Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-17-2016 - 5-f - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Approval and Certification of 2016 Report 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 17, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. 5-f SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance —Approval and Certification of 2016 Report DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comments from Chapel Hill-Carrboro Ashley Moncado, 919-245-2589 City Schools (CHCCS) Craig Benedict, 919-245-2592 2. Comments from Orange County Schools (OCS) 3. Planning Staff's Response to OCS Comments 4. Town of Carrboro Resolution 5. Comments from Town of Chapel Hill 6. 2016 SAPFOTAC Annual Report 7. 11x17 Copies of Student Projection Charts PURPOSE: To approve and certify the 2016 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report. BACKGROUND: At the December 7, 2015 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Board approved the November 13, 2015 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 1, 2016 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2016 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 2, 2016 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and inviting comments. Comments were requested for submission by April 4, 2016. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) administration presented the draft 2016 SAPFOTAC report to the CHCCS Board of Education at its March 17, 2016 meeting. The Board did not recommend any changes to the report. Attachment 1 contains a memorandum from CHCCS administration summarizing the discussion which includes comments regarding the slower growth rate, future renovation plans, existing school sites, and communication efforts with town officials. 2 Orange County Schools (OCS) administration presented the draft report to the OCS Board of Education on February 18, 2016. The Board did not recommend any changes to the report. Attachment 2 contains comments received from OCS administration regarding student generation rates, live birth rates, the Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) system, and levels of service. Planning staff's response to these comments can be found in Attachment 3. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen received the draft SAPFOTAC Report at its April 19, 2016 meeting and passed the Resolution contained in Attachment 4. The Chapel Hill Town Council received the draft SAPFOTAC Report at its April 11, 2016 Town Council meeting. Attachment 5 contains an e-mail from the Chapel Hill Planning Department summarizing the discussion and comments. The Town of Hillsborough received the draft report at its May 9, 2016 Town Board meeting. Currently, SAPFO 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, a new trend is emerging to renovate and expand existing facilities to address school capacity needs in a more feasible way. This process will pose some challenges to SAPFO compared to the existing process which indicates in advance when a completely new school is needed In addition, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee has expressed concerns regarding the CAPS process and school capacity issues at the master planned development phase of large residential projects. SAPFOTAC members note that, in the next year, the committee can research and evaluate these trends and unique situations that have occurred over prior years and offer some suggestions on how SAPFO can be better tailored to this upcoming period of school capacity redevelopment/expansion and approved master planned development phasing following CAPS approvals. The exact pages of the 2016 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. Page in Element SAPFOTAC Certification to be made by BOCC Report Building Capacity Building capacity and current year with CIP changes 11 through 16 membership for OCS and CHCCS were approved at the December 7, 2015 (Change from previous year) meeting. Student Membership Projection Methodology 19 Certification that the average of 5 models will be used, as noted in #3 on page 19 (No change from previous year) Student Membership Projections • Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row 37 and 38 that notes average only) (p. 37) • Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (Change from previous year) (row that notes average only) (p. 38) Student Membership Growth Rate 39 • Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools 3 • Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, Middle, (Change from previous year) and High Schools Student/Housing Generation Rate • Orange County Elementary, Middle, and 42 High Schools • Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, Middle, (No change from previous year) and High Schools FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current 10-year student growth projections show no future needs for additional schools in the CHCCS District and OCS District. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this agenda item: • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve the 2016 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the summary table above. Attachment 1 CHAPEL HILL- 4 ARRBORO d'k CITY SCHOOLS Date: April 4, 2016 To: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director From: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Re: SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments On March 17, 2016, administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC annual report to the Board at the regular Board of Education meeting. As requested, Board members shared their thoughts and feedback with respect to the draft report. A summary of that feedback is contained below. • Due to slower growth, the new projections show no new school needs at all levels within the 10-year planning period. However,projects at each level are just outside the 10-year window and we should be mindful that the district is currently operating close to capacity at all levels. • The Board has approved and requested County financial support for a comprehensive solution to our older facilities' significant needs. Recommendations across all of the older schools include increased capacity as part of the needed renovations. If the recommendations are funded and completed, the need for Elementary#12 and the High School expansion could be delayed significantly; well beyond our 10 year planning window. This would also delay the significant operational expenses with opening new schools and help preserve the few remaining school sites. The potential bond referendum would be the first phase to address our older facilities. The Board requests access to planned new school funds that were included in the County's prior year CIP to address phase two projects. An overview of all of our projects is available at the following link: March 2016 Facility Recommendations • There are very few potential new school sites remaining in our district. The Board reiterated our desire to maintain our options of potential new school sites, including potential new school sites at Carolina North, the Green Tract, and property adjacent to Morris Grove Elementary School. • The Board wishes to maintain close communications with the Town officials regarding development applications and approvals. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks to you and Ashley for leading this process. CC: D. Andrews, R. Stancil Attachment 2 • • .ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS 5 • � FIRST CHOICE FOR FAMILIES zoo E.King St 1 Hillsborough,NC 272781 www.orangecountyfirst.com Patrick Abele 919.732.8126 Telephone Chief Operations Officer 919.732.2696 Fax February 9, 2016 Ashley E. Moncado, AICP Planner II - Special Projects Planning and Inspections Department 131 West Margaret Lane PO Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Ms. Moncado: The Orange County Schools appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the 2016 Draft SAPFOTAC Annual Report. The Orange County Board of Education received the draft report as information on Monday, February 8, 2016. The Orange County Schools would like review of the following comments: 1) Student Generation Rates(SGR)for Orange County Schools. The district would like continual review of the SGR compared to Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools. 2) Live Birth Rates. Information contained in the 2011 North Carolina live birth rates for Orange County residents indicates an increased number of births for 2011 which will equate to a larger incoming Kindergarten class in 2016/2017. The increase in live births for 2011 is approximately 7% over the previous year. The SAPFOTAC report utilizes a 1% increase for Kindergarten projections. 3) Inclusion of CAPS for the City of Mebane and the Town of Hillsborough. The Orange County Schools requests a CAPS process for the above jurisdictions in order to better plan capacity in schools from new growth and development in these areas. 4)CAPS Phasing with SGR. The Orange County Schools requests that the Orange County Planning Department monitor CAPS phasing for new development in order to know the exact year projected students may be enrolled as new development approved on the CAPS report is completed. 5) Levels of Service(LOS). The Orange County Schools believes there is a significant safety concern anytime a school is operating at or above 100% of the capacity for the building. The district requests review of the current LOS levels and modification of the LOS to a lower number especially for the high schools. 6 We appreciate your review of the above feedback. We look forward to submission of additional information in order to assist with the Tischler-Bise update. Sincerely, Patrick Abele Chief Operations Officer Enclosure cc: Ms. Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager, Orange County Mrs. Donna Coffey,Chair, Board of Education, Orange County Schools Dr. Todd Wirt, Superintendent, Orange County Schools Attachment 3 7 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NOR I I I CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 • tkl ' ray ,I��®�� �4o� _ Ii, ! iii°1�: ; ti: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner DATE: April 20, 2016 RE: Response to Orange County Schools' Comments Regarding the 2016 SAPFOTAC Annual Report On February 2, 2016 Orange County Schools (OCS) provided comments (Attachment 4) to Orange County Planning staff regarding the 2016 SAPFOTAC Annual Report. OCS requested follow up from Orange County staff regarding specific comments, which are provided below. Student Generation Rates (SGR) At the January 2014 SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee meeting, committee members discussed the increased number of students generated in both school districts from new development, particularly multifamily housing. 