Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 05-19-2015 - 6d
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. 6 -d 1 SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance —Approval and Certification of 2015 Report DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1. 2015 SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2. 11x17 Copies of Student Projection Charts PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) NO INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Moncado, 919 - 245 -2589 Craig Benedict, 919 - 245 -2592 PURPOSE: To approve and certify the 2015 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee ( SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report. BACKGROUND: At the December 1, 2014 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Board approved the November 14, 2014 actual membership and capacity numbers for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS). Additional approvals /certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO partners MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding). At the March 17, 2015 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2015 SAPFOTAC Report. The draft report was also posted on the Orange County Planning Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report were sent to all SAPFO partners on March 18, 2015 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and inviting comments. Comments were requested for submission by April 18, 2015. Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS) administration presented the draft 2015 SAPFOTAC report to the CHCCS Board of Education at its April 9, 2015 meeting. The Chapel Hill Town Council and Hillsborough Board of Commissioners received the draft 2015 SAPFOTAC Report at their April 13, 2015 meetings. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen received the draft SAPFOTAC Report at its April 7, 2015 meeting. No comments were received from the SAPFO partners. New School Needs vs. Capacity Renovations Currently, SAPFO student projections illustrate when the adopted level of service capacities are forecasted to be met and /or exceeded in anticipation of Capital Investment Plan (CIP) planning and the construction of a new school. However, as is being identified by both school districts, 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 expansions will be added to the projection models in stages, once approved, I versus the addition of greater capacity when a new school is constructed and completed. This process will pose some challenges to SAPFO compared to the existing process which indicates in advance when a completely new school is needed. The renovation and expansion to existing facilities may delay construction of new schools further into the future. For example, in 2014 projections showed a need for CHCCS Middle School #5 in 2018 -19. However, once the Culbreth Middle School addition of 104 seats was added into the 10 -year student membership projections, the need for CHCCS Middle School #5 was pushed back to 2020 -21. Decisions on the timing of reconstruction funding would be indirectly linked to the SAPFO model. The exact pages of the 2015 SAPFOTAC report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and certifying are listed below. The context (i.e.- definitions and standards) of the various SAPFO elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full Report. • Student /Housing Generation Rate 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. This topic had also been discussed in previous years. The SAPFOTAC recommended further evaluation of the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts the number of bedrooms a particular housing type may have on student generation rates. As a result, Orange County entered into a contract with TischlerBise to study student generation Page in Element SAPFOTAC Certification to be made by BOCC Report Building Capacity 11 through 16 Building capacity and current year with CIP changes membership for OCS and CHCCS were approved at the December 1, 2014 (Change from previous year) meeting. Student Membership Projection 19 Certification that the average of 5 models Methodology will be used, as noted in #3 on page 19 (No Change from previous year) Student Membership Projections 37 and 38 • Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average only) (p. 37) • Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average (Change from previous year) only) (p. 38) Student Membership Growth Rate 39 . Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools • Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary, (Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools Student/Housing Generation Rate 42 . Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools • Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary, (Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools • Student /Housing Generation Rate 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. This topic had also been discussed in previous years. The SAPFOTAC recommended further evaluation of the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts the number of bedrooms a particular housing type may have on student generation rates. As a result, Orange County entered into a contract with TischlerBise to study student generation t 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. Previous numbers used for SAPFO and Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) purposes were from the 2007 Impact Fee Study which developed student generation rates based on the entire housing stock in each school district since impact fees must be based on the entire housing stock. 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. The SAPFOTAC reviewed and discussed the most recent student generation rate analysis included in the 2014 TischlerBise report. It is recommended the BOCC and other governing boards accept the new rates as reported in Attachment II.E.1on page 44 of the report as the standard for the SAPFO and CAPS system. Once the report is adopted by the BOCC, these new rates will become the standard for the SAPFO and CAPS system. