Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 03-07-2017 - 6-f - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) – Receipt and Transmittal of 2017 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 7, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. 6-f SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Receipt and Transmittal of 2017 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. SAPFO Partners Transmittal Letter Ashley Moncado, Planner II, 919-245-2589 2. Draft 2017 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and Craig Benedict, Director, 919-245-2575 Larger Scale Projection Worksheets PURPOSE: To receive the 2017 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and transmit it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in May. NOTE: The School Capacity Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Needs Analysis projects no new school capacity needs in the next 10 years for elementary, middle and high school levels for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). ADDITIONAL NOTE: North Carolina General Assembly 2015 legislation may result in a 1:21 to 1:17 decrease in class size averages for kindergarten to third grade for the 2017-18 school year. However, pending action by the 2017 North Carolina General Assembly seeks to increase class size averages above 1:17, but to what ratio is unknown, in time for the 2017-18 school year. As an example, the 1:17 class size average would result in a decrease in capacity at the elementary school level of approximately 444 students for OCS and 660 students for CHCCS. In any event of ratio change, the BOCC would decide, with input from the schools, on when to implement the impact of the ratio/capacity change. This would likely occur when the school capacity is recertified each November along with new enrollment. Subsequent to this capacity, enrollment input, then future projections of school needs would be developed with this new data as part of the annual report. The calculations and conclusions detailed in the 2017 SAPFOTAC Annual Report are based on the approved 1:21 class size averages, as accepted by the BOCC with the approval of the 2008-09 Membership and Capacity numbers and certification of the 2009 SAPFOTAC Annual Report on May 5, 2009, which is when the last legislative change was implemented. BACKGROUND: 1. Annual Report Each year, since 2004, the SAPFOTAC Report is updated to reflect actual changing conditions of student membership and school capacity. This information is analyzed and used to project future school construction needs based on adopted levels of service standards. There are two steps to the full report. The first part (Student Membership and Capacity) is certified in the fall and then this full report, in the following spring, is to keep the SAPFO system calibrated. At the December 5, 2016 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board approved the November 15, 2016 actual membership and capacity 2 numbers (i.e. first part) for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). A draft of the full annual SAPFOTAC Report is complete and has been reviewed by the SAPFOTAC members. 2. SAPFOTAC The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems, the Planning Directors of the County and Towns, and County Finance staff, is tasked to produce an annual report for the governing boards of each SAPFO partner outlining changes in actual membership, capacity, student projections, and their collective impacts on the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and the future issuance of Certificates of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS). Orange County's Planning Staff compiles the report, holds a meeting discussing the various aspects, and then prepares a draft report, which is reviewed by the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee. 3. Membership Data CHCCS total increased from the previous year: 112 students 66 Elementary School (15) Middle School 61 High School OCS total decreased from the previous year: 63 students (25) Elementary School (15) Middle School (23) High School ( )denotes decrease 4. Capacity Data There were no changes to school capacities this year in either school district. Legislation passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2015 may result in a decrease in class size averages for kindergarten to third grade for the 2017-18 school year. The class size averages may decrease from 1:21 to 1:17. Due to ramifications statewide, the North Carolina General Assembly is reviewing a second bill to increase class size averages above 1:17 in time for the 2017-18 school year. If legislative action is not taken, the 1:17 class size averages will result in a decrease in capacity at the elementary school level of approximately 444 students for OCS and 660 students for CHCCS. The SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will continue monitoring this issue. 