS membership numbers at the elementary and middle
school levels. Charter schools are not included as part of the SAPFO Annual Report and, as a
result, their membership and capacity numbers are not monitored or included in future
projections.
Student projections illustrate when the adopted level of service capacities are forecasted to be
met and /or exceeded in anticipation of CIP planning and the construction of a new school.
However, as is being identified by both school districts, particularly CHCCS, a new trend is
emerging to renovate and expand existing facilities to address school capacity needs in a more
feasible way. As this trend continues, additional capacity resulting from school renovations and
expansion will be added to the projection models in stages, once funding is approved, versus the
addition of greater capacity when a new school is constructed and completed. As a result, the
renovation and expansion of schools to increase capacity may delay construction of new schools
further into the future.
Orange County School District
Elementary
The previous year (2013 -14) projections for November 2014 at this level were overestimated by
213 students. Actual membership decreased by 174 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 increased every school year until this
32
CA VA
Section II
school year. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -5.07% 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. The need for an additional Elementary School is
not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. Staff continues to closely monitor new sizeable
residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough.
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 (2013 -14) projections for November 2014 for this level were overestimated by
27 students. The actual membership increased by 15. 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. Staff continues to closely monitor new
sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough.
High School
The previous year (2013 -14) projections for November 2014 for this level were underestimated
by 96 students. The actual membership increased by 81. 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 by expanding Cedar Ridge High School from 1,000 to 1,500
students. This is similar to last year's projections.
33
CE:
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. 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.
Orange Charter School, located in the Town of Hillsborough, continues operating in the Orange
County School District. Additionally, a new charter school, The Expedition School, opened in
the Town of Hillsborough for the 2014 -15 school year and currently serves elementary and
middle school students. The opening of this school may have caused the significant decrease in
OCS membership at the elementary school level. Charter schools are not included as part of the
SAPFO Annual Report and, as a result, their membership and capacity are not monitored or
included in future projections.
5. Recommendation:
Use statistics as noted in 3 above
34
CHCCS Student Projections Md ul
ilane
.. r.A,.mn.ls mm'.. blrx!w6oaaPnenrr.la.ax,..r-era rr.gr�,, t
Fanmtrl lF �i. zmr mwu9ress I =x'.ur:m
'nddvrlen diveirtsr SdroohlPFOreromrended Ln•eld�r'a '�- � '�� : " " " "•"� "' [Cnarrtrl =°°I niopa.wln sa raa
m n la I.pmbrtm rraema[ Ims ranaC2oae xo.nrpe� 15.. p [Nle orineuaRryiip fi oNneO h N' me.rhamNAAayueN PupIL FaclNae []dlnaxs. ttnoee nN Induda CX[x9 eWda[e eAMtllpme Mpap[al Sldlppl.
00 TM1e idler Modd pvnde:lor me'blixrr Mmod" dprofwtlons Iw hdn C W C3 and OC'3. [FArcal pyanors �'n pdorsarspvjeamn rtdehiNudaldle'linem�ob�n M.hod'hr CHCLS.
W Innulgwd ne•druleled usrg actual mmhempmrte_v: 100601 Inmu3n 2]1113 aid nerve aanihertphryeae ]A13161M1wpM1 21]1Td
� QA9 AQ38bl QA4� W1= I'3rOrdipppl pYA AA W mmAAA 10Ai -0A. N ACp]AY �1Mm10AS snOd Cp18ApAT[O YAId OlpAp.lACCAA, PIIACCIY mBYAAA�AAA88[IIOd yIAIYM [AA [pBAep AICXCC9 fIAR6[AryR10, X.9.�A6�eR P.31 B6tlIBCLLO Lyp� 9mIBIBgMAPR ACOVA.
CHCCS Student Projections p)
Waal.