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Based on capital facility construction needs a New Elementary #12 New Middle School #5 Based on 10 -year student growth needs as follows: Expanded High School 10 -year student growth projections, CHCCS has projected s follows- 2023-2024 2023 -2024 projections, OCS has projected capital facility construction 2022 -2023 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 approve the 2015 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the summary table above. Attachment 1 ORANGE COUNTY, NC SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PREPARED BY A STAFF COMMITTEE: PLANNING DIRECTORS, SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) (PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 2003) (ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN JULY 2003) Annual Report 2015 (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2014 DATA) CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY X, 2015 m Table of Contents I1. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System .................... .............................18 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 III.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 ...................... ............................... 48 u 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 7 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 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% 1.59% 1.61% 1.43% 1.35% 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). 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 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). 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. Changes in CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) System As a result of a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in August 2012, the local governments that are party to the SAPFO considered modification of their development regulations as they pertain to CAPS in 2013. However, at this time the local governments have not pursued revisions to existing standards contained within the CAPS system or SAPFO MOUs. iii 9 Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Introduction The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and its Memorandum of Understanding are ordinances and agreements, respectively. Supporting documents are anticipated to be dynamic to incorporate the annual changing conditions of membership, capacity and student projections that may affect School Capital Investment Plan (CIP) timing. This formal annual report will be forthcoming to all of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners each year as new information is available. This updated information is used in the schools capital needs process of the Capital Investment Plan (Process 1) and within elements of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) spreadsheet system (Process 2). This report and any comments from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners will be considered in the first half of each year by the Board of County Commissioners at a regular or special meeting. The various elements of the report are then "certified" and formally considered in the process of the upcoming Capital Investment Plan. The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools system is updated after November 15 when data is received from the school districts with actual membership and pre - certified capacity (i.e. CIP capacity or prior "joint action" capacity changes). The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Memorandum of Understanding have dynamic aspects. The derivation of the baseline and update to the variables will continue in the future as a variety of school related issues are fine -tuned by technical and policy groups. The primary facet of this report includes the creation of mathematical projections for student memberships by school levels (Elementary, Middle and High) and by School Districts (Chapel Hill /Carrboro and Orange County). This information is found in Section II, Subsections B, C, D, and E. In summary, this report serves as an update to the dynamic conditions of student membership and school capacity which 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 10 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, 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 11 V1 12 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 13 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 14 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. 15 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 16 Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2013-14) Page I of 3 Special Note(s): 1. For the Novetither 15, 2002 baw. year the board ascepwd rbc sither4iltndent, whficd capaciflo, as part of dre Sclwnl Facififies Task Force revitAv and 20,03 Planners and School Represantafive Technic,M Advisory Committee Rep ort. rhese capacives wiH rer"ain efteefivt Until charged by 81 the Schrmi, CDI or (2) an tsancioiW versiort, (A'Ws form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification; CaVci,ty Cart Vication: 17 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 I5„ 200'2 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 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2013-14) Page 3 of 3 Speclall Note(s)- 1. Wor the November 15, 2002 Wise year the board accopwd aapackics as pan ofilic School Facilitits ['ask Force review anal 2003 Planners and School Repiesentative Technivad Advisory Cori mince Report 1hese capa6iies will retnain effecfive until changed by( 1) the School CIP or (2) an ammicd vcmkm ofthis 1"Orm that is certified by the HOCC. 2. The 20,12-2013 capacily numb us I'm Orange I Iig1r School (1,399) is bascd on a capacity analysis and I acilifies study complocd by the Dpartniant of'Public Instruction in August 2011 Justification., W 11111111111111121 Section I 19 Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2013-14) Page I of 3 School District: Chapel Hill-Can-boro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November l5, 2013 - November 14, 2014 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15, 2013 Specia�l hloteits)t 1. For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-cerfified