5. Capacity Information SAPFO vs. DPI The SAPFO is a local ordinance, independent of State Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projections and rules regarding class size. The SAPFO, for instance, does not count temporary modular classrooms as fulfilling the capacity level of service outlined in the SAPFO interlocal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU requires `bricks and mortar' instead of temporary facilities and also requires its own set of future student projections to identify long-term capital school construction needs. However, the County did phase in the smaller class size in previous years that decreased capacity. Decisions will have to be made if new discussions at the state level create any class size changes that should or should not be reflected in the County's SAPFO. 3 This year, CHCCS and OCS did not exceed the adopted levels of service established in the SAPFO, nor do projections show a potential need for additional capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school levels within the 10-year planning period. 6. Student Projection Analysis CHCCS Student membership projections show a mix of increases and decreases at all levels within the 10-year planning period. Projections are shown on page 39 of the report. OCS Student membership projections show a mix of increases and decreases at all levels within the 10-year planning period. Projections are shown on page 38 of the report. 7. School Capacity CIP Needs Analysis CHCCS Projected needs: Elementary School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years Middle School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years OCS Projected needs: Elementary School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years Middle School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years NOTE: School capacity improvements as part of a renovation/upgrade will be reviewed as necessary by the BOCC and school districts. 8. Student Generation Rates The updated student generation rates were approved on May 19, 2015 and are shown in Attachment II.E.1 on page 45 of the report. Updated rates began to be used for CAPS issuances in the fall of 2015 and are based on an inventory of recently built units from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013. 9. Access to Full Report The draft SAPFOTAC report will be posted on the Orange County Planning Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report will be sent to all SAPFO partners after this BOCC meeting advising them of the availability of the draft report and inviting comment. It is anticipated the draft 2017 SAPFOTAC report will be brought back to the BOCC for certification at the May 16, 2017 regular meeting. 10. Additional Information Over the last year, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and Orange County staff have reviewed and analyzed the number of proposed residential projects planned throughout the county. These projects are in various stages of review and approval. In some cases, sole review authority lies with the local government jurisdiction so they are not necessarily submitted for review by our planning partners. The impacts on schools are not typically addressed by the municipality since local school funding occurs only at the county level. Nonetheless, residential dominant projects affect the appropriation of county funds available to all county services and therein indirectly affect municipal use of countywide services such as solid waste, health, library, aging, etc. 4 There are two primary parts to the SAPFO system. The first part, Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS), is the testing and gaging of the student generation rate (SGR) from development projects against available capacity within a school. The second part, student projections and capacity needs assessment, is the tracking of historical enrollment and the projection of future student enrollment against existing capacity at a certain school level. This part is not directly related to a development project, but a current year outcome of how many children actually `show up' in a school year. This includes new students that come from existing housing stock. The purpose of explaining these two parts of the SAPFO system is to illustrate how projects can be approved as part of the CAPS system when capacity is available yet aberration in actual enrollment can cause future year projections to accelerate capital needs dramatically. The 10-year student projections developed for the SAPFO Annual Report forecast future school needs based on current student