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. New rates from the 2014 Student Generation Rates for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill- Carrboro 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. The student generation rates were approved as the standard for the SAPFO and CAPS system by the BOCC on May 19, 2015 as part of the 2015 SAPFOTAC Annual Report. Student generation rates for CHCCS and OCS are available for review on page 44 of the 2016 SAPFOTAC Report. These rates are annually reviewed by the SAPFOTAC in January. The existing student generation rates will remain intact until a new study is warranted and recommended by the SAPFOTAC. CAPS for the City of Mebane and the Town of Hillsborough Currently, the Town of Hillsborough is a party the SAPFO process and does require CAPS to be issued prior to development approvals. The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not require that CAPS be issued prior to development approvals. Though the City of Mebane does not request CAPS from OCS as part of their process, students from new residential development are accounted for and included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) needs assessment and student projection phase of the SAPFO process. This is when actual enrollment from new development and existing housing is counted. Orange County Planning staff continues to work with the City of Mebane to become a party to the SAPFO agreement. 8 CAPS Phasing with SGR The current CAPS system allows for major residential developments consisting of multiple phases to be placed into the CAPS system by each phase. This allows for Orange County and Orange County Schools to see the number of students generated from each phase of the residential development. The current process accounting for students in the CAPS system once they are actually enrolled in the school system emphasizes a delay that exists from the time a residential development is approved and developed to when students begin to enter the system. For example, the significant proposed residential growth that has occurred in the recent past within Mebane's jurisdiction (and Hillsborough as well) has yet to be seen with OCS student membership numbers and fully realized into the historically based projection methods due to the recession, delayed construction, charter schools, and new family dynamics. Future efforts may include documenting when certificate of occupancies are issued for units in these developments and monitoring actual student membership numbers emerging from these developments. This may provide opportunity to review actual student membership compared to the original CAPS and a greater understanding of development timing. Since student addressing information is not accessible for Orange County Planning staff these efforts would require assistance from Orange County Schools. Levels of Service The adopted levels of services were originally developed based on information provided from the school districts, regarding existing school facilities and their functional ability to handle overcapacity situations, and discussions among the Schools and Land Use Council. The Schools and Land Use Council included members from the School Boards, the BOCC, and Orange County staff. The service levels were adopted in the two Memorandums of Understanding in 2003 between Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County, Hillsborough, and Orange County Schools (OCS) after three years of negotiation. Level of service is illustrated as a percentage of a hybrid formula agreed to by the school districts and BOCC and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) rated capacity of schools of a certain level added together. One of the reasons level of service standards above 100% were chosen as benchmarks is that membership may rise near the 100% mark and yet not create a long-term need. For example, if a couple of years have larger than normal grade level class sizes the need for more capacity may exist for only a limited time. The level of service standard can be revised if all original parties are able to agree on new service levels. A level of standard revised upward is usually easier than the opposite because a reduction could potentially create a home building moratorium or create an immediate financial burden on the County. For example, based on the 2016 SAPFOTAC Annual Report, if level of service standards were reduced to 100% the following school needs would arise: o Cedar Ridge High School expansion would be immediately needed o CHCCS Elementary School #12 would be needed in 2022-23 o CHCCS Middle School #5 would be needed in 2019-20 o Carrboro High School expansion would be needed in 2020-21. 9 Currently, no school construction needs are identified in the 10-year projections included in the draft 2016 SAPFOTAC Annual Report for both school districts using present adopted level of service standards. Attachment 4 10 A motion was made by Alderman Haven-O'Donnell, seconded by Alderman Chaney, that this resolution be approved. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND COMMENTING ON THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTACT) 2016 REPORT WHEREAS, the Town has had a longstanding interest in the success and excellence of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools; and WHEREAS, the Town has participated in the development and implementation of the schools adequate public facilities ordinance provisions since 2003; and WHEREAS, the annual technical advisory committee report has been prepared and distributed for comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Carrboro accepts the report. This the 19th day of April, 2016 The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Alderman Gist, Alderman Haven-O'Donnell, Alderman Slade, Alderman Chaney, Alderman Seils, Mayor Lavelle and Alderman Johnson Attachment 5 11 Ashley E. Moncado From: Gene Poveromo <gpoveromo @townofchapelhill.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:55 AM To: Craig Benedict; Perdita Holtz Cc: Todd LoFrese;Ashley E. Moncado Subject: April 11, 2016 SAPFO Meeting:Town of Chapel Hill Council Craig and Perdita, Good morning. Please accept this email and a summary of action taken by the Town of Chapel Hill Town Council with respect to the SAFPO 2016 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report. The Council received and discussed the report during the April 11, 2016 Business Meeting. The Council did have a question about level of service percentages. It seems the underlying interest was how approved development becomes part of SAPFO. Mayor Hemminger spoke about renovations with new capacity as a valuable way to update a school and add capacity. Please let me know if you have question or need additional information. Thanks and have a good day. Gene Poveromo, Development Manager 4'69814 ox Gene Poveromo, Develop m Manag Current Development I Planning and ent Sustainability er tho405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd I Chapel Hill, NC 27514-5705 PVI. t;(919)969-5069 Ilglpo eromo @townofchapehill.orq m:(919)619-5389 Fax:(919)969-2014 DESIGN CHAPEL HILL 2020 CONNECTIONS CHOICES COMMUNITY Attachment 6 12 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 2016 (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2015 DATA) CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY 17, 2016 13 Table of Contents 2016 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary i Introduction iv Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners v Planning Directors/School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee vi I. Base Memorandum of Understanding 1 A. Level of Service 1 B. Building Capacity and Membership 2 Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2014-15) 5 Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High)(2014-15) 8 Attachment LB.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) 11 Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High)(2015-16) 14 C. Membership Date 17 II. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System 18 A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) 18 B. Student Membership Projection Methodology 19 Attachment II.B.I Student Membership Projection Descriptions 21 Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2014-15) 22 Attachment II.B.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2015-16) 26 C. Student Membership Projections 30 Attachment II.C.1 —Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2014-15) 35 Attachment II.C.2—Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2014-15) 36 Attachment II.C.3—Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) 37 Attachment II.C.4—Chapel HilUCarrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2015-16) 38 D. Student Membership Growth Rate 39 Attachment II.D.1 —Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2015-2025 based on 11/14/14 membership numbers) (2014-15) 40 Attachment II.D.2—Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2016-2026 based on 11/13/15 membership numbers) (2015-16) 41 E. Student/Housing Generation Rate 42 Attachment II.E.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.1 —Process 1 Capital Improvement Plan 46 B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Update (Process 2) 47 Attachment III.B.1 —Process 2 Certificate of Adequate Public Schools(CAPS)Allocation 49 14 2016 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service (No Change) Pg. 1 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County School District School District Elementary 105% 105% Middle 107% 107% High 110% 110% B. Building Capacity and Membership (Change) Pg. 2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County School District School District Capacity Membership Increase from Capacity Membership Increase from Prior Year Prior Year Elementary 5829 5501 (40) 3694 3318 59 Middle 2944 2844 (17) 2166 1739 (23) High 3875 3701 (29) 2439 2469 (33) C. Membership Date—November 15 (No Change) Pg.1 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 2015-16 School Year— Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools (The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2015-2016 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 2015-16 Membership Actual 2015 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Membership Elementary 5501 5752 H251 5921 H420 5764 H263 5748 H247 5606 H105 Middle 2844 2951 H107 2949 H105 2972 H128 2947 H103 2895 H51 High 3701 3911 H210 3937 H236 3910 H209 3825 H124 3742 H41 1 15 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2015-16 School Year- Orange County Schools (The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2015-2016 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 2015-16 Membership Actual 2015 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Membership Elementary 3318 3617 H299 3649 H331 3574 H256 3555 H237 3285 L33 Middle 1739 1846 H107 1829 H90 1777 H38 1805 H66 1751 H12 High 2469 2375 L94 2379 L90 2359 L110 2411 L58 2510 H41 D. Student Membership Growth Rate (Change) Pg. 39 Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over Next 10 Years Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County School District School District Year Projection 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Made: Elementary 1.59% 1.18% 1.44% 1.11% 0.92% 1.6% 1.31% 1.30% 0.55% 0.80% Middle 1.94% 1.59% 1.58% 1.15% 0.82% 2.01% 1.64% 1.42% 0.09% 0.67% High 1.73% 1.60% 1.27% 1.22% 0.93% 1.61% 1.43% 1.35% 0.39% 0.56% E. Student/Housing Generation Rate (No Change) Pg. 42 SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS (based on future year Student Membership Projections) CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School Level A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard(current LOS is 94.4%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years, but remain positive(average-0.92%per year compared to 1.7% over the past 10 years). C. Projections are not showing a need for an additional elementary school in the 10 year projection period. Last year's projections showed a need in 2023-24. Middle School Level A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 96.6%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years, but remain positive (average-0.82% compared to an average of 1.4% over the past 10 years). C. Projections are not showing a need for an additional middle school in the 10 year projection period. Last year's projections showed a need in 2023-24. ii 16 High School Level A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 95.5%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase over the next 10 years (average—0.93% compared to 0.79% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year,projections are not showing a need to expand Carrboro High School from the initial capacity of 800 students to the ultimate capacity of 1,200 students in the 10 year projection period. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School Level A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard (current LOS is 89.8%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected remain the same over the next 10 years (average—0.80% compared to 0.80% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year,projections are not showing a need for an additional Elementary School in the 10 year projection period. Middle School Level A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard (current LOS is 80.3%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average—0.67% compared to 1.04% 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 101.2%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average—0.56% compared to 1.99% over the past 10 years). C. Projections are not showing a need to expand Cedar Ridge High School from the initial capacity of 1,000 students to 1,500 students in the ten year projection period. Last year's projections showed a need in 2022-23. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) 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, 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 funding is approved, versus the addition of greater capacity when a new school is constructed and completed. The renovation and expansion to existing facilities may delay construction of new schools further into the future. This process will pose some challenges to SAPFO compared to the existing process which indicates in advance when a completely new school is needed. Decisions on the timing of reconstruction funding would be indirectly linked to the SAPFO model. iii 17 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. iv 18 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding (Schools APFO MOU) SECTION ld RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PARTNERS Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District School APFO 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 19 Planning 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 Gary Donaldson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services 131 W. Margaret Lane P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Orange County School District Todd Wirt, Superintendent Patrick Abele, Chief Operations Officer 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 vi 20 I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A.Level of Service 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—Change can only be effectuated by amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)by all School APFO partners. 2. Definition —Level of Service(LOS)means the amount(level) of students that can be accommodated (serviced) at a certain school system grade group [i.e., Elementary level(K-5), Middle Level(6-8), High School Level(9-12)]. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Elementary Middle High School Elementary Middle High School 105% 107% 110% 105% 107% 110% 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District These standards are acceptable at this time. These standards are acceptable at this time. 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District No change from above standard. No change from above standard. 1 21 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: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The original certified capacity for each of the The original certified capacity for each of the schools was certified by the respective schools was certified by the respective superintendent and incorporated in the superintendent and incorporated in the initialization of the CAPS system(Chapel Hill initialization of the CAPS system(Orange County Carrboro School District April 29, 2002 - Base) 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. 2003: No net increase in capacity at Elementary 2004: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High level. No changes at Middle School level. School levels. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge High School. 2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2004: No net increase in capacity at Elementary 2 22 Section I School levels. level. No changes at Middle or High School 2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High levels. School levels. 2005: An increase in capacity of 100 at 2007: An increase of 800 at the High School level Hillsborough Elementary with the completion of with the opening of Carrboro High School. renovations. 2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary 2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the School level due to the opening of Morris Grove Middle School level with the completion of Elementary School and the implementation of the Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of 15 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 at the High School level with the temporary 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High location of Partnership Academy Alternative School levels. School. An increase of 2 at the Elementary level 2010: An increase in capacity of 40 students at the due to a change in the capacity calculation for each High School level with Phoenix Academy High grade at each school. School becoming official high school within the 2007: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High district School levels. 2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2008: A decrease of 228 at the Elementary School School levels. level due to the implementation of the 1:21 class 2012: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High size ratio in grades K-3 and an increase of 25 at the School levels. High School level with the completion of the new 2013: An increase in capacity of 585 students due Partnership Academy Alternative School. to the opening of Northside Elementary School. 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2014: An increase in capacity of 104 students due School levels. to the opening of the Culbreth Middle School 2010: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High addition. School levels. 2015: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 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 23 Section I School levels. 2014: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2015: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners each year. the Board of County Commissioners each year. The requested 2015-16 capacity is noted on The requested 2015-16 capacity is noted on Attachment I.B.4 Attachment I.B.3 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported by CHCCS and shown in Attachment I.B.4. by OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3. 4 24 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2014-15) page 1 of 3 School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14,2014-November 13,2015 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2014 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Elementary Square Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Justification Membership School I'ect Footnote# Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Cameron Park 70,812 565 565 565 565 565 591 Central 52,492 455 455 455 455 455 305 Efland Cheeks 64,316 497 497 497 497 497 426 Grady Brown 74,016 544 544 544 544 544 466 Hillsborough 51,106 471 471 471 471 471 457 New Hope 100,164 586 586 586 586 586 614 Pathways 85,282 576 576 576 576 576 400 Total 498,188 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,259 Special Note(s): I.For the November I S,211(12 base year the hoard accepted the superinlcndenl-cenitied capacities as pawl of the School Facilities flask Force review and 21)(13 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School C'II'or(2)an amended version or this limn that is ceililicd by the BOCC.2.I ha:to November 15th Filling on a Saturday this year,membership and capacity numbers skill be provided tar Friday,November 14,2(114. Justification: Capacity Certification: p�� 11_, ,,3*'_.-_-•. -- tit( 'l ((t� /` is 174( Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: ` � a � ' �/9/,�,k. 4 ;^_..ti ,t Lt. ito Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 5 25 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2014-15) page 2 of 3 School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14,2014-November 13,2015 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2014 2010-2911 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Middle Square Justification Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Footnote# Mleutbership School Feet Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity A.L.Stanback 136,000 740 740 740 740 740 614 C.W.Stanford 107,620 726 726 726 726 726 650 Gravelly Hill 123,000 700 700 700 700 700 498 Total 366,620 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 1,762 Special Note(s): I.For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the supcnntendenl-certificd capacities as pail of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CII'or(2)an amended version of this fonn that is certified by the 130CC.2.Due to November 15th falling on a Salurday this year,membership and capacity numbers shall be provided for Friday,November 14,2014, Justification: Capacity Certification: l I it :C(c, f j-`flee, /a1�/i(/ `Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: ;,. �' ''_� ,_' (tic 10 l/( /2,/2l`l Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 6 26 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,& High) (2014-15) page 3 of 3 School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14,2014-November 13,2015 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2014 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Square Justification I1igh School Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Membership Feet Footnote# Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Orange 213,509 1,518 1,518 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,318 Cedar Ridge 206,900 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,154 Partnership 6,600 40 40 40 40 40 30 Total 427,009 2,558 2,558 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,502 Special Note(s):1.For the November IS,20112 base year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certihcd capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2(103 Flannels and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School C'IP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the 130CC.2.The 2012-2013 capacity numbers for Orange High School(1,399)is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Deprmmcnt of Public Instruction in August 2012.3.Due to November 15th falling on a Saturday this year,membership and capacity numbers shall be provided 16r Friday,November 14,2014. Justification: Capacity Certification: 4e- /t C( Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: " .. ,5 �.