capacities as part of the School Facilities 'task Force review and 2003 planners and School Representative Technrca Advisory Committee Report changed lay 1 ➢)the School CfPor(2) an amended version of ibis fornr that is certified by the BOCC' Justification: Capacity Certifi ion: /1 �A 1$7c -111(((-> Superint6rid'ent Date Me bershiplCertification: (o St5lierintendent Date n - I ' � CI Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2013-14) Page 2 of 3 School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SA PFO CAP$ Year. November 15, 2013 -November 14, 2014 U'apacity 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 21 Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2013-14) Page 3 of 3 Special Note(s): 1, For t1w November 15, 2002 tow year the hoot accepted the wperfivendew-cerfified capa6fies as part of the Wuiol Facilities Task Force review and 2.003 Planners and Schwl Advwry Connn Oce Karen "these capachies "ill remin effeefivc unfil changed by (1) the School CHI or (2) an amcodcAl verskm of1his lbrrvi fiat is wfified by the HOCC, Justification: L pacity ;0 Ficat! 'A VVV Supe6ritendent Date mbers T:C Writtiffli ation: Superintendent Dale' 10 Section I 22 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 23 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 CA 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 25 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 C. 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 6AJ N -'I"e,(-- /211/1t/ BOCC Chair Date BOCC Chair Date 15 Section I 27 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 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 /o 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 30 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 31 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 1 CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS Tischer Linear (OCS & CHCCS) Mathematical formula; straight tine projection �((c*b) *x) +b y--projected population; c= historical annual change; b =base year; x= projection yeas 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 t3YM= base year 2nd month membership; BYI = yearstudent membership increment increase in BYi of 5 every other year reflects (OCS) levels; reflects progressing waves of membership o o base; EYM= ensuing year membership; n= projection year; /oSL= /o of total increases in housing growth; reflects buildout membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYMISL =ensuing year constraints member by school level SYM + (BYI - 15(n)) = EYM EYM * %SL = EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10 -year average; OCP linear (Nave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school BYM= base year 2nd month membership; BYI =yearstudent membership increment decrease in BYI 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 membership per school level (i.e. elementary, middle, high); EYMISL =ensuing year reflects decreases in housing growth; reflects member by school level buildout constraints K„ =kn. € +(It,,.€ *0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n =1 advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each a =(£ G„ I g,3) 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 leve €; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level; an assumed b =g n-1 (a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G =given grade's graduate to the next level each year andlor historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average advancement rate; b= projected membership K. = k n -r + (k�1 * 0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n =1 advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each a =(i G„ 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.., (a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K= kindergarten membership; n =given school year; G =given grade's graduate to the next level each year and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten); g= previous grade's membership; a= average advancement rate; b= projected membership K„ =k,,.€ +(k,l *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 yearCohort (OCS & grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n =10 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level; an assumed b =9 n-1 (a) percentage of students in each grade [eves 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 r9 rD rDO i—i in C rz O r E C r9 O r9 n O O d r9 0 O W N 33 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 2334 L87 5C 2362 L59 3C 2367 L54 AVG 2355 L66 11/15/2013 Totals Elementary 3403 3433 Middle 1684 1747 High 2315 2421 7402 7601 +199 Model Projection is T 7526 L75 OCP 7527 L74 10C 7500 L101 5C 7532 L69 3C 7518 L83 AVG 1 17521 IL80 H means High L means Low 22 34 Section II Attachment IL13.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2013 -14) (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 35 Section II Attachment ILB.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2013 -14) (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 36 Attachment IL13.2 — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (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 37 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 38 Attachment IL13.3 — 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. 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 39 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 15628 IH87 AVG 5635 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 1 1 12925 IH64 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 40 Attachment IL13.3 — 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. 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 41 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 42 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 43 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 MA 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 Highs School from 1,000 to 1,500 students. This is similar to last year's projections. 33 45 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 OCS Student Projections El}1°I O.,II Elenenluy 5=beet Tr== 020011 2001. 40064E 300144 3.6. ROJJ-06 100041 340746 200049 30045 701041 3011.13 2012=16 2011.14 7011-10 2015.16 2016,17 711740 3016. 