membership numbers and historic growth rates derived by the five projection models. The process accounting for students 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 proposed residential growth that has occurred in the recent past within Mebane's jurisdiction has yet to be seen with OCS student membership numbers and fully entered into the historically based projection methods. Orange County staff will continue to work with the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and our planning partners to monitor future residential development throughout Orange County. In summary, although the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee report does not show immediate capital needs, the development approvals in both school districts will, after a normal lag, accelerate capital school needs and renovations based on localized student increases at specific schools. These local impacts will have to be analyzed by the school district to determine the best method to resolve new demands (i.e. redistricting, renovation, new school construction, etc.). Now that the school bond has passed and school enhancements will begin, staff will include any changes in capacity that may occur and add to the SAPFO system. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current student growth projections do not show capacity needs for additional schools in either the CHCCS District or OCS District during the 10-year projection period. 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: 1. Receive the 2017 SAPFOTAC Annual Report; and 2. Authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained in Attachment 1. Attachment 1 5 BOCC Letterhead March 8, 2017 Pam Hemminger, Mayor Dr. Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair Town of Chapel Hill Orange County Board of Education 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 200 E. King Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Lydia Lavelle, Mayor James Barrett, Chair Town of Carrboro Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education 301 W. Main Street 750 Merritt Mill Road Carrboro, NC 27510 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Tom Stevens, Mayor Town of Hillsborough P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Annual Report Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to update you on the status of the 2017 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. In accordance with the SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the November 15, 2016 actual membership and capacity numbers for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill— Carrboro City Schools at its meeting on December 5, 2016. The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County and Towns has produced the 2017 Annual Report. As per the SAPFO MOU, the annual technical report contains information on Level of Service, Building Capacity, Membership Date, Capital Investment Plan, Student Membership Projection Methodology, Student Membership Projections, Student Membership Growth Rate, Student/Housing Generation Rate, and the SAPFO Process. Enclosed for your use are copies of the 2017 Executive Summary and the March 7, 2017 BOCC meeting agenda item abstract when the BOCC received the draft report. The full draft SAPFOTAC report is available on the Orange County Planning Department website in the Current Interest Projects section at the following link: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/SpecialProjects.asp The 2017 Annual SAPFOTAC Report is scheduled to be certified by the BOCC at a regular meeting in May 2017. Therefore, if you have any comments pertaining to the report,please forward them to Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director, no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 2017. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at (919) 245-2592 or by e-mail at cenedict@orangecountync.gov. Any comments received will be part of our agenda package in May. 6 Please share this information and the 2017 SAPFOTAC report with your respective boards. Sincerely, Mark Dorosin Chair Enclosures cc: Board of County Commissioners Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy Orange County Manager Roger L. Stancil, Manager, Town of Chapel Hill David Andrews, Manager, Town of Carrboro Eric Peterson, Manager, Town of Hillsborough Jim Causby, Interim Superintendent, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Todd Wirt, Superintendent, Orange County Schools Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools Catherine Mau, Coordinator for Student Enrollment, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Patrick Abele, Chief Operations Officer, Orange County Schools Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Orange