®�ASSIlr�1�'"Ir_- ,!l�71�"4e„ I��1l��ll��l ®I��SI!l91� ®�►�1
®�
®
®��
Or 1.10
OEM
.. r.A,.mn.ls mm'.. blrx!w6oaaPnenrr.la.ax,..r-era rr.gr�,, t
Fanmtrl lF �i. zmr mwu9ress I =x'.ur:m
'nddvrlen diveirtsr SdroohlPFOreromrended Ln•eld�r'a '�- � '�� : " " " "•"� "' [Cnarrtrl =°°I niopa.wln sa raa
m n la I.pmbrtm rraema[ Ims ranaC2oae xo.nrpe� 15.. p [Nle orineuaRryiip fi oNneO h N' me.rhamNAAayueN PupIL FaclNae []dlnaxs. ttnoee nN Induda CX[x9 eWda[e eAMtllpme Mpap[al Sldlppl.
00 TM1e idler Modd pvnde:lor me'blixrr Mmod" dprofwtlons Iw hdn C W C3 and OC'3. [FArcal pyanors �'n pdorsarspvjeamn rtdehiNudaldle'linem�ob�n M.hod'hr CHCLS.
W Innulgwd ne•druleled usrg actual mmhempmrte_v: 100601 Inmu3n 2]1113 aid nerve aanihertphryeae ]A13161M1wpM1 21]1Td
� QA9 AQ38bl QA4� W1= I'3rOrdipppl pYA AA W mmAAA 10Ai -0A. N ACp]AY �1Mm10AS snOd Cp18ApAT[O YAId OlpAp.lACCAA, PIIACCIY mBYAAA�AAA88[IIOd yIAIYM [AA [pBAep AICXCC9 fIAR6[AryR10, X.9.�A6�eR P.31 B6tlIBCLLO Lyp� 9mIBIBgMAPR ACOVA.
CHCCS Student Projections p)
Waal.
ro n la I.ps�,. II
CHCCS Student Projections "
Well
fiwtlne0btrdme9 [amNAAavuew.opl[laUdetnO�aarte Il rbeta1 CH[ em .a M Ne HOtpra�srnnai
nd OAS. Oilnal py�ore urea n oaoraran polerinn nmex irclueee Ina imer Ex�oh�n NMod'hr LxrCx
:ougn?01113 aN nerve avrihertp forttr: idr2la Inm.gn :M1?3
iTR� �!l�SF�l1,�- f !R!!li5filw7��lk�l347
... � � �16'<: 7�7�f 7�S7�1R<! 7�f17�' 7�1M1': 7�714f 7r- �" �f�' 3f�7�T1f��1�7�! Sf��f�1!! E�7� !Sf�&1�1f'E7lT1f�&f�1lEl7�1f?u7
�7lk7'1�7�7 �l1�7 �7�'1�Rl7lF!A�Ef71�"7�7 �E' f7lES�1�91�R 1'7�R:�1�'.S1lbl.7�R7�D;}71�7�f
� 1
nec>te. rnen ei.lnrtarpa::e: Smool: tPFOre:omrcneee�nel of iervxe
tv X le IPporbrcm l�lAa IAii rFAx[sdre No.nnpei 15.:01! [xle ofinenapr�i0 as nNretl h M me 9YmNlubOuare Pupl[ Fa[IIINe []dlnFlrv. I[tlaea nol inrlude CHfCS sludnri anb'dYp IAe Hotaral SrM1OOI.
m TM1e TeslerMzww1a lorme'Lliol AMmod "ofproJmtlmaIw ucm CMCino tlM (BmB uii mureaapnm1 rs14th �n irdetirraudmrM1e'Lnea E:Iryolalwn Mdnod'kr Cx ^�5
w Anld�191uHA rtewloalalnl uv�%I allnal nranpe�Yrrl for reat'OW01 IngoOn ;pl'� 13 ant nal�e.enAAr�b lor'rea 5'.A lyll llllwpll elQ }H
Te -l— da.IC parr of ....... ira,.ul oa lu sp xecmaainls my 10 years of n:mrd dare are IncLUao in c apart ii-
MR
l7
l�
1"r
1
N
r, 11
I••r
W
I--r
n
A'+
O
O
M
C
b
A�.