201940 202011 40314E 4032-21 Isy • illrE=Mgrf=girMErr=____ 9009 + ..,. ®®® ®® ®® 3 2nwal Chan• -Intr..•1r.2.0 In Paint 4 Pre'vc1.GMNmb ore 2l_ I®I!7®��7�f11Tm IMIfl�7�� 1�11•1� � 4.112 "44®�® 528% .m _100%L...M S.rvlo Pa 6070 ENIMc fMR IIN MR MR IIINIMMIR WilEiRMIIMEMIR 6394 x294 Mil MIRMR 4,604 11�����∎'� � � � a B78 .o162.70.020 an23 .tad Ova. 1h5 106%LOB `.21 M�lM�S1M�71∎lIIdlM�lM/!A 1∎11111∎u!Ell!�1∎361∎d6lle l!Ml!!331 1 ®I1�F11∎Cf1 • rk Lrar rr.lr.«a CO, '., 0..0, -a ::04 ,, iE 3, 60`,7 GS, 861 8+O°a 00:% 33-10 Annualseutlent OF.nb nab P) 491% 626% 1.00% 241% 222% 214% sirs 022% 146% ••% 1.73% 124% 080% 1.26% 2120.. 104% 6.70% 111% IT 174% 1.1814 1.17% 11.10% r` 12032641mae....2 rmm50201.re,mrc n nmcale Men debar nIre..ex Sella PPFO rem noeel Leael m.r.,ee w,ei wcolkerne,exile cr.Pwam..ax< Pte' S P 4025 tlew a:VaWlbn`ae�Xe¢caaaNn.rr..meala-..11.65N0*1B nap.dMarl m The TschlereMOtlel peowie B11,141.1mer11e0wC Npe14e04n 1fo for CHCCS end.S.OIgnYpm mo and in prim pal orolec.n moiesinwded Aevlear Ema0olnm M euwda Por CHCCS .rpw Retwb v%pWVre...vxnd.e..] .Annual gr....Eaioda..,n,emal ro..ersni2 for years 2000-01 mope 2012-13 and avenge ere e - mu0r2022-23 e) Class sass fa grades 13=123 braElBool years Rom g 0y-0e inac.ni..MF 2003 StlmM Collabmnon Work Group Iree,n,effective the 20082009 sElmalyear veeh the p g of CHCCS Elere ry 0.13rl..a¢esare 121 as d:ed.by pa M Sale legi5atxe eon. = ,I, OCS Student PrlJeetlensn3 I■l I■l Middle 21 42 2322-23 r 0.r x x a e a ,- x6,4,. 021.45 261646 2616-11 mcna 2616.72 2011,26 102631 022 701 7159 _ 1,74, 1j83 1,030 1.075 1.939 1363 1906 9.001 05] r18B II50 ILL „- . a 771, 749 1331 1,159 3, -9t -99 :( -939 O A 8.611.8 1'x39 1 1,142 1317 1105 1.024 .1953 Lan Loos 1818 .% „nu. c .(Owen...I maem.IOPagnl.arwml.,2011 21 104 40 462 3l 1461 57 Pal rM 1y Actual and P rata re2,aberwn1er1121%LOS 2.108 16x91 2709 2.160 146¢I 214511 .5x1 2103 31 215251 2,183 Pa51 2.108 1., 23 1 2161 11641 2160 12301 226'1 22021 21181 CrQ • .. e. 1662 1602 1 ,1 2416 _ 244 _ 2414 2220 ri) n _ .......1-011.40.,027401)121%LCS �1 14 2 4x4) 1 RB11 2171' '171x1 218201 1041 ,P3el�e.l 16101 24611] 6)12 (4651 34161 OWI ,E 03 1999i 1936 l J 04e40e1a.mwbp3 543% 6,01% 2.15% .1 Am 4.12% 26x% del, .220% 440% 116% 0.x0% -1.17% 212% 222% 060% 046% 9.% 623% 141% 0.2114 1.0•15 .02% 0 0 706,82104 M 0n 2818024 r0 04 02 1 51710.14231 0rc40mxe22 L.0101...BB ,I, 0 imporint to note mans rem=me rvwemaer IS 2012 one or re...ulp as mein.in py me 671.114.7.2 Pw1 ram.0...e. 4 CH3s16 and 125 r0 annual gM1mxm ram P1o,4.4 wing aro.membership for ylea rs x002.01lhlr upn 1912.19 and enersgetmen 1122 for years-1013-14 thmupe 30]3.29.aneiadetl mei nee p em Yetrml•for vll..[.5 M.p.h.,33,6 wM1mlad.nN mm V! ntoi OCS Student Projections 113 1 ,t. =n 0101 Ow Oe210.2r x 2 3 20.26 266506 21.04.1 20148 2.0.16 .-10 2010.11 20,1-12 2020-12 2013.14 2014-112 201640 204-11 2012.10 2010:70 201040 282.21 2021. 2222-22 e) 5.4145 H. I 12 1,23 224 12- .g,.- 222 1181 2211 _a. 211 s .. _6 '= 7250 3,607 2451 7,00 7,500 7547 0.45 7.014 1051 2.1 ,4- 36 V n Cr-�.nM1 _33` ',MD.3E0 23'0 211 '2 46[1 - x51'4 4643 - 2,-82 2 117 0 2,406 ,93160 42.429 42Arz x,002 11• 47 Cl.re.-In...0tar...)In AewalSP 15I..bau.mb.1.Opl 0, 16 . 116 07 n 17 a, 5 n 12 40 11 71 x0 u 4{0x1 40 2645 ea25 612 el) _7-615 2010 x615 510 53 sea .2054 .2110 2466 x436' 456 x402 402 49 7,016 x,116 x,070 ,010. 410 445 (e) won..of Soed.nn,4owna.1mi.2.d.Ovor IL.E..I 1004 LOS 1014 164 366 {5551 721) 451' �I6041 1x251 ="641 11101 (3161 2151 (1241 • 141 1121 Ref x(141 m 31 01 =116 =102 x123 I� BP.4154 over 7431..,1.%175 1616tex6 x46 1x16 z x e6 x266 x.814 251. 231. x366 ,x'e6B1 x.1 132.1 1�a1 x365 �e`e1 x 1631 3462 261 7021 n4, 0•.-�101a6 e --.a a e (r _c.•1 eg_:< erce 0.e v a n, eg_ae oa el, - 13-171 P 72 1 r 1= Annual 9B02112e011 Pam 30) / 2112% 420% 113% 241% 220% 111% 0200. 1301 .1371 022% "E2sa 4 310% 111%\ ,0e% a22% 407. 177% 421% 0.155 22e% 122% 7.20% .6464 I011023041351Ym1221.enln m ant j 20,..,,,..e6:a....„,,,en17e d,eabe4ende r,am.esa odsAPFOre m�nbdL eloF�rvre 1 Lrs irtparlentlo nosemaM,sm1(001Ile Bove 2ber 152012tlan o10.04B112 an Maed m by me 3:3,2 dequele PW1c FeolOes 041745^re 99 The TSChler Model 6a.slur the Y1.41.AN ,ofmi...for both CHCCS antlO 10ry4.ppopeomns us.tl an prim years pmledon mai.14.ded Ne Ulcer Bawl..M ethod•fer CHCCS annual greuT rare oe%uaeo using email rneennershlp for years 51100-01[neap,201213 antl average melmershl0 for pea rs 301274 throb31.UW-22 el) el 4 714.1. 0., W Wye IQ IE,Igo31712113 CHCCS Student Projections 111 gn 0 •10mee4r4 6.1121 rxr 200041 2001.12 200248 20.44 200140 200046 200647 200146 200840 2000.10 201041 201122 201228 013.14 .1420 201646 2016-17 2017.16 201529 2010. 202061 281122 2002Ga Relual 9.19 v1,9 '1551 5,9. levy .ate 9 090 5173 51*7 5719 5290 5461 5.W `\ rioEfifer. 5,693 5,792 5,492 991 6,391 6,140 13,210 C,332 5.134 C,538 OC'1'1'1'10 5,643 5,701 5,720 5,74 5,019 3,323 6396 6,160 2.220 6,363 ID TearGrov411 5 206 2,04 6 7E1 6,00 OP70 ens Shan 14 nwera2m 556612 5 6,616 516.74 515.576 Bli 506.014 5,55 624 *0160 60925 9••r Anna.01052.•Iwo.*(044.441 In 2,0..91 20,51500 Mrnb re M1101 M 141 0 14 101 198 120 7.1 71 168 70 49 64 ee 44 00 FO TO 76 76 !�.•' Cap achy-1.k LwN 6154241ca IL 061 ,or42lutasrltmx LOS 4.302 4; X7.921 4.021 4.021 4,021 reel 694 . ea 5911 a.44 5914 6222 R5 6.820 64x9 6229 5.329- 5420 3.029 6222 6,020 aeee 70 5 98 115 T85 255 391 407 = 9456.54▪ 7126%4224'01542W29,O61t4 4.017 1.417 6,167 6167 5,167 5,111 6,167 6.6 0205 52.2 64006 540. 6.120 \6,11220 5,1201 6,120 6.. 6,120 6,120 6120 6,120 6,120 Irr6 14.222 of.214512.ASaal and 201.6560,Orr 1..421145%LOS rU, 01 81 W4 On 28', 1151 0 9011 9871 MO 26 55091 IMV 13801 12531 52451 11701 12001 001 00 116 el) 9cie1•uLex.Says w,.. lug ulu 19 ex 95 av �4a v01ti o Tn 1351% 1 Iz 39 11!5 01 um 00116 5600 2:.3% 56}456 -� 329% 100155 1008% 702[°a '011% 40.+9, r'S?56 .0109, = 6m0al6lupxs Or.wN 2664159 _.---- 0.651L 1721{ 890% OW4 7924 ears rmnrr. aos gocare,cae.iamsx%s man Bomar.,•ia m. 1,,.