County Ben Hitchings, Planning and Development Services Director, Town of Chapel Hill Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, Town of Hillsborough Trish McGuire, Planning Director, Town of Carrboro Attachment 2 7 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 2017 (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2016 DATA) CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY X, 2017 8 Table of Contents 2017 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary............................................................................................................................i ntroductionv Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance artners...............................................................................................vi Planning Directors/School Representatives Technical Advisory Co ittee.............................................................vii 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) (2015-16) 5 Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary,Middle,&High) (2015-16) 8 Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2016-17) 11 Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary,Middle,&High) (2016-17) 14 C. Membership Date 17 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 20 Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2015-16) 21 Attachment II.B.3 —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17) 25 C. Student Membership Projections 29 Attachment II.C.1—Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2015-16) 35 Attachment II.C.2—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary,Middle,&High)(2015-16) 36 Attachment II.C.3—Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2016-17) 37 Attachment II.C.4—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2016-17) 38 D. Student Membership Growth Rate 39 Attachment II.D.1 —Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2016-2026 based on 11/13/15 membership numbers)(2015-16) 40 Attachment II.D.2—Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2017-2027 based on 11/15/16 membership numbers) (2016-17) 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 III.A.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 48 9 2017 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 5567 66 3694 3293 (25) Middle 2944 2829 (15) 2166 1724 (15) High 3875 3762 61 2439 2446 (23) 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. 29 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2016-17 School Year — Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools (The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2016-2017 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 2016-17 Membership Actual 2016 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Membership Elementary 5567 6026 H459 5837 H270 5845 H278 5662 H95 5552 L15 Middle 2829 2987 H158 3004 H175 2962 H133 2928 H99 2830 H1 High 3762 4018 H256 4016 H254 3893 H131 3798 H36 3757 L5 1 10 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2016-17 School Year - Orange County Schools (The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2016-2017 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 2016-17 Membership Actual 2016 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Membership Elementary 3293 3699 H406 3622 H329 3567 H274 3274 L19 3325 H32 Middle 1724 1853 H129 1785 H61 1824 H100 1746 H22 1743 H19 High 2446 2449 H3 2429 L17 2468 H22 2540 H94 2504 H58 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 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Made: Elementary 1.18% 1.44% 1.11% 0.92% 0.91% 1.31% 1.30% 0.55% 0.80% 0.51% Middle 1.59% 1.58% 1.15% 0.82% 0.95% 1.64% 1.42% 0.09% 0.67% 0.36% High 1.60% 1.27% 1.22% 0.93% 0.72% 1.43% 1.35% 0.39% 0.56% 0.22% 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 95.5%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years, but remain positive (average-0.91%per year compared to 1.24% 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 96.1%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years, but remain positive(average-0.95% compared to an average of 1.28% 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. 11 High School Level A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 97.1%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase over the next 10 years (average -0.72% compared to 0.45% 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 89.1%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average -0.51% compared to 1.02% 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 79.6%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average -0.36% compared to 0.92% 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 100.3%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average -0.22% compared to 1.53% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year,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 10-year projection period. 