✓(1, I It 91() ��`F" /21967 Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 7 27 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2014-15) page 1 of 3 School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14,2014-November 13,2015 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2014 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Membership Elementary Square Justification Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested (referenced School Feet Footnote# Capacih Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school year) Carrboro 60,832 533 533 533 533 533 500 Ephesus 66,952 448 448 448 448 448 431 Estes Hills 56,299 527 527 527 527 527 480 FP Graham 66,689 538 538 538 538 538 496 Glenwood 50,764 423 423 423 423 423 483 McDougle 98,000 564 564 564 564 564 478 Morris Grove 90,221 585 585 585 585 585 550 Northside 99,500 0 0 0 585 585 520 Rashkis 95,729 585 585 585 585 585 526 Scroggs 90,980 575 575 575 575 575 554 Seawell 52,896 466 466 466 466 466 523 Total 828,862 5,244 5,244 5,244 5,829 5,829- 5,541 Special Note(s):I.for the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part or the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the ROCC 2.Due to November 15th falling on a Saturday this year,membership and capacity numbers shall be provided for Friday,November 14.2014. Justification: Capacity Ce ifi7ation: 1 111 , .'_ • ,(:4( ii.. -i i , 4/1-f la-(-- /-0-//'//ti Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: , 1 'L'''r7C., i -- -' /;'°! 1 ii/!lam /2-1/41 l Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 8 28 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2014-15) page 2 of 3 School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Ilill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14,2014-November 14,2015 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2014 2(1111-2(111 2011-2012 2012-21113 2013-21114 21114-2015 Membership Square Justification )fiddle School Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested (referenced Feet Footnote g Capacih Capacit■ ('apacih Capacity Capaci■ school∎ear) Science wing Culbreth 122,467 670 670 670 670 774 addition 686 McDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 732 721 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 706 625 Smith 128,764 732 732 732 732 732 829 Total 496,950 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,944- 2,861 Special Note(s): I For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the ROCC.2 Due to November 15th falling on a Saturday this year.membership and capacity numbers shall he provided from Friday,November 14.2014. Justification: Capacity Ce ification: ik�i,i-, /f(e 12 f(J/r 6a M /2/1/,tt Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membershi Ce ificati n: Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 9 29 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2014-15) page 3 of 3 School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 14,2014-November 13,2015 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 14,2014 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Membership Square .lustiftcation High School Fleet Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested (referenced footnote# Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school year) Carrboro 148,023 800 800 800 800 800 833 Chapel Hill 241,111 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,454 East Chapel Hill 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,410 Phoenix Acad. 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 33 Total 654,210 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875- 3,730 Special Note(s): I. l'or the November 15.2002 base year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certitied capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 20111 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report.These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CIF or(2)an amended version of this form that is certitied by the BOCC 2 Due to November 15th falling on a Saturday this year,membership and capacity numbers shall he provided Fix Friday,November 14,2(114 Justification: Capacity Certifi ation: -' ILIA > ( -- ( tla, (1.P4r, iil i - /1-hltt( Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: 1 /11: ) 1 --(1-1:t (< L(;.)• (('' f /i41-Kte- r2-hlltr SUperintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 10 30 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,& High) (2015-16) (page 1 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Elementary Square Justification Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Membership School Feet 1'11111 nllll'# Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Cameron Park 70,812 565 565 565 565 565 609 Central 52,492 455 455 455 455 455 319 Efland Cheeks 64,316 497 497 497 497 497 428 Grady Brown 74,016 544 544 544 544 544 486 Hillsborough 51,106 471 471 471 471 471 466 New Hope 100,164 586 586 586 586 586 621 Pathways 85,282 576 576 576 576 576 389 Total 498,188 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,318 Special Note(s): I.For the November 15.21102 base sear the hoard accepted the superintendent-eel-titled capacities as part ufihe School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain elTective until changed h}(I)the School CII'or(2)an amended version or this form that is certified hg the I() ('.2 1)ue to November 15th falling on a Sunda)this )ear.membership and capacity numbers shall he provided For Friday,Novemher 13.2015. Justification: Capacity Certification: �X_�.,( /,_ tt(t. Is J /11116L-t- t)�,f/ S perintendent Date BOCC Chair ate Membership Certification: }ii1 / p U ; ��`t91t5 ga„s-t IM"fir"` /2//s"//> Suplerintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 11 31 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2015-16) (page 2 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Middle Square Justification Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Membership School Feet Footnote H Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacih Capacih A.L.Stanback 136,000 740 740 740 740 740 635 C.W.Stanford 107,620 726 726 726 726 726 654 Gravelly Hill 123,000 700 700 700 700 700 450 Total 366,620 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,166— 1,739 Special Note(s): I.for the November 15.2M/2 hose)(ear the hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part or the School Facilities Task Force review and 21103 Planners and School Representative Technical Ad,ism)Committee Report These capacities rill remain effective until changed by-(I)the School LIP or(2)an amended version of this limn that is certified by the'IOC(' 2 I)uc to November 15th falling on a Sunday this year.membership and capacity numbers shall he provided lot 1-nda■.November 13,2015. Justification: Capacity Certification:• l L^—� tl IqI l5 G Cec / - 15.i/S. Su erintendent ` ate BOCC Chair at Memb-r hip Certification: S1 ttf iq�►s S� ill=l 12-115-115"Su,erintendent Da e BOCC Chair Date 12 32 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2015-16) (page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Square Justification High School Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Membership Feet Footnote# (- Capacity apacit■ Capacity Capacity Capacir■ Orange 213,509 1,518 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,298 Cedar Ridge 206,900 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,140 Partnership 6,600 40 40 40 40 40 31 Total 427,009 2,558 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,469 Special Note(s):I for the November 15.2002 base year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School facilities bask Force review and 200)Planners and School Representative'Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(II the School CII'or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.2 I he 2012-2013 capacity numhcrs litr Orange High School 11.399)is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012.3_I)ue to November 15th falling on a Sunday this)ear.membership and capacity numbers shall he prosided for Friday.November 13.2015. Justification: Capacity Certific tion: /' t C-1= (4. ) ,�\Alt5 �'�P YV k-(- � ;I/ SUUDerintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: Su erintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 13 33 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) (page 1 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Membership Elementary Square Justification Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested (referenced School Feel Footnote H Capacity Capacity Capacih Capacity Capacity school year) Carrboro 60,832 533 533 533 533 533 502 Ephesus 66,952 448 448 448 448 448 440 Estes Hills 56,299 527 527 527 527 527 485 Glenwood 50,764 423 423 423 423 423 454 FP Graham 66,689 538 538 538 538 538 531 McDougle 98,000 564 564 564 564 564 499 Rashkis 95,729 585 585 585 585 585 517 Scroggs 90,980 575 575 575 575 575 505 Seawell 52,896 466 466 466 466 466 525 Moms Grove 90,221 585 585 585 585 585 558 Northside 99,500 0 0 585 585 585 485 Total 828,862 5,244 5,244 5,829 5,829 5,829 5,501 Special Notate):I.For the November 15,2002 base year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CII'or(2)an amended version of this fbmt that is certified by the BOCC.2.Due to November 15th falling on a Sunday his year,membership and capacity numbers shall be provided for Friday,November 13,2015. Justification: Ca city Ce -fi ation 7 ia I 2( /z.) _.( Sup rintendent Date BOCC Chair Date ic M bers p 4ert t;cation: erintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 14 34 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) (page 2 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Nlembership Square Justification Middle School Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested (referenced Feel Footnote# Capacih Capacity ('apucit■ Capacity Capacity school year) Culbreth 108,058 670 670 670 774 774 716 McDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 732 689 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 706 642 Smith 128,764 732 732 732 732 732 797 Total 482,541 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,944 2,944— 2,844 Special Note(s): I. For the November 15.2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as pan of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.2 Due to November 15th falling on a Sunday this year.membership and capacity numbers shall be provided for Friday.November 13,2015. Justification: Ca city C fica i n: �� ..