��l�a �eurre 1.11% 120% 191% 0.64% t.p% 1.174 1,16% 1917 1.23% evermore smnintaffis,.atlieuderswe Pac�aa*:ann�n,mGd,dneu amw mWfesMeet 1 )25.112Y5+9,411man1nmssua6. � 11 fron 123 in, indicates Omen dianc[ ,p s5rnools APR]recommended level of Servos 1'173.5 204..5.7.6/66 a(q.57 ary LeRN.026o 2425411.4240 ^\ 2120,011,41 fence's lbd uwninbn 15.70,2 tlatc or memOnNio ad',Mod In by Mo Sh0001dA4m0h WE4 F Milner OOnanoe 10 221 nm intl.CHGGS 42022'111 artenanOthe 14015201501.401 N 114012.del pro,oes Porno1.1'12 mina,srphel.d2ns For Oen CmC39 ern OC9.Oinal pryeC4dnsuxd n prio rwnan project.models Included Me Inner EWnpelaton uen2'Tor CHCC9 m Incnol cm,.mm ccio,motl us,d onend mcmhschip for years 7303-21 31 rough 2312-13 and overage rnerriberobip for years 3011 i4 mrosen 2032-23 I CHCCS0Srdm.,m ...mai HBO m E 110736.Ineeenrd.nce re.2005 School cnllamratnn Work 3 p cam,Shod..the 2o11640339m 4 nom p 4 CHCCS Elms 0.103 class scesam 13133dina 4p g wa.m. 414010 tidy 200041 292142 ,1,0 2600 200243 2023.94 1530 7411 200442 00 2005. 224247-Sr 2007.32. - 34224971 .706 21]1 221142 Else 2 4 1017.4 2414.15 201216 /201417 222712 201519 261022 2020-21 202142 204249 ro Aoual,„,,,,r. '935 2+25 2 335 2 145 3 035 3 035 3 135 3105 3 35 3 205 I■. ID TU3fGm. 2333 2931 3313 3.4 3,24 3.136 3.339 3.243 3155 3 200 Z 3,e3r9onol 0 sl3 r3. 7969 30re ■• I■t - - 2202 -92,211 3204 1122.072 0.144 8.179 2.165 2225 0 m1 Annual 022242-212a40341.0.4 In 244411 2.222442.4122n5WM1161 114 BO 4 662 22 20 20 76 11 14 81 22 27 72 25 02 86 02 44 0 27 01 0 223222-1.7.Level e15 21412. 02 2.240 2240 2,40 2,04* 2,10 2,010 2040 2,840 220 2,040 2,40 2240 2240 2.840 2810 2,040 2.010 2,140 2.040 2240 2,040 2,010 LL 121322 022.122254.4961O244124%LOS Pahl 1242) 17232 12003 341 3401 13131 Oh 23 61331 11131 271 fss] 22 B4 192 104 232 299 931il 4.19 355 421 1"S 99,1 a799,105. 200 2920 3,000 2,031 0224 2425 3.239 2,220 4 032 2412 0A20 2,222 294 epee 0229 2,229 0920 2932 . • . .. ._ 1 2.. 211771 711061 ern WI i8 4 2550 2145 125 2222 Cr V CD lo.]9r Ii 64 7354 Iry w .10 11 . II. l.e Iwi? � � A�fl �A ��� �! } Y O 10203215 when 39trltt snmanau Sc1O1lsd.n0000rhucndc2 Lc4011 of 00Mu Cr ,1` m It le...MS120 ooh 100119,11.520.22 uwembv15.2012 dale or membership In 02221142 by We 50000 2623602 0u704 F522611:24002531 600.not Include[HOGS Mode..90'12'10 to Hm0pot School n odelp noes rowne1.12ar mamm-arerol.anpns FOr 2n cmCCSa.ocs.92rynei O demons uu 1 n prier yens pprol02 moans mama..me Inner Earapolamn moor Tor olCCS ^ CHCCS Student Projections 7t 009 p 'e 1000.01 n..1312.12 d p >e 23 1. ..2022.23 et = 21211 e1�.4 02.54 1,2f 220041 290142 244292 202244 maws 22004* 206047 230740 28449 2022.10 2011.12 201219 2019.14 2014.15 2412.1* 2216.17 2217.12 2013.12 2212.20 2020.21 2021.22 222244 V 2511,0 2815 2051 3168 3313 3924 3 19 3 523 3935 3510 36® 2690 3 714 E O2 3,069 3,902 4,000 1422 9,122 4,202 4.273 4.391 4.404 4.477 4.908 9,512 4,022 rCD 19▪veal...ova 1 794 9611 3 NB 9109 4 119 4 MI 4,251 d 36i 4,09 _ �� 44 41. 0 i 211 9203 9 2213 et 4 Year arm. 3 BIB 383i 3 862 3 919 9 .7 7 4163 5aaT4 Fir• Ample Chum..-Ywnu.mnnr.l In Actual a9.1.Cma RUn2w M1gs 196 108 91 74 92 60 90 P6 73 Q 56.04-1004 Lw4.r5...•. 56 0 pas apa 567. .pis prI Fla .ran a. ,nom.4124 ea.r...Ovr(Under,I MY LOS 320 7 4 349' 1 al e 2 pr 222 222 49ne..A2m21.5Pr..202 0442 L.22110%LOS 0J24.]� � 11��� ��{1 l i n 07 4101 ®� a 11041 2241 412 4 112 105 y A mat.Nat Om.Rate 561 0.26% VA 6.7.5 6.21% 2,76% RAs% 0.11% 7.21% 4.14% �trA6% 094% l 2A37. 2.21% 04% 0 A 1.16% 2.72% 2.7. 1.1171. 143% 2'09% 1,17% 167% el) intl2ateswtendi4n,ourposeee 9cnooleAPEO recommended Level ofaervae el) Is lnpo0an2 m note marnhsmarm.2ormnom152112031e or mennernnlp as.nine.In 0r Me 3M:sicnaem..AMC Fealties Ordnance it and Me,lovpnalsmool nr .The nI Ha mode pmvdeslorne2lruelneua41.61opl ]O000L t9, CR012n0 ace overage nai uolemons ndn p201Y11 through ROmodesh mded me Inner Emapoamneuemm'iv CHCL9 Brun ere rimmed more 0004 mnnoxsnlp sears ugn mnnoen p seam ugn rm..nmranf,Em424uxan1..a0 ��,t-7.H44C...ba 14421 40 I q 4 1r. 0. 0. W ,-, c., t.....) Ro v Wx IQ c.) ..-0¢n,n1,." i.... OCS Student Projections 1'11`1 0 Elementary 3rhe.I V.. 207 oan z 201548 200147 1019.11 9017.13 2313.11 2019.15 201548 2016.17 M17.13 1074 3 .3 x923.11 iisader'. 3.493 3 553 3-914 .74 3 acre Sew 2 30 2 343 sole awe 3037 stt 3116 a 1 azL 3323 30 a 13 3 37.. 8911 .14 3175 GC m �®©��� 3 no ass 1 em asls UM =® MMEIMIMEMMIMM EE 31301 3 937 a 0 37. 7115 MZEI=1=2:1:=MTIMMILTMI 9 Bag 3 7. ]ln 3712 3350 02.87072716 fl®®fl 3,579 5.615 101 ]8626 5?25 9.782 84 3,212 en..Inn.as.loxr.asst lnkwsic ProWtsd MSmbrsM1lol 4.M 346 0.Y 3,d ~070 WIMISMITIMMISEISMINIMMEIMMEIMISMENElan .t71 1.1umhe,6-1.Students,AY..nee a.n under 13.LLL J:!@g® � LII®l�I1E111.11.1n El11IT.'AF 11!Fd71 1/2 1211 26 23 10 118 177 x14 el) 10511 L..et liervic9 311 (mini nIM PC0I®�09ffli1.r1 21 '1m©m !IMI M�.Gfl©17 1m f a em an 72 ,� .des Olen On.1M%LDe 33 :11�∎1�!m1M� 1�m1∎ 1 1!122∎�1�� 1 .05 1122 1291 12511 VIM 11631 30121 a 1131 MI 70 1..' 3036 752% 5.ex .7811 79.03, 131, 73546 30555 15.7% 55 9, 669, 93.60 971, 92 m6 n4.1 ICI Ann.343.1 3371 m s 1,3x. vl% .LS* 122% Ot% 3,$3%8 I.31% 733% Lift 1.13. 3.761 1.14% 6M% v3% 1sa 1.m% 1.28. 1m 1.17% ll 319183*wne n 94. 0711676 93325492514 Iscmm04 tl Lrr d 062. - ainbylhe31AmsGnngunle 1,811c Fetllln95...e 3 .......L1(.3. > r ble ol 9.9.14.4.51..7 twe •,'The ns.Nnn 444,11rwxs.11,,"Ungar of 312117121 b 3337111435.19016 Ceginal orI 411 vs.In pncrxrra711113b mod.!III VI m71'nw16.4223111 YHIOP`b GHLCS. B°r'"1°pwliyLdwmnrsna322434.] usI prarm ruder.1.usurp ea. 2110nmdenns lumen 200031 13710.1201,14 and evere.3 711041s years 2011-35%15610262124 ••"'Cross...6....a22b....DM2.00201743.6axwanr.Mm 2005&nonCoe...W.Grwotlngm,ff..Ms 31.201...mar Inn Ms dpsnno d 3HCC6 Cher..410,1:9 doss sins err 1:21 so Ire.Mw%9es13.1 r✓s.1as O OCS Student Projections'' 1"1 1= Middle _ F= n.im Li Year 2 1504 1527 1631 2 1611 0 1595 1590 Ism 1657 20911.111 1.1 1935 2016-11 130 21111.11 102:13 2919.1.1 tm4 1.4 1747 1,7]65 x1,603 I'6H2 mE69x 1.900 x1,9310 21,9611 20.62 1942 2.029 2059 2021.24 (fQ Au.CCU 1.117 1,621 1.606 1917 1,57 1.820 1,085 2009 2.023 2049 ^\ .3u 1 1-09 944,12.12 I 799 1 933 m 1.16 171.805 10x114 '7311.902 Ia640.1 +01$31 .4 15.'7 I91.MT 1,212 r 81,6.642 fens-Inr11.95117w99.l In MUM•Prop.EMwn3sn903 E 132 d0 Ile 17 110 ST la, 44 38 3 rml 92 22 11 12 90 74 17 R II 20 ffi loyal rvce� 45.Yn• 102%LOTS !93 ,. ,� 1.233 1437 �M 1M x,163 ;133 ;1M 1m x,1m ;173 ;lee ,lee 137 x,161 ;133 ;lee 136 11aa ;lee era s anfunaeH lmu LOS 175 1309 qi 111 f5m lr ,15371 1565 1577 rf c2 ,14371 N19 15761 r$314. 