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 12 SAPFO student projections for this year are not showing a need for new school construction or expansion in the 10-year projection period for both school districts due to slowing student growth rates. However,planned residential development in the near future may increase student membership and accelerate school construction and expansion needs into the 10-year projection period. Although capacity and construction needs are not identified this year, both school districts face a large backlog of school capital projects that need to be addressed. Given that student projections are not showing an immediate need for school construction in the 10-year period, this may provide the time for both school districts to commence and/or complete these projects in order to address ongoing needs. The State of North Carolina passed legislation in 2015 resulting in a decrease in class size averages for kindergarten to third grade for the 2017-18 school year. Based on legislation, the class size averages may be reduced from 1:21 to 1:17. Due to significant statewide ramifications as a result of the reduced class size averages, the North Carolina General Assembly is reviewing a second bill to modify and increase the 1:17 class size averages in time for the 2017-18 school year. If legislative action is not taken, the 1:17 class size averages will remain and result in a decrease in capacity of approximately 444 students for OCS and 660 students for CHCCS. This will have significant impacts for both school districts, resulting in over capacity situations and requiring additional mobile units at the elementary school level. The SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will continue monitoring this issue. iv 13 Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Introduction The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) 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. v 14 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding (SAPFO MOU) SECTION ld RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PARTNERS Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District SAPFO SAPFO 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 vi 15 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 Ben Hitchings, Planning and Development Services 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 Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 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 Catherine Mau, Coordinator of Student Enrollment 750 Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 2751 vii 16 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 SAPFO 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 HilUCarrboro 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 HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District These standards are acceptable at this time. These standards are acceptable at this time. 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District No change from above standard. No change from above standard. 1 17 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 HilUCarrboro 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 18 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. 2016: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2012: No changes at Elementary or Middle School School levels. 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 19 Section I School levels. 2014: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2015: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2016: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel HilUCarrboro 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 2016-17 capacity is noted on The requested 2016-17 capacity is noted on Attachment I.B.4 Attachment I.B.3 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel HilUCarrboro 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 20 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary,Middle,p(a2g&oe1H15i-oglfh63)) ..0.,.:,::,,,!,m,.,,.,,:.:,,:::....::....,.ti:,..„.:,.,:.",:..:.:.:...:ii.s.:,.H.,.:.,::„..,...,::..„,,..:..,11,!.,...„!.:.:.!...,.....!....,.,...,.:..,.::::1...!.::',•.:::!..1.:::0..,:: 10op;;1.,,,,:.,15...:..,.....,.,:.:::....:,:Iii:,.,,m.!.:.:.,.:!...,.:..:,:.,.:.:,:ii,:.:.,:....:.,.,:.:,,..,..9,..,..:.:...:....„,o, .,,,,,:::,,:,.:,..!,1.,.:!,,.,.,.0;::.0i.:::..0,...,,:..:,.:0.::.:..:..:..:,..,...:..:01...,,.,,:::,:,:,,,,,t!1,0,..:Jtm,,:i.,:i!,!1:,..,:.:.,:.,:,...1.:!..:.1.:...1..1.:.:.1.:1....1...!.,..!E!i:!..,,..!iE.!i.EE.EE.E.!:.E.:!:!.:!!!!!!1:0. .)range County SchoCls..