- ,# (Z /6- tit i ' let i diC— 6;‘,J) /4.4(.4-- uperintendent Date BOCC Chair Date i be rsh' Cert ication:1V3i ' wi ( Z('�� /0,, 40 - i - t9-i1s ,C Dt erintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 15 35 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) (page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 \lemhership Feet Foo Square .lustifcation High School Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested tnote k (referenced Capacity Capacity Capacity C'apaci■ Capacity school year) Chapel Hill 241,111 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,471 East Chapel Hill 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,373 Carrboro 148,023 800 800 800 800 800 824 Phoenix Acad. 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 33 Total 654,210 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,701 Special Note(s): I. For the November 15,2002 base year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School C'IP or(2)an amended version of this term that is certified by the HUCC 2 I)ue to November 1 5th falling on a Sunday this year,membership and capacity numbers shall he provided for Friday,November 13.2015. Justification: Ca city Ce ific tion: is / /(1;f")/ ".(' (Zfr E-a-A-P 016' /-, //c)/) S erintendent Date BOCC Chair Dat Mr mbershi C rtification: r te ` 1/1149 ' lei/ (a-2( - ,)/`/a,- /21/5 i7 Superintendent Date BOCC Chair date 16 36 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: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District November 15 November 15 of each year of each year 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: This will be analyzed in the future years to determine if it is an exemplary date. 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District No change at this time. No change at this time. 17 37 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 Not Applicable 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: 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, 2016. 5. Recommendation: Not subject to staff review. 18 38 Section II 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 II.B.1 includes a description of each model. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Performance of the models is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the annual Capital Investment Plan (CIP)updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and construction. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment II.B.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 39 Section II 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 40 STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIPTION/CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS Tischier Linear(OCS& y=((c*b)*x)+b CHCCS) Mathematical formula;straight line projection ro ected population;c=historical annual change;b=base year;x=projection years Historical growth is reflected in projected growth y=P j P P g Y p 3 Y BYM+(BYI+5(n))=EYM EYM`%SL=EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10-year average; BYM=base year 2nd month %SL=%membership;BYI=year student membership increment OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school o , increase in BYI of S every other year reflects (OCS) levels;reflects progressing waves of membership base;EYM ensuing year membership;n=projection year; = of total increases in housing growth; reflects buildout membership per school level(i.e.elementary,middle,high);EYM/SL=ensuing year constraints member by school level BYM+(BYI-15(n))=EYM EYM"0/oSL=EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10•year average; BYM=base year 2nd month membership;BYI=year student membership increment OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school o o 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; /oSL=/o of total reflects decreases in housing growth; reflects membership per school level(i.e.elementary,middle,high);EYM/SL=ensuing year buildout constraints member by school level Kn=kn.1+(kn.1"0.01) .�'T' Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 E advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each a=(E Gn I gn.1}13 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the = 3-Year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=3 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same 1 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 grades graduate to the next level each year bo and/or historical growth rates CA g membership(other kindergarten);g= grade's membership;a=average �j advancement rate;b=projected membership "r C Oe ee Kn=kn.1+(kn.1"0.01) '+ Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 4 advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each a=(E Gn I gn.1)/5 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the E 5 year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=5 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same V CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g n,1(a) percentage of students in each grade level col 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 "CI advancement rate;b=projected membership b ►5 O. cr. et Kn=k .1+(kn.1*0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 O advancement rate over the previous 10 years for each a=(£ Gn I gn.1)110 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the 10 year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=10 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same eti C col HCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g n-1(a) percentage of students in each grade level K 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 "CI and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average 7 advancement rate;bprojected membership = = col 41 Section II Attachment II.B.2—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) 11/15/13 2014 Report 11/14/14 Actual Projection for Actual Change between actual 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 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 3472 H213 11/15/13 11/14/14 Middle 1747 1762 +15 Model Projection is T 1778 H16 OCP 1777 H15 10C 1796 H34 5C 1799 H37 3C 1793 H31 AVG 1789 H27 11/15/13 11/14/14 High 2421 2502 +81 Model Projection is T 2463 L39 OCP 2434 L68 10C 2404 L98 5C 2436 L66 3C 2294 L208 AVG 2406 L96 Totals 11/15/13 11/14/14 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 22 Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analys4s2(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. 23 Section II Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analyiis (2014-15) (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2014-2015 School Year (November 14. 2014) 11/15/13 2014 Report 11/14/14 Actual Projection for Actual Change between actual 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 Nov 2013 -Nov 2014 Elementary 5554 5541 -13 Model Projection is T 5647 H106 OCP 5655 H114 10C 5637 H96 5C 5610 H69 3C 5628 H87 AVG 5635 H94 11/15/13 11/14/14 Middle 2858 2861 +3 Model Projection is T 2906 H45 OCP 2889 H28 10C 2957 H96 5C 2930 H69 3C 2943 H82 AVG 2925 H64 11/15/13 11/14/14 High 3764 3730 -34 Model Projection is T 3827 H97 OCP 3875 H145 10C 3761 H31 5C 3772 H42 3C 3788 H58 AVG 3805 H75 Totals 11/15/13 11/14/14 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 24 Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance AnaljT4is (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. 25 45 Section II Attachment II.B.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2015-16) (page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2015-16 School Year (November 13, 2015) 11/14/14 2015 Report 11/13/15 Actual Projection for Actual Change between actual 2014-15 2015-16 2015-16 Nov 2014 -Nov 2015 Elementary 3259 3318 +59 Model Projection is T 3309 L9 OCP 3318 Equal 10C 3279 L39 5C 3268 L50 3C 3251 L67 AVG 3285 L33 11/14/14 11/13/15 Middle 1762 1739 -23 Model Projection is T 1789 H50 OCP 1791 H52 10C 1730 L9 5C 1722 L17 3C 1721 L18 AVG 1751 H12 11/14/14 11/13/15 High 2502 2469 -33 Model Projection is T 2541 H72 OCP 2545 H76 10C 2456 L13 5C 2488 H19 3C 2520 H51 AVG 2510 H41 Totals 11/14/14 11/13/15 Elementary 3259 3318 Middle 1762 1739 High 2502 2469 7523 7526 +3 Model Projection is T 7639 H113 OCP 7654 H128 10C 7465 L61 5C 7478 L48 3C 7492 L34 AVG 7546 H2O H means High L means Low 26 Attachment II.B.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analjis (2015-16) Section II (page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2015-2016 School Year (November 13, 2015) 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 • The majority of projections were all low ranging from 9 students to 67 students below actual membership. One projection equaled actual membership. On average, the projections were 33 students lower than actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 59 students between November 14, 2014 and November 13, 2015. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed low and high, ranging from 18 students below to 52 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 12 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 23 students between November 14, 2014 and November 13, 2015. High School Level • The majority of projections were high, ranging from 19 to 76 students above actual membership. One projection was low with 13 students below actual membership. On average, the projections were 41 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 33 students between November 14, 2014 and November 13, 2015. TOTAL • The totals of all school level projections were mixed low to high, ranging from 61 students below to 128 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 20 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership increased in total by 3 students, which is the sum of +59 at Elementary, -23 at Middle, and -33 at High. 27 Attachment II.B.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2015-16) Section II (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2015-16 School Year (November 13, 2015) 11/14/14 2015 Report 11/13/15 Actual Projection for Actual Change between actual 2014-15 2015-16 2015-16 Nov 2014- Nov 2015 Elementary 5541 5501 -40 Model Projection is T 5625 H124 OCP 5641 H140 10C 5606 H105 5C 5586 H85 3C 5573 H72 AVG 5606 H105 11/14/14 11/13/15 Middle 2861 2844 -17 Model Projection is T 2905 H61 OCP 2898 H54 10C 2910 H66 5C 2888 H44 3C 2874 H30 AVG 2895 H51 11/14/14 11/13/15 High 3730 3701 -29 Model Projection is T 3787 H86 OCP 3818 H117 10C 3701 Equal 5C 3707 H6 3C 3696 L5 AVG 3742 H41 Totals 11/14/14 11/13/15 Elementary 5541 5501 Middle 2861 2844 High 3730 3701 12,132 12,046 -86 Model Projection is T 12,317 H271 OCP 12,357 H311 10C 12,217 H171 5C 12,181 H135 3C 12,143 H97 AVG 12,243 H197 H means High L means Low 28 Attachment II.B.