fD
n
O
eD
O
i. ^rfrrl
i.rfrrl
CD
0
T
T
0
®�ASSIlr�1�'"Ir_- ,!l�71�"4e„ I��1l��ll��l ®I��SI!l91� ®�►�1
®�
®
®��
Or 1.10
ro n la I.ps�,. II
CHCCS Student Projections "
Well
fiwtlne0btrdme9 [amNAAavuew.opl[laUdetnO�aarte Il rbeta1 CH[ em .a M Ne HOtpra�srnnai
nd OAS. Oilnal py�ore urea n oaoraran polerinn nmex irclueee Ina imer Ex�oh�n NMod'hr LxrCx
:ougn?01113 aN nerve avrihertp forttr: idr2la Inm.gn :M1?3
iTR� �!l�SF�l1,�- f !R!!li5filw7��lk�l347
... � � �16'<: 7�7�f 7�S7�1R<! 7�f17�' 7�1M1': 7�714f 7r- �" �f�' 3f�7�T1f��1�7�! Sf��f�1!! E�7� !Sf�&1�1f'E7lT1f�&f�1lEl7�1f?u7
�7lk7'1�7�7 �l1�7 �7�'1�Rl7lF!A�Ef71�"7�7 �E' f7lES�1�91�R 1'7�R:�1�'.S1lbl.7�R7�D;}71�7�f
� 1
nec>te. rnen ei.lnrtarpa::e: Smool: tPFOre:omrcneee�nel of iervxe
tv X le IPporbrcm l�lAa IAii rFAx[sdre No.nnpei 15.:01! [xle ofinenapr�i0 as nNretl h M me 9YmNlubOuare Pupl[ Fa[IIINe []dlnFlrv. I[tlaea nol inrlude CHfCS sludnri anb'dYp IAe Hotaral SrM1OOI.
m TM1e TeslerMzww1a lorme'Lliol AMmod "ofproJmtlmaIw ucm CMCino tlM (BmB uii mureaapnm1 rs14th �n irdetirraudmrM1e'Lnea E:Iryolalwn Mdnod'kr Cx ^�5
w Anld�191uHA rtewloalalnl uv�%I allnal nranpe�Yrrl for reat'OW01 IngoOn ;pl'� 13 ant nal�e.enAAr�b lor'rea 5'.A lyll llllwpll elQ }H
Te -l— da.IC parr of ....... ira,.ul oa lu sp xecmaainls my 10 years of n:mrd dare are IncLUao in c apart ii-
MR
l7
l�
1"r
1
N
r, 11
I••r
W
I--r
n
A'+
O
O
M
C
b
A�.
fD
n
O
eD
O
i. ^rfrrl
i.rfrrl
CD
0
T
T
0
53
Section II
D. 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:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
See Attachment ILD.2
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
The membership figures and percentage growth on the
Standard for:
Orange County School District
See Attachment ILD.2
Analysis of Existing Conditions:
Orange County School District
The membership figures and percentage growth on the
attachments show continued growth at each school level attachments show continued growth at each school level
within the system.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
Year Projection
Made:
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
2013-
2014
2014 -
2015
Elementary
1.44%
1.59%
1.18%
1.44%
1.11%
Middle
1.67%
1.94%
1.59%
1.58%
1.15%
High
1.57%
1.73%
1.60%
1.27%
1.22%
5. Recommendation:
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
Use statistics as noted.
within the system.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
Year Projection
Made:
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
2013-
2014
2014 -
2015
Elementary
1.57%
1.6%
1.31%
1.30%
0.55%
Middle
1.84%
2.01%
1.64%
1.42%
0.09%
High
1.59%
1.61%
1.43%
1.35%
0.39%
Recommendation:
Orange County School District
Use statistics as noted.
39
Orange County Student Projections
Elementary
T
N.