••••.........--- .14,2016 .sS7Alhporool CDAispfrsicyt:'ea1r:: N'ovhemi,pbesrul b3,.m20tit5a-IND0avetlenberN104v,ei.n-be.r 13,2015 Capacity 41"i"."44"611::TI'.41."11'...;91:•: . .... :...-...i.'..'7:::::':....i....!.,..,::..''',.i. '':ii":1';'..:iiii061::.: :....".::.,.. ...14:,:i.;;;:i.;i,...,,....:.,..0.:::. .... - i and Members 7l..1..420i5 2°15'2616 illstiroili606 :rvicilmi,vrsiop j Kir'iiIiiik.r:,,!:: .:,:,,„..,...:..,.......!;......,........:.1..i.i.!"..:.-1::,•..i.:.•,•!.,::.:.::..:,..::••••••....li,4i....11:.....:11:.,.'...1."..i!.:.;.:.1...:.1..:.,.1:.11.;:.•!;2:::../..:... ..:..../.:1..•'..•..','•:.•::„..•...,,'!..:'.'".!..,.::''.i.!,....,t.1::,:s.i,.•':•.:..::::..:"..,;..,,.)l...::L..•... ::..,•.i.,.':,i.i'...:.:,.',.::i.:.!...::il:i:',:.i.'.:.1::.i':1::''.1.:il'i:•..':.:..,::..:.'.11.k.:.:..,.,.:.:'.:11::::...:...:.:.1:.1.1.';::,:'':...:11...!1:•.;.!.:1:>.:!::E"..;:"...........;::,..',..:1.11i-:.....''...).:..i....i'././/,',u....:r,..i'..,Iii,1 j.....,,,,,.i.,c : (.,,,,z7„//////,/,/,,x4,,,;,,,,/: ....,-...i.. 41' i'i:,:iii::,f.:9144:,•:'....,:.,,..:•!,..,.:r!iiiiiiiiii8i,!:.:..........A4iii4411Z.:.',....:':',.:•::::•:::''''.--•-••••••••••565,r::// f.(.',...,.,!;%isolg*y.,„!',1 ..$:F:..,..........:„...,..,... ,, : ,,,,/„.„,g,:40:..., - - noo,, foionnt,:,116,1..-4,1 ',.Zim4ee''.•;,71. 78,8.12 565)c4J%:*tii.,,.A 455 ilig"' baillifilif.4* 52,4. . .92 455 li.%%:,4194M, 497 1:111*.0111111116i:/444/' N6/..;d0if.4,5?..H61.,i,,; '4 316 497 Pft :34.1 544 11111.,,;#01/4,,,.0/1„.1111e1114.1 14i1140:241'. 6 '416 544 f'10:Ai,' ..4,i1 4711 ilik10'i'lk,,lit fif. 7'1.'I 06 471 OAigt '''4); 586 1: ISS;i:Alliiif4401: .51' 586 , . 6 11061001111111101 gmagalkoolf.4111 ..282 576 or: :mu N,Roaloodillot: rjr#4011111,11 85' ' : 6iii,446E&INN:111Ei!ii,;:''''',!1 , PIIMOM!#MR':'. ........ lh cl.„:„,1:.aciiiti,,s Air., 3,694 .,. . Ile,,p„,(t(A the S hfrA110:''''; '-'5'.;.' -'.••••••••• --- • 3,694 eii,ei .74.Aheei...;;,', ' ..(I1.1.,,,s,„1,,„,„,,,,,,,d,ht.heented CaP4LI :c:,..,w'iii reni.in efive wild Jail Note(s): 1.,l'o'th'N'''''''''' .., ..4 R cp r e e,.,t a t i,,.e,-rechilleal At',,I..l.,, d by tbe L.4(...)(„c„2 Du,lc,N„„.,. Justification: c--..... 19— (.a.-4,-, i .V:: Capacity Certification: ‘-‘4" ...:-........7 sirj i /.),,,/// Late -")'''''''f' il•(1 a 11,5 c:\f,„,4'6.!.14i,„II:.'..• . Date BOCC Chair Sdperintendent f i Membership CPfti:iltc.rt:-°m rod,41 a!le...A— /xilL:til_15.- Sup BOCC Chad Date rintendent . k 5 21 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary,Middle,& High) (2015-16) page 2 of 3 School APFO Cailanity, Membership and Change Request Form — School District: Orange County Shook SAPF0 CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 211111-21112 2012-211113 2013-21114 2014.21115 21)15-21,116 1111111e So/1161re , 14eqlleSteti 144;41 tiested Requested ttetinesuol Footnote,6, Melt'1 tt.d ship It"). ("aintri1v ()wacky 11,'tittata11,,,, C'arnteity Capacity 136,000 740 740 HO*krjtf**,„ 1762O 726 1,46 726 ',/;,,„ /%14 " ttti"/kkirt,k,)ri- 123,000 7110 ;140 7001'tz:':;;/0',„;„';'; Jz?/7j,,k 366,620 L 2,166 ' '61111.111eUM '4,Arirl'%;, Special Note(s): 1.For flteRrovember 15,2002 base year the hoard accepted the st(perintendent-eetlified c(ipacitics as pad(if tlie.School Facilities Fmk Force review and 2003 Planners and School keptesentative"Technical At(v)sir ouniniteelZeport al he eapttedtes gall remain effective until changed by(I)the Schou)(il`o (2)an antendud gerston of thts(urns that is gettilied by the 1110("( 2 Due to Noveihber 15th falling()n a Sunday this year,membership and capacity nunibeN shall be provitletllor Friday,Noweniber 13,2015 Justification: Capacity Certi7fAtisn: „, L„. 61\— Exh-f 117116"- /7- /5' Su erintendent ate BOCC Chair 'at- Mernbr hip certifi. , Su terintendent Da e BOCC Chair Date 6 22 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary,Middle,& High) (2015-16) page 3 of 3 School APIFO Capacitli,, Membership mid Change Request Form ....... . School District: Orange CoLinty Schools T;APF0 CAPS Year: Nover11-)ei.13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Merribership Submittal Date: Novel-libel'13,2015 2011-2012 21112,-2013 21113-2014 21111-,2015 2015-21116 ,, , 1-111g1N S1161 ''''''1,1,!i'llre Ite411ilesied 11orillested 11#„511esleill 14vtlpes“tril 11,14,4101:scull j,! 1tel'4"° NIvIlthers1111p1 ""vuel ('''.44-0vity 11"atiocity ("0,pacity ("ornicil% C',11-0,1611,,,v ,f,eafrfr,x;;; z,,,, 213,509 1,518 ;:',, ,, 1399 206,9(10 1,000 -/- ',, ,t;.