3134]1 x!90.1 13371 13751 1211V x!1991 11191 !1511 107%3.61 ee 01 4.. a 1. LOU 1232 1.607 1,639 2:113 2,313 2,113 221L 1313 2,113 2]11 2,113 7,.111 2.317 313 2313 2,113 4.213 2313 313 2313 4.311 MP 102 21 73.11 . MI n 31 520 514 BSI ITI CrA 5251 1512` 214011 14561 1734] 13671 13661 211117 12211 1121` 1661 ¢curl•%Leal 56754. 102696 1,14.4 111.)% 1130, 10871 106596 729'4 +,]5.54 13.914 1696 712% 14.153 7715 60.1% 1 1 rs=/..,� Annual eudenl F..nn well4 11% e%1% 265% 4331% ad. ..3.% 3,31% -2x56 427% 1.31% Las% .11x% x7456 10% LY% 1.0x. x.22% 2.3% 0.w% 7.12% 0.11% 1.03% 1.11% hre eames when 02111rs312YSe3...Ara recanmenoed Levy or 5s3la .6. "r Is.,-tent to ncle[harms,mots the November-19,Ml in bylne SOtms Alm,le Nhlln F.15.5...e®. 'The Teerrer Badel...les lsr.-129.Y pe%dmv.ban C11a53710 WS.diginel prejesums us.In playpen pgemm morels In...the user sere...Mann ar 42223. •i ..icemen223001mn.20.14 and wem.sun..1s years 2014-15 sr..dl2}3J 6nYrymr iga.h Ylmm.m sm•minulaaL I 1"5 OCS Student Projections 1'I and 0 tr. High rD eu a 0 0 oA 1. x m mfus xmsn3 37.377 mn.1e m1s1a z01 B.xo xnmsl mN.n mxzm mz1.N . 1373 153 038 ma 1737 }.61 �33lN X731&x�.m3301 m .mxNx m 103 17 os1 Z�xY n S.N3 xm na 3315 6.611 1� 2.163 2,506 2546 2.1 206 2.678 2,715 2.780 2609 2A45 "e 2.20 ispornin 2.431 2159 2,463 2334 2,576 2.612 2,652 2665 2.712 2160 3:0 pr.rr r. F+-r 10:37 ® R9� ]a1RA11�2242 2.540 2.531 R51� 2.592 2640 2.2642 32.019 872742 2.7a-1 2192 >m L rex 64iY.nal lnuwYS FrmetteaMmnennlol n 3,518 10�JTI(] 2513 541 5. 3.550 ;5583 3351 see 2091 x,419 23 23 59 2,459 3432 459 939 2,459 1�5 61 32 06 x 1,455 ;239 ;J M .merel6gidanl..Aa3N and Prowasd,Ow.tOnOSr110%LCW 136 315.' I6 14311 ,3941 .11 '..1371 19!61 16, 13$31 [2151 Ilf.l 58] 0131 29 0 95 161 20 339 369 128 w c Be.. L eo....�lYnerr1110%LOa ®�MS ® M\ M®M 2m 14' 21 41 J sn 34 Lr:A neria� Ip..!r o< ., n!&rv14 +0]916 10]914 1 0.69E ■39]% '09.5 1,221 11259E = '7737 r..4.n �' xonst 6..3 one.sem 11∎�11.'A© L7�∎IMI1�':I∎M'I 7®I S11∎1=11�:7 _ • 0.39% 1,62% 1.]B% 23B% 0.96% c,,-mn•Tn--.,-s1^rnrrnis,ri `� -,� �o-..,on .1x40.141981194.Fed.9055120191414247.2x5Ua5n1 el 2%147 im.+6,r..nn x4.90.wa3aYrnnar4 1_ 1e4.wY+.mM.r.e.. ........� �I „C . e.n„r 5ai150„,7220 0e010.0.61.90 l 4,031211 ne leell 250...e. 2.The Tr..Ms.ormeces.03•21.33...of 5olmlons..CHCCB.CGS owl In 0...o yes..31Ml i.3.31rM1S'l U.Er4s2..131.6.kr CH339. 1-y .,2.41 Rm.ntt co...us.Bawl ndshrs6io.wars 200.01 tl.aM 201}14 and cese63...0 hovers 201416.363..23 S r• the TiaTlermoel 2737 N 2786 NMmrvrntl min,but&lo soave:.msfisnas 3792 10ysemd 1134m1 date en.8tlai in MS ebmletles r3 CL /1 v � x W `�`� -P. co FEalaEO.1.1114 r CHCCS Student Protections 1'1 wl 0 Elementary Tis[Iller', 5,691 5441 Ten 20110 4444 a4,4 7551 231644 4692 4595 2672 20.47 4Ma 5,13 5692 52,9 f 5226 911122 5469 559, 0601 YON+�e mHFf 448 Yoll+s 44�i 221229 Y®et ffita ease me¢1 `3.1 irl 3.3 5301 11.2. 3433 OCPlzmno 13055 5]32 5009 5,009 5959 13,933 8,133 9,333 9.302 1349} `\\ 722 WW1 5 021 5 121 5.3 6.271 12012 2193 21,2125 12.2127 1,230 E 263 r� 267201 uh 6.m 6749 6212 5.973 0.221 CM 0244 4110 6141 1.222 6026 In ...^Iw%L.rw,ef9mna.IL�91 Aawuevrnl.atwMmewminl 4.391 4121 ® 6.828 R' 0.6x9 S.Bx1 Sax9 5.0x2 1.828 59x9 6.812 6922 S.Bx9 6.821 I~�I �we16 a A s.rM.0.26171 OVr 11140271 100%LOS ae -r: - LL41 _ _ L. 72,.:4021 \ 1194). eI1aZ etlMl 119]3 e144n e1lfll 410 6,122 121 5120 Yf 3.231 212 ='• mKM navel%L9+r,Sr r. neP =333, 1040% 1059% 953% 954% 99 t% 1012% 105.1% 101.1% 995 101.0% 12•,2•4 105sµ 953% 36 P: \ Bo 6» 102 211, of PA of 2,4 L,=^: ..e% ox P'. Lo_^: 1 AnT : : ::.6103.49 FWf32 0.28% 1.71% 0.10% OM% 322% 222% 886% 2.121 ,• 1.124 2.11•4 � nauduar 142% \2211 1ten 11212 11.01% 11.16% 920% 123% 131% 11.35% ll o1117.1aSanT r 15,2012 mm m IT In dyne 96.1..Wamhm2m92 Ordnance.•, 22X003 awpena 32232 m Xdnal sal ml e vm11UO ms for he-Hem a Jp.Isti.N r nn onsa a0 nm 663016I*e 6.23-t.San Mn 20CH� ,la a mH.3=1311 14 y ]OBmmue]m98.n®rmm wn]40¢590 262222 % p m ,e eem,2 46 .x9s ym.40H Q 9 tt5Ele Y O,443 class 221124 l]l 7451egpe 51st 2 re aon /% ."' CHCCS Student Projections 1'I 1= Blida le ear 130041 100142 NM. 2002. 123442 2006.03 a m 203.2 201922 20.16 10m-16 26,6402 .15 17 mnns .12-21 291622 101324 26112x 2222 13 xpxev I■ 2326 25.9 2 99e 2131z 2939 2572 2W2 2 ez2 leer 2 701 zlzx 2r53 2re5 206 2,229 2R2e 3006 , ^, I■1 ,r.•'r,;•• 5943 :955 5954 :.971 3701 3.'31 V. 3. 4 3x37 3311 ^\ Awra2. 2220 3,012 2902 3.129 3.083 3.131 A. 3281 3.210 3312 1 Am.airy.-Hair..IO.ars.2 In 9~1..63 15.329 ��� 20 75 11 n ex . 12 m ee 71 MI er az a 1D w .,aaiL.Aut.and n. 22422 30 2d 114 2,340 29191 224 918 66 924 244 211 �4 350 B. ▪ eve of s.afh Aetu2 aea pre [N OSw ntl 100%LOS 2]11 216 143 lax MO 640 9■ l 2 16 266 1111 2144 2216 2314 2200 2920 see MITEIMOITI MEM MtrEI MMIM72!IMMMEMM5 lMCI 2112 .144 sad I. •.. 22122 Cr 2022▪ ef E a2.P and Pre 2'ar Id 107%45 1,9ml � �71 '.�51 '.ri71m1�11L•31�.:b1A 40--1 - I 1026» "'4 40840 2*12 1340 Hal m 122 ,1s 102 0 e9su, 9 3% 23oµ 901% e135µ 91aµ ]3% 9513% 4% 95eµ •5•40 9e a 35.4% • 1100» 1918'5 IM 9"13 199 4^q 1713% ILO 9% - t 1 Q 24002204€6.7101.wm Pm RI 296% 2286 225% -222% 2p% 212% 1.18% 560% 241% 0.62% 1.11% 1.102 2.82% 228% 35% 2003. 112% 2.1216 2.32% 126% 2.11% 1.22% 1.295i1 WM.. wo»mxoeu Cr ntllelcs wlcn a5* 175asscs Shos PP0cor!ctlo Lre WSarrer at in grte 5rhm1s...J.5,11 1.iltes.422 e.I Wu .1 CLF .The TI�mwN Oeae ela.for Os lnur Mande 6771224090 .for 679 CHCCS a 3a CS.w 6n al pre rzhls wed 344231>11m ecdon mud es®GUaetl the L.r Exam 222240 MM a'lor CHOCS 32...9 aaeaI nelne v years w Ea rderme p years yl CHCCS Student Projections'' = K HI:h ys MIMIMiriMilrE=MISM=0Miln7==irriMMTAMMIUMMilri= 2 . IS MiTr==i1rMiCEMMTEMMEr========:FIMMICEMMEEME rc, 77■Irl7li Mi!l.SA!ITI!Irri! llMTI =51!1 0 Anneal 01..5-Inc nun nInn I11<6216Pr..a1e6M.11n«141. ∎ ∎:1∎71 1∎71!1 !7!!11�61711 ",∎7S!®111■111■TI31■Ell■E717=i71 0 1426.or3..