2013 -2014
School Year
2013 -2014
20142015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
_
actual
Membership
3,433
3,472
3,555
3,597
3,627
3,668
3,716
3,764
3,812
3,861
3,906
Average %Increase
1
1.14%
2.39%
1.18%
0.84%
1.13%
1.30%
1.29%
1.28%
1.28%
1.17%
Middle
School Year
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
_
(actual)
Membership
1,747
1,789
1,805
1,824
1,862
1,933
1,951
1,953
1,967
1,987
2,010
Average ;%Increase
1
2.38%
0.94%
1.03%
2.07%
3.85%
0.90%
0.12%
0.71%
1.04%
1.12%
High School
School Year
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
_
actual
Membership
2,421
2,406
2,411
2,468
2,533
2,534
2,600
2,642
2,678
2,742
2,767
Average %Increase
1
1 -0.61%
0.18%
2.40%
2.63%
0.03%
2.59%
1 1.62%
1.39%
2.36%
0.93%
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections
Elementary
School Year
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
_
actual
Membership
5,554
5,635
5,748
5 845
5 927
6,021
6,090
6,166
6,241
6,323
6,405
Average %Increase
1
1.47%
2.00%
1.69%
1.41%
1.570/.
1.15%
1 1.24%
1.23%
1 1.31%
1.30%
Middle
School Year
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
_
actual
Membership
2,858
2,925
2,947
2,962
2,999
3,063
3,134
3,190
3,257
3,299
3,342
Avera e %Increase
1
2.35%
0.76%
0.50%
1.24%
2.13%
2.32%
1.78%
2.11%
1.30%
1.30%
High School
School Year
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
_
actual
Membership
3,764
3,805
3,825
3,893
3,982
4,011
4,050
4,086
4,112
4,199
4,268
Average %Increase
1
1.08%
0.54%
1.78%
2.27%
0.75%
0.96%
0.88%
0.65%
2.10%
1.65%
R
i
A�
n �
0 0
r
� I
N �
0 0
No
o�
� a
.r
C °C
C o
fD
fDC. C.
C �
C\I1
W ..
C C
o
S, o
o C
C f
C
O t4
Q
WZ CD
1j
2014 -2015
Orange County Student Projections
Elementary
School Year
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2015
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
2024 -2025
_
actual
Membership
3,259
3,285
3,274
3,234
3,226
3,227
3,267
3,310
3,354
3,398
3,442
Average %Increase
1
0.80%
-0.33%
-1.22%
-0.26%
0.03%
1.23%
1.33%
1.32%
1.31%
1.30%
Middle
School Year
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
2024 -2025
_
(actual)
Membership
1,762
1,751
1,746
1,782
1,837
1,848
1,789
1,759
1,737
1,757
1,776
Average % Increase
1
-0.65%
-0.27%
2.08%
3.10%
0.60%
-3.21%
-1.70%
-1.23%
1.11%
1.10%
High School
School Year
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
2024 -2025
_
actual
Membership
1 2,502
2,510
2,540
2,581
2,547
2,579
2,622
2,639
2,687
2,652
2,599
Average % Increase
1
0.32%
1.21%
1.60%
-1.30%
1.26%
1.63%
0.66%
1.81%
-1.29%
-2.02%
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Student Projections
Elementary
School Year
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2015
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
2024 -2025
_
actual
Membershi
5 541
5 606
5 662
5 730
5 795
5 839
5 911
5 981
;2022-2023
051
6 118
6 18Average
%Increase
1
1.18%
0.99%
1.21%
1.13%
0.76%
1.23%
1.18%
16%
1.11%
1.10%
Middle
School Year
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018 -2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
2024 -2025
_
actual
Membership
2,861
2,895
2,928
2,966
3,009
3,058
3,087
3,118
3,127
3,167
3,208
Average %Increase
1
1.18%
1.15%
1.28%
1.46%
1.63%
0.95%
0.99%
0.29%
1.29%
1.29%
High School
School Year
2014 -2015
2015 -2016
2016 -2017
2017 -2018
2018- 2019
2019 -2020
2020 -2021
2021 -2022
2022 -2023
2023 -2024
2024 -2025
_
actual
Membership
3,730
3,742
3,798
3,858
3,920
3,979
4,015
4,063
4,138
4,167
4,209
Average % Increase
1
0.32%
1.51%
1.58%
1.59%
1.52%
0.89%
1 1.19%
1.86%
0.70%
1.01%
i
.ter
n �
� O
N
� I
O
N �
O O
cn
N C
o =
O (�
o �
CIt
� K
O
'o =
C
� O
N �
o :s
4
cn �
:611
Section II
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate
1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory
Committee ( SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for certification.
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the
BOCC prior to certification.