#00 I /4p 6,600 4() ' ''' 40 :11113''„,4/,i;',,,,,,%; 427,009 2,558, ii ::ldrr 2,439,,';',„,4,:fa'/;,;„,y„,';,;:ghg', Special Note(e):1.,l'br tlie NrweinlYer 15,2002 base year the board accepted flin superliptcridantseert i Hut capiteititi its'part of the Settord Inacilities Task or review itrirl 2003 Planners:.and School Reprnscritativa['nit:holt:al Adwisitry("«iniriattice thenort 'I he capacities yy1H reronin erhectivry taitil chang,cd by(1)the S(111101 C11'or(2)an ainchidad herniaat 451[his form ihiyi is certified by the 130(1(`,2 the 2011y2013 capacity,nitilybera for()range High Schisol(1,399)is hasetll on a eaptivity tinallysis iiatil lanilitics„Yintly cinlininted Iv thcl)apitrinterit of Ptiliha InytritatiorY in Anigast 20112 3 One to Novemlber Justification: Capacity Certific lion: „,-- ) j,..:, (k ,„,..::' ',„,,liketit".5 ,,,,,,, ,, Ea„e 14/1-k,- /:,,,2, /':/ c S erintendent Date BOCC Chair Da e Membership Certifi ation: , i / ' -pf- i 2. /%,- (-''''''<i i I ):—':".` ',,A112b. -..,-" , Su enntendent 'Date BOCC Chair Date 7 23 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) page 1 of 3 84:hoda APR) Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form 1School District: Chapel tifill-Cariiboro City Schools §NATISTNIFIllit Year November 13,2015-November 14,2016 ...... — Capacity and illembersliip Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 2012-2103, 21113-2404 21114-20115 21115-24116 511„4441bers1410 littrorthrStittat'y Stith)t'e , ,11tisfirit:tttirrot , , . itestrits),It1(11 itetifiestert ItPtthtes,1Pri iteitriPSIPai ittsultreslcal „ (i'Ptet'Pfitt'ett Spit t ofil 14 eet , , , l'4o44464ote,44 ' 1'41044411,44 1'411444440v 4f;',46041e11,44 1,':41•44144114,4 4'44p444.4114, m144'4,141 ye41111 1 Carrboro 60,832 533 533 533 533 533 502 E0116505 66,952 448 448, 448 448 448 440 Estes/tills 56,299 527 527 527 527 527 485 Glemvood 50,764 423 423 4231 423 423 454 FP C1.4^atham 66,689 538 538 5381 538 538 5311 McDougle 98,000 564 564 5641 564 564 499 Rastikis 95729 585 585 585 585 585 517 Sao:Ls 90,980 575 575 575 575 575 , 505 Seavccil 52,896 466 466 466 466 4,,, 1 525 Morris Grove 90,221 585 585 585 585 585 l 558 Ncirtbside 99,500 0 0 585 585 585 ' 485 Total 828,862 5244 5,244 5,829 5,829 5,t429 I 5,501, Special Note(s):l.I,or the November 115,2002 base year the board complied the sopertfitendent-cert 1 fied capacrttes as par)tshthe School 11actlitics changed by(1)the Sehrol DIP or(2)an aisicrlded version of(hts herrn 1,1181 Is certified 1ty the B(11tCC.2 Due to Nt)vellsber 15th fatting ogt a filtatday tilts Justification: ? , Ca' ,city Ce ji,i44/(ti tio HI1 , ) '" ''ii.,‘/ , f-,;) '',"1//).-' er-IA,4-'P Sup.rintendent Date BOCC Chair Date M bersri3" er'if,„fr atiori: 6/ lift)I ///till ' 1 '' 1,6 lbeirintendent Date BOCC Chair f , Date 8 24 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) page 2 of 3 School APE() Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel 1-1111-Carrhoro City Schools A.Pfd CAPS Year: 'November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2ca 1-21.a 22-2.01,3 2013-201,4 -1014.2015 21 201ó ,„, „ Nicillahii,..rs,hip sliluat. , ihmstottriorwil .. Varitalle Sehool „ 14*(10es:tett Re4,10estett Req.ttestml IleMILICNION.I. 111111d ... „a ,,.. (rtiiiiiriarrritl Feet . .„ Carr:111(11y Ca Irraity (.'ai,airirty (i apacity Caratrirly scilumt year) Culbreth 108,058 670 670 00 774 774 716 MtiDougle 136,221 732 7321 732 732 732 689 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 706 642 Smith 128,764 732 732 732 732 732 797 III , 770161 482,541 2,840 2„8401 2,840 2,944 2,944 2,844 Special Noe(s) I. For the November 15,2002'base year the board accepted the auperMtendent-terffied ca.paeihes as part of the School Facilims changed by(I)the Schaal(II or(2)an amended version or this form that is certified by thelBOCC.2.Due to November 15th fall Mg.on a Sunday tins cJustification:9. ilcity.9 pr/ i f i 7,"t.,: 4/ ..._, ......... ....,„... / i uperintendent Date ,..... ,.., I el //' /i''') BOCC Chair Date ii M bersh' ,CertDication: 71P1S3 1/Ill ( (id( iupir erintendeht Date foLit.,49 if)/'qi(irtie- /3--/I ',///5' BOCC Chair Date 9 25 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) page 3 of 3 School APED Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District': Chapel 1.fill-Carrboro City Schools 7SAPF0 CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Wiembersinip Submittal Date: November 13,2015 , 2,1111-2012 2012,-2015 "2,1113-21114, 21114.2114,5 211421116 "'Slent1.14.4111p: Stlinaire , ,11,tolifloil1mo 1 lighl Stlwiool 1,,,,t Itcolltestell Iteillile,■.14.41 Itegkgesteci 11 ,11,teste(1 1,1:4,m10,,stet1 i, v, 1 4, 11.efereirlh,'inl 1 4k litatity 1, .11)4,o,c11y (,41)1,ortly 14111)1,11tity 1,,plika0:14)“ :so,'Iliroll,y,eti'4') Chapel 11111 241,111 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,471 EfIst Chapel 11111 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,373 CalTboro 148,023 800 800 800 NO 800 8241 Phoenix Acad, 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 331 ! Total 654,210 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 1 3'701 special Note(s): I For the November i5 2(002 he year the hoard accepted the superinteridenticerto tied capacities as part of tile School Facilities Task Force review ward 2003 'Ianners.and School Represcaaadive Tecirracal Advisory Cc)larbatte,e Report These capacities will remain eitleetive until citartged by(1)the Selittiiii Cilit im(2)an;intended verSaen af this harm ttlat la condied by r,e EI(X'C.2 Due to Noirenthet 0 5th fallong crn a Sunday Lhus Justification: Ca icity n Ce fi c tom'e — r t - / e , p s ierntedent Date BOCC Chair Dat /11111pmbershiR. rtifiFation: 'lliftt ' )''''t'''''""0 Gidi//' ii-/ it) ( ( II"'' -1 ( /".