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Anal46s (2015-16) Section II (page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2015-2016 School Year (November 13, 2015) 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 72 students to 140 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 105 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 40 students between November 14, 2014 and November 13, 2015. Middle School Level • Projections were all high, ranging from 30 students to 66 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 51 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 17 students between November 14, 2014 and November 13, 2015. High School Level • Projections were mixed, ranging from 5 students below to 117 students above actual membership. One projection equaled actual membership. On average, the projections were 41 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 29 students between November 14, 2014 and November 13, 2015. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were all high, ranging from 97 students to 311 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were high by 197 students. • The membership decreased in total by 86 students, which is the sum of-40 at Elementary, -17 at Middle, and -29 at High. 29 49 Section II 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 Orange County School District The 5 model average discussed in Section The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B (Student Projection Methodology) II.B (Student Projection Methodology) See Attachment II.C.4 See Attachment II.C.3 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show a decrease at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools' elementary, middle, and high school levels and at the Orange County Schools' middle and high school levels. The only increase in student membership was at the Orange County Schools' elementary school level. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools projected average annual growth rates have decreased slightly, but remain positive. Future growth rates show positive growth at the elementary and high school levels, but varying positive and negative growth at the middle school level in the 10 year projection period. Projected average annual growth rates for Orange County Schools have increased slightly since the previous year. Orange County Schools' future growth rates show varying positive and negative growth in the 10 year projection period for the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Attachment II.C.3 and Attachment II.C.4 show year by year percent growth and projected level of service(LOS). The projection models were updated using current(November 13, 2015)memberships. Membership numbers were collected on 30 50 Section II November 13 due to November 15 falling on a Sunday in 2015. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter. Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Elementary The previous year(2015-15)projections for November 2015 at this level were overestimated by 105 students. The actual membership decreased by 40 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 in 2014-15 and this year. Growth rates during the past ten years have ranged from -1.57% to +3.92%. The district's eleventh elementary school,Northside Elementary School, opened in 2013. The need for an additional elementary school is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. Last year's projections showed a need in 2023-24. 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(2014-15)projections for November 2015 for this level were overestimated by 51 students. The actual membership decreased by 17. Over the previous ten years, this level has shown varying increases before experiencing a decrease this year. Growth rates during this time period have ranged from -0.59% to +2.86%. Capacity was increased in 2014 with the opening of the Culbreth Middle School science wing. The need for an additional middle school is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. Last year's projections showed a need in 2023-24. High School The previous year(2014-15)projections for November 2015 for this level were overestimated by 41 students. The actual membership decreased by 29 students. Over the previous ten years, change has been variable with decreases in membership in five of the ten years. Growth rates during this time period have ranged from -1.74 to +3.27%. The need for additional high school 31 51 Section II capacity at Carrboro High School is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. Additional Information for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District PACE Academy High School, located within the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District, closed prior to the beginning of the 2015 school year. Students from this charter school were absorbed into the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District and the Orange County 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 continues to have an effect on 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(2014-15)projections for November 2015 at this level were underestimated by 33 students. Actual membership increased by 59 students. Over the previous ten years, this level experienced varying growth rates including a decrease in membership in 2005-06. Following this decrease, membership and growth rates increased every school year until experiencing a significant decrease in 2014-15. 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 32 52 Section II 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. This is similar to last year's projections. 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(2014-15)projections for November 2015 for this level were overestimated by 12 students. The actual membership decreased by 23. Over the previous ten years, growth has varied widely and includes decreases in student membership in four of the ten years. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -2.20% 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. This is similar to last year's projections. Staff continues to closely monitor new sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane and Hillsborough. High School The previous year(2014-15)projections for November 2015 for this level were overestimated by 41 students. The actual membership decreased by 33. Over the previous ten years, growth varied considerably and included a decrease in membership in 2009-10. Following this decrease, membership and growth rates increased every school year before experiencing another decrease this year. Growth rates during this period ranged from -1.32% to 4.58%. 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. The need for additional capacity at Cedar Ridge High School is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. 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 33 53 Section II 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 continues to have an effect on OCS 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 are not monitored or included in future projections. 5. Recommendation: Use statistics as noted in 3 above. 34 54 Section II Attachment II.C.1 —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2014-15) i g E iii ilili s iilliliii , 6 F g a 6 E ME i i iiiiiliii i l Mill l R F 4 v iiiiiiill Mill i s $ .- _4 1 ENE i i EMI I P.n ri' s lii III I HEIM a n s p a E Milli a Milli 1 m ° p.. 9,1 — 1 Mil I . SWIM 4 14@s g 1 !INN 1 i Ililllili I a R a o IIl�lllll i IllllllllI , m7 i El IIII 1 Ell I El El I — 1 Illl 1 Q EH [i Ell : 1 Nil I Ili 1_ Pi Ell I E Illl ;m KM I � II El I Illl _,z{ a IIMII II II III I ill i V a 11111 1 II 1 I B I II v sm iii i4a ri IS i il ilii i! I , iiiii ill ii Mi ' n E MI VI 1 r Mil 11 1 n e .� i B Ili i ill I 11 Milli B ills i .r lllll I : i Eii i�i B Ili i t 1 .e Ili i d ri i ill l B 1111 i m I = lili i I 1 lit i 1- ! i ,i: IA1 Mill i sae �' t 8 zP 9g E; 9E� Q ii i i I =III .fit f $ .a P i s a e§ Ili i i. $ 6 e €i ggay SSg .1 4g i.i Pl! 5 eaf I a 1= P E fill yyg eo`_ ae h G i k@ C 8 !Ili c ? I .@ ji ! v v 11111 r d 6 04 Z S 1 f g 4 35 55 Section II Attachment II.C.2—Chapel Hi1UCarrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2014-15) i MIN ii - =n B R , .�'I R 6�!8 5 INN II VP!" e� - LR �B i MEEEINN1� 4 PB� ..e, :1RS111_ i Milli 11 R „„,1,4,!,-, Rn� Rt 1IIB r • R R59R° A -' MOON II $ .:. pp!,., i S S i MINH li R —19 Rg o ER saa R —■�� il��� 11 R IR!RR R Pam 1``' a -; IIIIIh % R I � A g � � F R3 R ik 9 i 1111111 fi i „ „„,pvio .„4. ., i Milli N i ! „,„!.!.,!.1�' 11111113 : �° -�88, • k r,'p R 11111 ■ifli g R^.. F _� ry Ra MN a ;'; R� NM ; Rc RJR . R& iiii :%[ F' illi 1 II F: T,� 1111 -. i �N 11111 ,� eAZ ;.. $`=_A€r n k� e kgg i 11111 i MI illi 1 i R 111111 . . ?il ! .' Ma . iIiI 1a Ra ; �„ MI ' 1! 11TH III I i R'7�i` . Nil ' 1 . 1111111' I lc .p_p, % 1 im I1111 a %' i P M1 ' a d % 111111 il 1 i •�� : • .R IN l ,: NM 1 g f ® � i, a i ; d f ; M ! 111111 ° , ° li i 2e tt � 'iii - iii ,.11 .,. :fi .. ifi. ,„ oil $3 HI : . pi i( Fi ill £ ill e li N i ; E 1 o a ill I lit f _ a 1 f 3 . o III i' 19 0 1 t i z 8'f E Ai i1 a)I — e r �aii 3 Ii iF 'i 3 3 - iE'O E E ii1 a` a3 F? u 0 i ai'° %a_ = '.. a,; i 1: H 1 f: a': 1a;e g : I °aF ' g i ill= 3 lihi:i ill ' IH I =il 8 , b f i F " R 1 s$; / m %s s 8 {y f u i . s 1111 U :i e11 riS i 3 0-- a R z. s .! :F1 511, - 1. m i isl! 5 :sl�sl-h.;IL.if3= i . 0 tim _ 4i'�iti at 'ss 36 56 Section II Attachment II.C.3 —Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) a1BT ., 1p$ `i NM Q R g __ R EMU x „_.,. ., ! - . - . i IIIIiiIII I V 1 m$_ ��$ v i INN 6 m_ �9� !'-_ - q i III I Ag a- i -!t=n r i IIIEM i i 18111®IIII II .a _ i IIII®I�I I _ R R III NMI 6 ill�- i t, R� F ®IIII i 1 Ili ee� R° MB I ®IIII 6 � IIII 6 �� l m, MN I MI II . ; a�E� g R i i ;� : ' MU_ EMI h 1 im IIII 6 ill! R IIII NM i i IIII a �€ R iiiii i 1 Q OW 8 m IIII i! 1 MN i i EN i p 1m MI II ` INNI1a g IIIIII aF IN I! ; 1 i�III I VII I m IIII Ii l hillI Ell 1m 11111 11 1 �I I I III i' 1111h I _ EI I I��I a IN 1 a . 1 l= ®hII I III 8" 111111 ° Li; Q 11111 1 a_. ®IIIII ` i � Z E � 8 � IIIIH l 11011 1 1 Nil I 1 . i k i 1 1 8 4 z ! I P!i Pt i ili i ll i l? I l i; a n °a s 114 a ;s a IN". a !III . a . � e a . 4 a tii I d i g I " E 1 II u a Oh & $„t i i i$Fm S s o 5 Q d 1 1 s l i! Q 9 1 Ili a !fli . s a a.a ,i F S i < f i € 111 �� 3a ? i `. i ; .eg tP.° 1 ed 1 37 57 Section II Attachment II.C.4-Chapel HihlCarrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2015-16) 8 $ i 6 _ 1 ! 8 A 1 5 k:" _6 ! 6 1 ° 6 ! RR R ' R i i i , 8 — e p s i ° . F8F p9p 8 8 $ -I R K i ' a 6 8 6 6 _ 8 _ k e g r R i Bib _ ; i . 9 a ii �I 1 ii Ili I 1 ii III 18$ s9 Ili I lull o∎I 1 }l ii ®III I F Anil OH i Mill fillI § i1, = Il11I I III ICI I .1 Iii I I I iii, i 11 1 :I NV' i Ili _ �I I i I�' III $ �1I . I MI F 1 1 H1 I �I IBM =_I j I I I ! 1 Mil 1 A . a F,61 i i III I I I iii® �I I i I ®I I A }. I ME ?, Iei I I !4 1 ®I I 1111 I Will III R IIIIII I 1 i 1 I Ill I f 1 il® 91, ii IV sit 1111 ir il all! lu 1t. IIIi S - iE, 9 o S Of a .q y r 'Ail H i i i F - G III d ! i „ d sS ay lei w o € i§e H ;( S1 ° Y F Oil / 0i A 3 s I a G i _ t i t 0.a 1 }!i i yy @@ 1E1j 8 " Il iI i=6}C I}IE i gg 'u ii1 N Q L 8 8 Ail N . 5 63i L ' i W iLii !ii 8 6e " a a _i} ! 8 l aka i}I8 �: t;p a: 1}l U ,F i S i: : s F 8 U a .: 3i ui_: - . -5i U x' d. ..`t ii'-Ce ::: 38 58 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 10 years. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment II.D.2 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The membership figures and percentage growth on the 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. within the system. Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next ten years: ten years: Year Projection 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Year Projection 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Made: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Made: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Elementary 1.59% 1.18% 1.44% 1.11% 0.92% Elementary 1.6% 1.31% 1.30% 0.55% 0.80% Middle 1.94% 1.59% 1.58% 1.15% 0.82% Middle 2.01% 1.64% 1.42% 0.09% 0.67% High 1.73% 1.60% 1.27% 1.22% 0.93% High 1.61% 1.43% 1.35% 0.39% 0.56% 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Use statistics as noted. Use statistics as noted. 39 59 Section II Attachment II.D.1—Orange County and Chapel HiWCarrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2015-2025 based on 11/14/14 membership numbers)(2014-15) in 0 N N d' .n hn In 4n ri o No o (Oo o Oo o LC) '6,-:' o cOc o Oo 0 N � 0 N r0 N 0) O N CO N Oc) N 0 N 4 c+) y� y N v o O (h r• o r N N o CO 0 CO- o V N N N N N N O co ? o N— o N ° o co ;if, O N— o � o N 0) N U) N LC) 0) N N (n O N (O 0 e%f (h C7 M elf (fl N en 1 N r7 N- N � � o � r o N ' o COQ o (ham o � O N N N N N N eq en en en en en O o O o O o O o O o O c0 0 N LC) N N CO CO N a) N LC) 0 N CV O N CO co N co co N NN A (0 073 N O N N N co N o r , o N VI o O r o M O O N N N N N N O v' O O o O O o O 0) c O p O CO o O co o N co N L0 0 N (h CO N CO CO N V'O N (C) O C * C° CO 4, N- � - (° m V rn � 14 � rn * O•O o , Ne N 0 CU o o O o N N N .^' N N N- ai o• o O c O N o //�,� o �_ o O N- CIA' o LUo .^ N co (h N CO N N co Cy N (h N CO Lo N O C d NN e N-N A (D d ON d O °) d, 000 Ao 0 � o " C? o N � 4-I o �� o MO o •,1--O 0. N N N = N N N }mi O O O © O O el • O o O co o O O o O °) o O co o O O o N (N N � 0 N NCO = N C) O N LOCO N N- N C7 ZS .ar NO ok c0 CO :: «) N c W N- o 000 CS) in O Co- O O p N p L O p (h • p (h O N N N N N N .� a a a a a s v• o CO o o N— o Imo L o LC) o o O) o o O o Z. as• N CO aNb c0— ab 'Cr 0 0 ooe m 006 0 06 O) Nc°i o co-0 0 � (rj '"e CV r o LCi� o M� c (ham N N N /L N N N O 00 00 00 /�Y� OD 00 - 00 O O N o O o U O O o =� O o O _co o N CON N CO 0 N c0 O N (e) N (fl 0 N LC) CO % NN �O co N NCO �� N- (71 ON COL() c "4 N ti N c Ln chi� p ■N p rN � N N N = N N N N N N o •V e o (Oo O Oo o No o cO o a0 � N (h N V I,- N 'Cr Q) N (O O N N ,n N O ■ b N C7 b N- N 4 LC) N O. 4 CO O b 0) b N- LU O C Co 0 C N C p O p N p N N N /� N N N b D b ( ) b 4 O O O O L° o O c O O o o O o N o N c0 0 N U) U) N N N O 00 N 0) co N V N e:,• 0 0 0 Q o N O o o N • o O N N N N N N i N• 7 LC) N 7 CO N .g O N 7 V N 7 co N a co 4 }j N •tj' N- 7 fj' Ln 7 tJ LC) 4 t co 7 tj N- S m O.R.. .ti R N O.R_.O O,_,N o.Ri co - =N N v N N N vN a) a) aJ N a.)W g3 K1 Cod n Ld 2 Yom. 2 2 2 2 a o -4 ;;;F. 4o d o ,Q o _, ao _co OO -6 © p `�° -� OO p `�° OO "0 C p OO p m cr w X Q Q = ud w V) d Z rY / d = h / d 40 60 Section II Attachment II.D.2—Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2016-2026 based on 11/13/15 membership numbers) (2015-16) 'o 0 N 1 *1 o 71- ..-g: Oo o o '71" '0? o O We 0 N O 0 LO r- '2,9, N 0 co N CO co N co N_ N LC)N N 0 N o M r O 0 0 O t O V O N 4 0 M N o 0 r O o N N N1 N N LIS N� Nm ,n in 4 0 0 N- o . °_ O _co 0 Lao O �o N U) (p N M p) N 0 N ( 0 N V CO N CO 4 10 x- 4 c00 A 0C A 00 s CI N . 00 O M O N = O Ln O CO o V p N N (4 N N N o �_ o N- o O L() o o N o 0 CO o O o N N co N CO 0 N 0 N 0 Qy--) N •V N n 4 cO 4 (O N O - O 0 4 0 , O o vN o Ni N co O N N N (n N © © ^ eel en NM 0 M M M N N- ap N N- CO N (O Lcj �l N co in N 'Cr In N 0 0 N V _ N N- CO N 0 0 (� N 0 _ N 0 N 0 4 O o Co-_ — o o (-,1 N aw o 1`- o c`P9 o vN N N N e^' N N N 0 0 0 o V• o o (0 0 = coo o N- o �o eO N co co N co (0 N N- 0. N (fl N 0) O N CP ,ti V - N-co .y 0 V , N- N .ti o) 0 .+ O CO V M.,- o � Q V No +■1 �� b) No o CO 0. N N N = N N N CU • N OM N d• ) N N OM = t■7 00 N 0M N CO O M � N--o (or p (fl _ d 0O d co co ▪ o M _ .- CO N o N O o CO O • N N N N N N ▪ © X0.1 o O O o O v] p N o O co c O O c L o c o 10 c o N-c N CO 0 N V' 0 N L) r, 0 N co N 0) N L()N- C1 MM ok co o) a 0 0 j a ON a 0I- d CO M ▪ O CO O a O O N L O L O O N C O M O N N N /L N N N O 01 01 ON rea' O., O, O., N � O © 000 ° N N- 0 V N N N � O N �° () v o rn in 00 �`?co oo �O ao u) co \ oo �(O oo � oo co,0 w' N M p N co N (Ni-O O LC) O N N N N ('7 O p1 I N . = oe oe oe _ oe oe oe 0 1W N co N N- N CON 4A7 = w � © � � © °co O ri M LO t- Ln V 0. r Lo L() N 0 co N 0(o o M O o o N /� o LO 0 o N O o M_ N N N •Y N N N N N N N N O La o O co o O o O N o O O c O o N CV _ N V N 0 N U) M N M0 N L()N 'd co N vi N ..d LO r 14 LO w .d CO LD v■ LO O co 0 ... 0 O N b 0 O N O O M N N N N N N b b b b b b O O mo O O7 CD OT a) d) � O. 1 N N 0 co N 0 co N * O N 0 d' N 0 0 V1 t co lioti V] tuV V7 to -- V7t CO In t N.- o�M o.`e. o.R.N o�0 o�N o.-- N N N N N N o N V N 0 G) 0 ' t t U U N o 2 w _ o 2 w o 2 ro a) o N o e o E s°' o '6_ s° , d p) s° „ v E t o V L' p1 sue' y y. w X d' f v`� d' _ c d' w d f d' _ z d' 41 61 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: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.E.1 See Attachment II.E.1 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: At the January 2014 SAPFOTAC meeting, members discussed the increased number of students generated in both school districts from new development,particularly multifamily housing. 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 student generation rates were approved on May 19, 2015 and are shown in Attachment II.E.1. 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 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 42 62 Section II housing is dominant or new families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock. 5. Recommendation: No change at this time. 43 C ro c, 0 ti 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 y ,.r 0-2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms Weighted Average Single-Family Attached 0.27 0.42 0.38 E Multifamily/Other 0.11 0.47 0.18 1-1 Manufactured Home 0.268 0.86 0.78 trJ i—, Weight Average for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District 0.49 n n c ►s ►s Orange County Schools c, E' 0-3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Weighted Average Q. ro Single-Family Detached 0.35 0.57 0.57 0.44 G� 0-2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms Weighted Average ro ►s Single-Family Attached 0.07 0.17 0.15 ?Y 0 Multifamily/Other 0.08 0.67 0.17 = Manufactured Home 0.67 0.47 0.52 rD Weight Average for Orange County School District 0.37 .i 0 Source:Student Generation Rates for Orange County School District and Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District,TischlerBise,October 28,2014 `cni Revised May 7,2015 -P 0) Ca) 64 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, 2015 membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June 2016). 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 65 Section III School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 1 - Capital Investment Planning (CIP) CIP CAPS Projection Method Approval System2 (Historical Membership' —> (Proposed New Construction —> (Certificate of plus Hypothetical Growth Rate i.e. School Capacity Adequate Public Added by number seats & year) Schools) T y n Actual Adjustments (Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year Membership Projection) y b O n ro u, u, n 'Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1)pre-existing/approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2) = a 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) as 2The only part of the CAPS System(i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking)that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual c membership(November 15 of preceding CIP year)and new school capacity amount(seats)in a specific year pursuant to the CLP. i 46 66 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 maybe 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 67 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 2016 - 2026) November 2015 —June 2016 (using 2016 SAPFOTAC Report) Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2016—2017) November 2015 -November 2016 48 68 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation 2016 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2015 through November 14, 2016. The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC/School District joint action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2015. 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, 2015. CAPS Allocation System CAPS System 1. Certified Capacity AC2=SC2 - (ADM2+ND 12+ND22+. . .) 2 LOS Capacity 3. Actual Membership 4. Year Start Available Capacity N 5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity(includes available capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by year) 6. CAPS approved development AC>O - Issue CAPS a. Total units b. Single Family' AC<0 - Defer CAPS to later date c. Other Housing' '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. 2AC- Available Capacity - Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system. SC - Certified School Level Capacity n ADM -Average Daily Membership ND - New Development; ND1 means first approved CAPS approved development 49 Attachment 7 69 m CHCCS Student Projections(1)(4) Elementary School Year 2001-02 200203 2005-08 2 2007-06 200609 2008-10 2010-11 1011-12 201713 20 20 2015-16 21116-t7 2017-18 21118-18 21119-211 2020.21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-28 Aclual 4 47 4551 20034692 20 495 4 879 00 4 980 5 173 502 5 218 5 299 5 464 5 543 175554 10.5541 135501 Tbc.(2) 5,576 5,651 5,726 5,831 5,676 5,951 8,028 8,102 6,177 6,252 OCR 5,802 5,728 5,858 5,975 6,082 3198 6,286 6,376 6,452 6,46 Year GOwh 5,547 5,547 5,560 5,524 5,575 5,631 5,687 5,744 5,801 5,859 5 Year Growth 5,534 5,525 5,526 5,484 5,528 5,583 5,639 5,695 5,752 5,810 3 Year Growth 5,502 5,467 9443 5,306 5/27 An.C.a..-Increase(Decroase)In.2118 PE ed Membership) 20 1 3 1. 101 193 128 1831 168 79 121 1401 5,531 5,32 5,39 5,614 5,635 5,768 5,656 5,93 6664 6,034 Capacity•1007.Level of Service(LOS) 4,302 4,302 4,92 4,921 4,9 4,9 4,9 5,244 5,244 5, 5, 5,2 5,8 5,a 5,829 5,829 5,829 5,829 5020 5,a20 5,829 5,829 5,829 5,829 5,a20 Number e Students,Actual an rgacted Over(U 100%Las (229) (226) (42) 58 (25) (2761 (2881 13281 (2771 (2451 (2071 (1951 (1301 1611 137 Capacity 105%Level of Service(LOS) 4,5 0.517 5,187 5,167 5,1 5,1 5,1 5,506 5,506 5, 5, 5,5 6,1 6,120 6,120 6,120 8,120 6,120 8,120 6,120 6,120 6,120 6,120 6,120 umber...W..Actual and Pr Jetted,Over W 105%LOS (431 34 14751 14721 (2881 11871 66 12041 12871 1221101 (42) 37 15661 1391 (619) 15681 (5371 14981 14861 P211 13521 12861 (2191 11551 1901 Actual-%Level of Service 104. 1058% 95.3% 954% 98.1% 1012% 105.1% 1011% 98.5% 1014% 104.2% 105755 95.359 95. 94.4% 95.355 95.8% 96.6% 96.755 97.8% 93.0% 1.1% 101.255 102.355 103.455 Annual Student Growth Rate 131 0.6899 1.72% 3.10% 0.06% 3.93% 2.076 3.8695 2.49% 4.57% 1.48% 3.1796 1.45% 0.10% -0.0. 