2. Definition — Student generation rate refers to the number of public school students
per housing unit constructed in each school district, as defined in the Student
Generation Rate Study completed by TischlerBise on October 28, 2014. Housing
units include single family detached, single family attached /duplex, multifamily, and
manufactured homes.
3. Standard for:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
See Attachment ILE.1
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions:
Standard for:
Orange County School District
See Attachment ILE.1
At the January 2014 SAPFOTAC meeting, members discussed the increased number
of students generated in both school districts from new development, particularly
multifamily housing. At that time, 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 entered into a
contract with TischlerBise to update the student generation rate analysis. Planning
staff has followed the process outlined in the SAPFO MOU to update student
generation rates as they pertain to the SAPFO process. The new standards are shown
in Attachment ILE.1. Previous numbers used for SAPFO and CAPS purposes were
from the 2007 Impact Fee Study which developed student generation rates based on
the entire housing stock in each school district. New rates from the 2014 Student
Generation Rates for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro School
District Report are based on an inventory of recently built units from January 1, 2004
to December 31, 2013. It is important to note that an updated student generation rate
could not be provided for manufactured homes with 0 -2 bedrooms in the CHCCS
district because no units were constructed during the study period. As a result, the
42
Section II
pre- existing student generation rate (0.268) from the 2007 TischlerBise School
Impact Fee Report will be utilized.
61FA
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:
Change
The SAPFOTAC reviewed and discussed the most recent student generation rate
analysis included in the 2014 TischlerBise report. They recommend the BOCC and
other governing boards accept the new rates as reported in Attachment II.E.1 and
adopt them as the standard for the SAPFO and CAPS system.
43
TischlerBise Student Generation Rates — 2014
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools
0 -3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
5+ Bedrooms
Weighted Average
Single - Family Detached
0.61
0.84
1.13
0.84
0 -2 Bedrooms
3+ Bedrooms
Weighted Average
Single - Family Attached
0.18
0.44
0.34
Multifamily /Other
0.13
0.43
0.20
Manufactured Home
0.268
0.86
0.78
Weight Average for Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
0.49
Orange County Schools
0 -3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
5+ Bedrooms
Weighted Average
Single - Family Detached
0.35
0.57
0.57
0.44
0 -2 Bedrooms
3+ Bedrooms
Weighted Average
Single - Family Attached
0.07
0.17
0.15
Multifamily /Other
0.08
0.67
0.17
Manufactured Home
0.67
0.47
0.52
Weight Average for Orange County School District
0.37
Source: Student Generation Rates for Orange County School District and Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District, TischlerBise, October 28, 2014
rD
a
rD
rD
a
a
rD
a
rD
a
rD
0
a
7
rD
0
o'
co
Mz
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, 2014
membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June 2015).
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.
45
[ii7
Section III
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process I - Capital Investment Plannin(CIP�
Projection Method
(Historical Membership'
plus Hypothetical Growth Rate
T
CIP
Approval
(Proposed New Construction
i.e. School Capacity
Added by number seats & ear
Actual Adjustments
(Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year
Membership Projection)
CAPS
Sy stem2
(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.
M
61
Section III
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Update (Process 2)
Timeframe: The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the
school districts report actual membership and `pre - certified' capacity, whether it is CIP
associated or prior `joint action' agreement. `Joint action' determinations of changes in capacity
due to State rules or other non - construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the
November 15 capacity and membership reporting date. This update may reflect the Board of
County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects
capacity and addition of new actual fall membership. The Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year
— (e.g.: November 15, 2005 to November 14, 2006).
New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated, each
CAPS projection year is `absorbed' by the actual estimate of a given year. Later year CAPS
projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For
example, if a 50 -lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 lots may be assigned to "Year 1," 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
District. Although the SAPFO system is not formally regulated in Mebane, staff monitors
47
-%
Section III
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 2015 - 2025)
November 2014 — June 2015 (using 2015 SAPFOTAC Report)
Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2015 — 2016)
November 2014 - November 2015
.•
W
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation
2015 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2014 through November 14, 2015.
The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC /School District joint
action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2014. 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, 2014.
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
50