«,.aL.lnata.Flo4 r.a air 1.52 12013402 ■41!1619I®■ell■ri!III■fffll Efl1NEENT1■ril1 1EC11I11El111811111111∎11711!1■511■!1■111®®®■PITI un .f T-1!In■!inl ff=1■711■!I!1MT/1 7!IME"11!'171!7!"1 7IMMIPM 1fTIMMM■Rrll 'IlM!1!i!1WIITIMMI ••• . e222ple . .6- na 1f%Le � I � ?flF11�G 71Pn .1 11 3'111AM61�l 051�EF11114161 l 1�1�71��1141� M . hacme wan a'rspicta.azses Schools APFOraeommn022 544 of Stoke a,�.a inky-he ml. FP'r+ m The T crier M9tle1 pmvas for die'Um ur IMhaC N 2762.5 far hods CHCCS a.00e.Onpnal prtlmddz used'•,prior years...Anmda els Ianclund the'Linear EArspaadon Mem a'forC1ICe5 JL' Mn p .te ralul.du p Imemarzhip ye 271991th up 14-13222... p ,rte p ye 201314m,w�702246 C� the Trader model 1190114 years dinhistairat a W.hm den sae rmm.'l.a ely 10 yeers of 510 zl dela ant...24 mare tahkz. Ir.seed rd..a nu am wmemam1.. re m,uu.amwWnnne.nen.e,r I 4 .� al rsl 22., i., (.0 o R° - /.' x CO I ►15 Ira t11 = 50 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 C o S, o o C C O C N t4 !r O Q W Z CD 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 fD N C o = O (� o � � K O 'o = C � O N � o :s 4 cn � N 53 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 TisherBise 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. This topic had also been discussed in previous years. The SAPFOTAC recommended further evaluation of the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts the number of bedrooms a particular housing type may have on student generation rates. As a result, Orange County entered into a contract with TischlerBise to update the student generation rate analysis. 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 because no units were constructed during the study period. As a result, the pre- existing student 42 Section II 54 generation rate (0.268) from the 2007 TischlerBise School Impact Fee Report will be utilized. 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' 56 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 57 Section III School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 1 - Capital Investment Planning (CIP) CIP Projection Method Approval (Historical Membership (Proposed New Construction plus Hypothetical Growth Rate i.e. School Capacity Added by number seats & ear) T Actual Adjustments (Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year Membership Projection) CAPS System2 (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) 'Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1) pre- existing/approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2) existing housing stock with new families /children, and (3) newly approved housing development (in the future this component will be known as CAPS approved development) 2The only part of the CAPS System (i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking) that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual membership (November 15 of preceding CIP year) and new school capacity amount (seats) in a specific year pursuant to the CIP. 46 W 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 59 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 .• K11 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 Housing' CAPS System AC2 =SC2 - (ADM2 +ND12 +ND22 +...) AC >_0 - Issue CAPS AC<O - 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. 'AC - Available Capacity - Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system. SC- Certified School Level Capacity ADM - Average Daily Membership ND - New Development; NDl means first approved CAPS approved development 50 'Attachment 2 CHCCS Student Projections(1)(4) 2""2 2'" TooLer, 5,.5 5.0 5,7. 5,679 5,9. 6,0, 6,132 6,217 6,301 6,386 so, sLoo so, oolo o o o o 000s yos:,:o„h .000 s.00s ,202 s,so voo 6.0, 3,arero, 5,573 5,, 5,603 5.9 5,632 5.9 5,7. 5,803 5.1 5, Avenge 5, 5, 5 730 5 7. 53139 5.911 5.931 6.051 6 113 6 165 /2, /02 Capacity-100%1,1.331336.403/ 4,.2 4,302 4,921 4,921 4,921 4,921 4,921 uother of 3....,.3313.1.3.1.3.,116,100%LOS 172 249 12291 12261 1421 2. . 1251 . 220 .9 12751 12881 12231 II. 1.1 .41 10 . 1. .2 .9 156 Capac.-16.1,1.6.3,406, 4,517 4,517 5, 5,167 5,167 5, 5,167 5,506 5,506 5606 5,506 5,5. 6,1. 6,120 6,120 6,1. 6,1. 6,1. 6,1. 6,120 6,1. 6,1. 6,1. 6,1. Loother„_ and P..1.3.,116,105%LOS 104,30%1 ,e1,75,51 44742%1 ,1,21313,1 101,12%71 10,6% 10,1: ,1,20715, 017% 1.1245,2, lee 75, 45.,5,1 4,71915141 145. 13901 132. 12132 61. .01 121 . 41.1.1.11.1.13111113.13/ 0, 1.7. 3.10% OM% 3.92% 26712 ssax -1,1% MS% 3.17% 1.45% 010% 0 2. 1.18% 099% 1.21% cox 0.76% 123% 1.113 1.16% 1.11% 1.10% =2=1 'MT"tlr'5C94Icp4,!r1591'.7I'51VI'73r41=73V10'91rn.5 I .995.55555555,59.5555.4 5.5.95.4.55.555555.055.545 5.59.94555.5■5.5555.5.995,3555.5.555595.5550 Imports:1,1.,1%20.00.0.0.4 41.1 011.0.00n Elass.V1'1".V.E.'11.11.01°E.°11..A1.0.0000%..,.. ; 6.E.E.0.0 0.0.0 40 Ex cm. 0 4%. CHCCS Student Projections(1) Middle Sc.,(ear 2001-02 200.03 2003.04 200.5 .0.7 2.7. ... 2..10 2010-11 3011-13 3013-13 3013-14 301.5 3015-16 3016-17 .17-13 .1.9 .19. 2..1 2.1-72 2.3-14 2.4-35 .3.31 2 540 2.3 2 612 2.0 2 572 2.2 2 622 2.7 2 700 2 722 2 7. 2 785 2.3 2-1 2,.5 2,9, 2,992 3,035 3,079 3,123 3, 3.0 3,253 3,297 2,.6 2,.2 3,003 3,069 3,135 3, 3,255 3,323 3,. 2910 2952 2. 30. 3 OW 3132 31. 31. 3170 3202 53,3, 2,866 2.0 2,929 2,918 a,00l a,o. s,ons a,o44 'vesr.m. 2,374 2,ssa 2,914 2 948 2 978 2,97E 2,973 2,949 2,978 a oos 214 1.1 3 33 37 Ca"." 3,310 2.0 2,944 3,344 3,344 3,344 3,344 3,344 3,344 2,344 3,344 3,344 2,944 2321,64 I.LOS 161/ 1.1 1161 . . 11. 1.a 174 I" 22a 2. 107%Leveld Service X SOAP!Of SbILLOLS,A.SOISSLIPIrnaO OSLO,SOLLO10,LOS ,LSS, KO, LOS, LOS, ,LSO LLO, LOO PLO 13311 13171 1.61 12, 11811 IN% 12550 I222, 116, 11411 .21 .31 .21 1231 17 . .3% .5% 100, 1.2% In sx 1049% 10E 9% 1062% 1076% 109, AmulS...nt Growth 33.1/1 920% .33% 0.15% -1.44 0.47% 0.73% 1.16% 1.31. .1% 0.53% 1.14% 1.16% 3.62% 0.10% 1.13% 1.15% 1, 1516% 1.63% O., 02. 02915 129% 129% 7.7.C1.74I.1'7.1'I .59.5.5555-455.5.595.5.5999555555.55,555.555555.055.545.59599.555.5■3545555.553995,3555555.5555.5.- CHCCS Student Projections(1) High .3.31 2 9. 3 162 3 330 3 422 3 5. 3 520 3 635 3.0 3.6 3.0 3 7. 3 7. 3 7. 3 730 r..er 37. 3.4 3. 3957 40% 4 071 4128 4 185 4 242 4 299 ao% 0.0 900 00. 4 0. .26 4.4 4 273 4 33, 10 V.... 3 7. 3772 3 862 3 977 4 O. 4 O. 4 1. 4.1 4 2. 4 325 Ayer, 3,742 3, 3,8.5.3 3,920 3, 4,015 4,033 4,113 4467 4.200 Capacity-IOWA Level ofSernce 3,07154 3,15' a ass' 3 8'725 3 8'745 3;5 3,87565 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,87'5 3,87'5 3,875 3,137, 232633.1 and Prolect,0,2.,I.LOS 4 21, 4 2219 411: 4„,, 4 1171 4 11.71 4 45. 