79 .83% 0.57% 0.89% 0.21% 1.18% 1.21% 1.15% 1.1% 1.097, 1.08%.77,77 s P 161 upd a csp mmory..............9.vr xff I iMiratea xea tlso-d surpasses Schools FO recommended Level Of Bvce aw c wC. � Per amermer ek77,aim*mras mu um x n a anmmnwa m. n s.m a:pertm:t.1:vs m .LOvereMmne RIO owns m allow for prior Lea9hWaaabn m: mn•rmm.xrP.rwmm isxuw ems wmno.mmame o9amn.mmnmm.ao,.mmn.ma.inaemouaenucxce ,rocluced dm aml 0,,...1/VAN.eldatal11M,IMMIII■IMP b1,81.200142.31.1120161.0■81MOMMIM111.1,81.201.171103.20250) CHCCS Student Projections(1) Middle School Year 2 2 200607 2008-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2 20 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 202724 2024-25 2025-20 Actual 12540 2032608 20522612 20 260 00 2 572 2522 20522622 20 297 2 708 102722 112753 112785 172858 142881 132844 Tischer l2) 2.883 7922 2.960 2.999 3.038 3.077 3.116 3.154 7193 3.232 OG PPi n 2,678 2,918 2,983 3.449 3.115 3,168 3235 3,302 7370 3,438 10 Year Grovh 2,815 2,848 2,933 3,714 3,020 3,005 2,940 2,985 2,995 3,025 5 Year Groefh 2,788 2,816 2,885 2,887 2,081 2,834 2,884 2,891 2,810 2,838 3 Year Growth 2,775 2,767 2,816 2,688 2748 2,798 2,716 2,728 2,756 2,734 Average 2830 7854 29 45 29 2,998 2,997 7974 3,008 3,0 3,087 Annual Chage-Increase(Decrease)In Actual C.Projected Membership) 214 88 4 (52) 12 20 30 75 11 14 31 32 73 76 1171 1141 24 61 80 1 0 1221 32 38 39 Capacity•100%Level 47 Service 2,840 2,840 2,840 2440 2,840 2,840 2,944 2,944 2,944 2,944 2,214 2,944 2,944 2,944 2,214 2,944 2,214 2,944 Number of Students,Actual and Peal...,Overlurmed 100%LOS 13901 12321 12281 12601 (2581 12481 (2181 11431 11321 (1151 167) (55) (83) 11001 (114) 1901 (291 53 30 62 101 140 107%Level of Service 3.039 1039 7039 3059 3.039 1039 7039 3059 3.039 1039 3.030 3.039 3.039 7150 7150 8.150 3.150 7150 3.150 1.850 3.150 3150 0.810 3150 0.810 Number 47522d.027,Actual and 710e21e2.Over(Under)107%LOS (4991 (4311 14271 (4791 (4671 (447) (4171 (3421 (3311 1317) (2861 (2541 (1811 (2891 13061 (3201 (2961 (2351 (1551 (1541 (1541 (1761 (144) (1051 (671 Actual 55 Level of Service 89.4% 91.855 92.055 90.155 90.655 91.355 92.355 95.055 95.455 95.855 96.955 98.155 100.655 97.255 9 695 96.1% 969% 99.0% 101.7% 101.8% 101.8% 1010% 102.1% 1034% 104.7% Annual Student Onwhh Rate(31 8.20% 2.68% 0.15% 4.88% 0.47% 0.78% 1.16% 2.86% 0.41% 0.52% 1.11% 1.16% 2.62% 2.73% -02094 450% 0.86% 2.18% 2.74% 0.03% 0.00% 475% 1.08% 1.28% 1.27% IMlrataswren dlaact surp..a Schools AP.recommended Level of Service luaoael.....sadem wea k m2.-.......miness.mess me.roman execs me ace oliprnms.W.P.Man P.m...A mei...maw meta waccs CHCCS Student Projections(1) High School Year 1001-02 2002-03 2003-04 200205 200708 200807 2007-08 200609 2009-10 201041 201142 2012-13 201314 201415 201548 201417 2017-18 201849 201420 2020-31 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 202425 202.6 Actual 2 963 3 162 3 330 3 422 3 514 3 520 3 635 3 630 3 606 3 640 3 714 3 796 3 764 3 730 3 701 Thoh. 3 752 3802 3 853 3 903 3954 4 004 4 055 4 105 4 156 4206 OC Plan.. 3 792 3 849 3 880 3 923 3934 4 032 4 100 4 168 4 249 4 332 10 Yasr Gros. 3 753 3 838 3 864 3 900 3 939 3 977 4 124 4 145 4121 4 113 5 Year Gro. 3 757 3 834 3850 3 839 3 853 3 875 3 999 4 016 3 983 3 954 ear Growth ON 3 73 3 77 3 371 3 70 39 3 78 3 3 3 Average 3.757 3.820 3.842 3257 3,883 3.917 4.013 4,041 4.045 4,058 40028>0h8088.IOC,8888(022,68821 in...al 8 Protected Memberohipl 148 189 168 92 92 6 115 151 1241 34 74 82 1321 1661 (29) 56 63 22 35 96 28 3 13 Capacity.1007 Level of Service 3725 3775 Number of 7124e518.Actual and 714i71e4.Over(Under)100%LOS 3(72 3127 3295 3387 3479 3185 3(2001 (205 3(2291 3(2351 31611 3(79 3(1111 3151 3(174( 3(1181 3(551 3(331 (181 3,8785 3,875 42 3,875 138 3,875 188 3,875 170 3183 110%Level of Service 3.339 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.339 0.000 7219 4219 7219 7263 4.203 7263 7263 4.263 4.203 7263 7263 4.263 4263 7263 7203 4.203 7263 4.203 4,263 Number of Student.,Actual and Projected,over(Under)110%LOS (3761 (1771 (9) 83 176 182 (5841 (5891 (661 (6231 (5491 (4671 (4991 (533) (5821 (505) (442) (420) (4001 (380) (345) (249) (221) (2181 (205) Actual-%Level of.vioe 976% 1042% 1097% 1128% 1158% 11607 948% 947% 9407 939% 9 8% 9110% 97.1% 967% 95.5% Average- 970% 988% 99295 99.5% 100.2% 101.1% 1036% 104.3% 104.4% 104.7% Annual Student Grown Rate 131 5.20% 6.72% 5.31% 2.78% 2.89%1 clod 3R7% w-0.14% -0.66% 0.04% 2.0 2.21% -me4% -1.74% -0.76% 1.52% 1.68% 0.57% 0.37% 0.67% 0.69% 2.44% 0.71% 0.06% 0.32% Indicates when district surpasses Schools AP.recommended Level of Service taro.....mta17m7....a aammal.w•az I onzamv®rmm 1�Oww2n.s Attachment 7 OCS Student Projections(1)(4) Elementary School Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-28 Actual 2893 2901 2945 3016 3006 3072 3158 3185 3211 3285 3348 3403 3433 3259 3318 Mohler(2) 3,388 3,413 3,461 3,508 3,556 3,603 3,651 3,698 3,746 3,793 OC Planning 3,376 3,438 3,491 3,548 3,602 3,657 3,712 3,767 3,822 3,886 10 Year Growth 3,306 3,250 3,242 3,234 3,299 3,332 3,365 3,399 3,433 3,467 5 Year Growth 3,289 3,221 3,203 3,191 3,252 3,285 3,318 3,351 3,384 3,418 3 Year Growth 3,288 3,218 3,199 3,181 3,240 3,273 3,305 3,338 3,372 3,406 Average 3,325 3,308 3,319 3,332 3,390 3,430 3,470 3,511 3,551 3,594 Annual Change-Increase(Decrease)in Actual.Projected Membership) (185) 8 44 71 (10) 66 86 7 46 74 63 55 30 (174) 59 7 (17) 11 13 58 40 40 40 41 43 Capacity-100%Level of Service 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,920 3,920 3,920 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 Number of Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)100%LOS (927) (919) (875) (804) (914) (848) (762) (529) (483) (409) (346) (291) (261) (435) (376) (369) (386) (375) (362) (304) (264) (224) (183) (143) (100) 105%Level of Service 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,116 4,116 4,116 3,879 879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 3,879 Number of Actual-%Lev eIoffSServvicecelaM Projected,Over(UMer)105%LOS (1,118) 757% (1,110) 759% (1,066) 1% 790% (1,110) 767% (1,044) 784% 806% 857% 8698, 889% 906% 9241% 929% 882% (561) 554) (571) (560) (54]) (489) (449) (409) (368) (327) (285)1 90.0% 89.5% 89.9% 90.2% 91.8% 92.9% 93.9% 95.0% 96.1% 97.3% Annual Student Growth Rate(3) .6.01% 0.28% 1.52% 2.41% .0.33% 20% 2.80rt 022% 1.45% 2.30% 1.92% 1.64% 0.88% .5.07% 1.81% 0.21% .0.52% 0.34% 0.39% 1.73% 1.18% 1.18% 1.17% 1.16% 1.20% n .2 100 new 0 nllz bwu91 Elementary Scleol lnpwtent Nine:re approved by B0CC indicates when district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service npaclry numbers 2 tf.:Ion t Group and report of May 5,20009,Gages 2008-09 scowreduu d from 1:23 to 1:2100,opening ofat6 eenebry*lo- 01 II is Imwden10 nole11.11115 Weds IlleNowmber15, r men us WI.In In te Wads a..Publo FaclikeChdranoe. Mmlz lime(Wallow for Plor le9lzbtve ace,.re reduced class sett) IA mennwNma poweeerm'enca was a PWwene at tact GhC¢ne acs.On el prmals re.n myeers ow.morn meurea aopemn Meipamaas.using actual menianliptr yers2C01.02.noug112017-leand neap menbenliptr yers201617.nougn 2027-26 .pose Om....-3.2317......000.0.02007m.memo Incewn 200.col Caa:aaM Wal■Gwpevean,eneela 01.00.000 W.yes.Nemnrp of.a.Elm ental/M.*Rn se I:21....b W eW Ie...e a.m. OCS Student Projections(1) Middle School Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 200405 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Actual 1 527 1 631 1 671 1 593 1 590 1580 1 837 1 81 1 665 1 698 1 704 1 684 1 747 1 762 1 739 Tschlar(2) 1,764 1,789 1,814 1,839 1.84 1,888 1,913 1,938 1,963 1,988 OC Planing 1,769 1,806 1,844 1,884 1,924 1,964 2,004 2,027 2,051 2,073 10 Year Growth 1,733 1,780 1,858 1,870 1,761 1,735 1,709 1,761 1,779 1,796 5 Year Growth 1,726 1,756 1,821 1,822 1,705 1,670 1,838 1,888 1,703 1,720 3 Year Growth 1,724 1,751 1,812 1,815 1,699 1,663 1,627 1,672 1,688 1,705 Average 1,743 1,776 1,830 1,846 1,790 1,784 1,778 1,817 1,837 1,857 Annual Change-Increase(Decrease)In Actual 8,Projected Membership) 23 104 40 (78) (3) (10) 57 (36) 64 33 6 120) 63 15 123) 4 33 53 16 (56) (6) (6) 39 20 20 Capacity.100%Level of Service 1,466 1,466 1,466 1,466 1,466 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 2,166 2,166 Number of Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)100%LOS 61 165 205 127 124 (586) (529) (565) (501) (468) (462) (482) (419) (404) 1427) (423) (390) (336) (320) (376) (382) (388) (349) (329) (309) 107%Level of Service 1,569 1,569 1,569 1,569 1,569 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 2,318 Number of Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)107%LOS (42) 62 102 24 21 (738) (681) (717) (653) (620) (614) (634) (571) (556) (579) 574) (541) (488) (472) (527) (534) (539) (501) (481) (461) Actual-%Level of Service 104.2% 111.3% 114.0% 108.7% 108.5% 72.9% 75.6% 73.9% 76.9% 78.4% 78.7% 77.7% 80.7% 81.3% 80.3% Average-%Level of Service 80.5% 82.0% 84.5% 85.2% 82.7% 624% 82.1% 83.9% 848% 857% Annual Student Growth Rate(3) = 1.53% 6.81% 2.45% -467% -0.19% -0.63% 3.61% -2.20% 4.00% 1.98% 0.35% -1.17% 3.74% 0.86% -1.31% 0.24% 1.91% 3.00% 0.90% -3.02% -0.38% -0.33% 2.18% 1.09% 1.08% oo x3 opens n fah 2006 wed 700 addtonal seats I indicates Men district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service 01.impowmtb n m.n as cut..in by a 0meo4eabnmeewnawee W.I.ewmA1n14....0. .mae201115.1111,w m .p..111711th HZ010-17onou 7070.0 OCS Student Projections(1) High School Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Actual 1 753 1828 1.887 2.057 2.124 2184 2201 2242 2 217 2222 2 283 2315 2421 282 2469 Tlschler(21 2,504 Z540 2,575 2,610 2,646 2,681 2,716 2,752 Z787 Z823 OC plan 2,511 2,542 2,581 2,621 2,660 2,78 2,740 2,796 2,853 2,902 10 Year Growth 2,478 2,491 2,422 2,478 2,540 2,548 2,621 2,541 2,478 2,461 5 Year Growth 2,506 2,549 2,487 2,523 2,566 2,557 2,616 2,524 2,444 2,414 3 Year Growth 2,519 2574 2,522 2,564 2605 2,593 2,653 2,580 2477 2444 Average 2,504 2,539 2,517 2,559 2,604 2,616 2,669 2,635 2,608 2,609 Annual Change•Increase(Decrease)in Actual 8,Projected Membership) 81 75 59 170 67 60 17 41 (25) 5 61 32 106 81 (33) 35 35 (22) 42 44 12 53 (35) (27) 1 Capacity-100%Level of Service 1,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,533 2,533 2,558 2,558 2,558 2,558 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 2,439 Number of Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)100%LOS 235 (690) (631) (46 1) (394) (349) (332) (316) (341) (336) (275) (124) (18) 63 30 65 100 70 120 165 177 230 196 169 170 110%Level of Service 1,670 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,786 2,786 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,683 683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 2,683 Number of Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)110%LOS 83 (942) (883) (713) (646) (602)1 (585) (572) (597) (592) (531) (368) •) (181) (214) 179) (144) (166) (124) (79) (67) (14) (48) (75) (74) Actual-%Level of Service 115.5% 72.6% 74.9% 81.7% 84.4% 86.2% 86.9% 87.6% 86.7% 869% 892% 949% 1026% 1012% Average-%Level of Service 1026% 10.1% 1032% 1049% 1067% 1072% 1094% 1080% 1069% 1070% Annual Student Growth Rate(3) 4.84% 4.28% 3.23% 9.01% 3.26% 2.82% 0.78% 1.86% -1.12% 0.23% 2.75% 1.40% 4.58% 3.35% -1.32% 1.40% 1.42% -0.86% 1.67% 1.73% 0.47%M!05% -1.30% -1.01% 0.03% parmeaip Araeeny Alternative 5mm rapaoty sees] eater.lp Academy ate-reeve School rdocem-cpauv added indicates when distract surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service Oramewgh capacity deem,per nth eddy I 1.71 ArMarn'de VICU.,■.actual meneeiship.yeas 2.1-02 trot.2.,am map me...1p.-yeas zole,tug.zus-ze