4 104. 4 1.. 4 133. 4 2333. 427 4334. 110%Lenti or Service "u".'r'S'• A'"a"dP".'-• • "°%L" 37: RM172151EllIMINEIIEMEMIE,1 14. 1,41 13, 120% 12401 12.1 11241 1951 Annual 1.9.73.413 33.1/1 526% 6.723 531% 2.76% 3.69% 0.17% 327% \_0.1. 43.663 0, 323% 321% _0, _0, 0, 121% I., I., 123% 0.39% 1.19% 0.70% 1301% I 771:X-F1*_^-tnr7.1 OCS Student Projections(1)(4) Ele Mental], School Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005. 2006-07 2007-08 200.09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 261.17 2017 18 2018 19 201020 2020-21 2021 22 2022 23 2023 20 2020 25 Actual 2893 2 901 2 9. 3 016 3 006 3072 3158 3165 32, 3285 3348 3403 3433 ., Tisctiler(2.) 33. 3359 3409 3460 3510 3560 3 610 3 660 3710 3761 DC Planning 33. 3358. 33. 3457 3515 3573 3 647 3723 37. 3875 10 Year Growth 3279 3239 3. 3101 3 068 3 O. 3129 3160 3192 3224 5 Year Growth 3268 3 223 3130 3 085 3 052 3 082 3,3 3 1. 3 175 3207 3 Year Growth 3 251 3 191 3 084 3 027 2 990 3 020 3 050 3 081 3 112 3 143 Averaqe 3, .74 3.34 3,6 3,227 3, 3,310 3,354 3,398 3,442 Ann ual Change increa.10ecrease1m AMual 8 Project.Members1.1 11051 8 . 71 1101 66 86 7 74 63 55 30 11741 zs 1,,1 1. 101 1 40 . 44 44 44 Capacity 100%Level of Sen. 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,920 3,920 3,920 3,694 3,690 3,690 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,690 3,694 3,694 3,690 3,694 3,690 3,694 X um..Stud.tv Actual a.Projected,Over pindep100%LOS 19271 19191 18751 18041 19141 18481 17621 15291 1 1 14091 13.1 12911 12611 14351 14091 14201 14601 14681 14671 14271 13841 13401 12961 12521 I.%Level of Service 4,11 4,11 4,11 4,11 4,116 4,116 4,116 3,79 . 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 3,79 Humber of Stud.ts,Actual and Projected,Over Ill nder1105%LOS 1181 11,1101 11,0601 19951 11,1101 11,0441 19581 17141 0- 15941 15311 14701 14.1 16201 5941 16.1 16.1 16531 16521 16121 15691 15251 14811 14371 Actual-9,Level of Service '75 796 75 996 77 196 79 096 76 796 78 a. eo 696 85 796 es• ee s16 so 696 .196 s2s16 ee 296W 1 88 996 88 696 87 696 87 39, 87 496 88 496 89 696 90 896 92096 93296 Annual Student Growth Rat.. ..01% 028% 1_52% 2.41% _0.3" \2.211% 2.80% 02" 1.45% \72.3_41% 1.92% I.% 0.88% .5.07% OM% _0.3" _122% _026% 0.03% 1.23. 1.3314 1.32% 1.3114 1.30. indicates when district surpasses Schools APR.)recommended Level of Service mn.p,...1 orzoo..m..,n,a orn..k...e..1k.v.,,zoos sonar..,or OCS Student Projections(1) Middle School ar.r 2001-02 2002-03 2003. 2004 05 2005-06 2006-07 2007. 2008-09 2009 10 2010 11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 201.19 2019 20 2020 21 20.21-. 2022-23 2023-20 2020-25 Actual 1 527 1 631 1 671 1 593 1 590 1 580 1 637 1 601 1 6. 1 6. 17. 1 680 1747 1 762 770.t_r 2) 1 789 1 815 1 843 1 870 1 8. 1 925 1 952 1 979 2006 2033 DC Frirling 1 791 1 829 1 867 1 891 1 915 1 938 1 961 1 984 2006 2.8 10Year Growth 1730 1714 1767 1852 1861 17. 1 6. 1. 1 647 1 660 5Year Growth 1 7. 1 687 1 721 1 793 1 797 1 686 1 624 1 573 1 588 1 604 3 Year Growth 1 721 1 683 1 713 1 781 1 773 1 6. 1 574 1 520 1 535 1 5. Average 1,751 1,746 1,782 1,837 1,848 1,789 1,7. 1,737 1,757 1, Ann ual Change Incraese(Decrease/in Actual&Projected Ma.arshipl, 23 I. 40 t781 (31 (101 57 1351 64 33 6 12. 63 15 1111 151 36 . 11 1591 1301 1221 19 19 Capacrty 100%Level of Servi. 1,465 1,465 1,465 1,465 1,465 2,166 llli 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 Humber of Student.Actual a.Projected,Over.nder1100%LOS 51 155 2. 127 124 15851 15291 15051 15011 14081 1.21 1.21 .191 14041 1.51 14.1 13. 13.1 13181 1, 14.1 14.1 14.1 13. 107%Level of Service 1,569 1,569 1,569 1,569 1,569 2,318 .18 .18 .18 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 .18 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 .18 2,318 .18 .18 Humber of Stud.ts,Waal and Projected,Over 111nder1107%LOS 1421 62 102 24 21 17381 16811 17171 16531 16201 16141 16341 15711 15551 1.71 1.1 15.1 14.1 1.91 1.1 15./ 1.1 196. 19421 Actual-.Level of Service 104 29, 1,39, 114 09, 108 79, 108 59, 729. 75 69, 73 996 76 TA 78 4. 78 79, 77 79, 80 796 81 396 80 89, 80 69, 823. 84 89, 85 39, 826. 81 29, 80 296 81 196 82096 Annual Stud..7.11 Pa t e 131 15314 .1% 2.4.5% -4.6" -0.1919 -0..9 .61% -2_20% .4114 1.98% 035% -1.1^ 3.7. OM% -11..19 -02719 2.0819 3.10% 0.6019 -321% -1.70% -12314 1.11% LI. indicates when cl..supasses Schools APPO r.omrren.9 Level of Sery ice OCS Student Projections(1) High Sc11.1Y.r 2001 02 2002 03 2003. 2004 05 2005. 2006_07 2007. 2008_09 2009 10 2010_11 2011_12 2012_13 2013_14 2014 15 2015_16 201.17 2017_18 2018 19 2019 20 2020 21 2021_22 2022_23 2023 24 2024 25 Actual 1 753 1 828 1 887 2 057 2124 2184 2201 22. 2217 2222 22. 2315 2421 2.2 Toctiler 2) 2. 2579 2 618 2 656 2 6% 2733 2772 2810 2849 2887 17.C .r21219 2545 25. 2 647 2700 2750 2807 2844 2881 2 918 2 950 10 Year Growth 5 Year Growth 2488 2509 2 536 2442 2460 2491 2490 2 547 2470 2 363 3 Year Growth 2 5. 2 569 2 625 2 534 2 548 2 573 2 567 2 612 2 517 2 389 Averane Ann ual Change Increase thecrease/in P.a16.Prole..Members!. 81 75 59 170 67 60 17 41 1251 5 61 32 81 8 30 41 130 32 . 17 48 1351 1541 Capacity 100%Level of Sen. 1,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,533 2,533 2,5.ri 2,558 2,558 2,558 2039 2039 2039 2039 2039 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2039 2039 11 um.of Students,Waal and Projected,Over Ill nder1100%LOS 235 ,690/ 031/ ,461, ON/ ,349, 032/ 016/ 041/ (33S, .,275/ .,124, 63 71 101 102 108 100 183 200 208 213 160 110%Level of Sera. Number of Students,Waal and Projected,Over Ill nder1110%LOS 83 19421 ,222, 171. 16451 16021 15.1 15721 15971 15921 15311 13681 1, 11811 1,n1 1.1 1.1 0.1 OW lo,1 . 4 1311 100 Actual-.Level of Service ,5 596 726. 74 996 81 79, 84496 86 296 86 996 87 696 86 796 86 996 89 296 94 996 99 3. 102 696 102 996 104296 105 896 104496 105 896 107 596 108 29, ,0 296 108 796 106 596 .nual Student Grm.Rate131 .414 4.28114 3... .1% 326% 2.82% \0.7814 1,8.1 -1.1" .23% 275% IA. 4.58114 3.35% 0.3" 1.21% 1.0014 -13. 1.2. 1..9 0.60% 1.81% -1.29% -2.0214 i indicates..distnet surPasses Schools A,F.recommended Level,Sery ice Oange Fig h..paoty deveased.p.....