(i(--a' --.(x,t,i /)/Iletem Supenntendent Date BOCC Chair ate 10 26 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary,Middle,&High) (2016-17) (page 1 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year November 15,2016-November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Cletutttutv Square Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested ,Justifieottion, Mentbershlp School Feet Capacity C�tpaeity" Catlracit)� Cap�feity° Capacity (nr'tuttte# 5 tttr , 79,$12 565 . 00 Ctttn 1 ;? 52,492 :4$5 455 '4$5' ?'1 gi d e ks 64,316 .: 497 497 " 497 407 rally B 74,016 " $44 544 544 , 44 F itiott>tg1. 51,106 4"t 471 4 1 411 4 l 4f� 4w Rop e 100,164 486 586 5 5 '588 x110 ays 85 282 5715: 576 »15 '576" 574' 1 498,188 +9+"': 3,694 Special Note(s): I.For the November 15,2002 be 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 oihanged by(I)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: - 16 l'ic14 Sup rintendent Date =© C Chairr Date Membership Certification: I 1v -I 1\Le;' � A tZ�/t2G p Su eritnt' Date BOCC Cli- 4y1 Date 11 27 Section 1 Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2016-17) (page 2 of 3) School APFO Capacity; Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year`,November 15,2016-November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 W 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2,016-2(117 Mid lie Square .Jnstiricat30n Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Memhet•sliip School Feet 1"oot)wte tt Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity•L'8iiiirb k; 136,000 740 ,146 140 C:W tantbrd 107,620 'I2 726 726 ft 1' ib 614' 4tvvllyl11,: 123,000 O! 700 100° 700 '0 �# . 366,620 .t, ! 2,166 '".4.;f .' Special Note(s): 1.For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 20113 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School COP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: ehi ti[4-1 titZcg)6 Su:-rintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: \, et) f t 2'16170 Su erintendent Oate BOCC Ch. Date 12 28 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2016-17) (page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity;•Membership and Change Request:Farm: School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15,2016-November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 2102-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016 2017 fiquatre Jnstifigntiou 1-11gb Se i10411 Requested Requested Requested Requested Regt€ested Meuibersltip Feet (.'ootrtbte# Capacity Capacity C'tpac1} Capadtz Catparrity 213,509 1,399 I ,°1 X57: 206,900QMtiq 1000 ><� 1 � t.i 1-0,-O ', 6,600 d 40 tl i 34 o `i; 427,009 ' °i 2,439 . Speeiat Note(s);1.For the November 15,202 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 aended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.2.The 2012-2013 capacity numbers for Orange High School(1,399)is based on a capacity analmysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012. Justification: Capacity Certificifson / / pfr .'. f /12,1 Su i erintendent Date O C Chair Date Membership Certification: 7?f) 12i' l Superintendent Date :PDC Char Date 13 29 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2016-17) (page 1 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2016- November 14, 2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 2012-2013 2013-2614 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Memhcrship Elementary Square Jnstit lei'tion Requested Requested Requested Requested Reg uested (referenced School Feet Footnote# Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school year) Garrbttr0 60,832 "` 533 533 533 . 533 533 496 Ephesus 66,952" 448 448 448 448 448 4118 Estes Hilts "" 56,299 ;, 527 527 " : 527 527 527 499 Glenwood ;: 50,764 423 423 538 423 423 483 H1' iiuh mi 66,689 538 538 423 $38 538 582 MoDougie 98,000 564 564" 564 564 564 5.16 i slikis 95,729 ` 585 585 585 585 585 502. Soroggs 90,98(1 575 575 585 575 575 505 Sea well 52,896 40 466 . 585 466 466 549" Mortis Greve " ; 90,221 585 585 575 . 585 585 544 N rth ide..: .. 99,500" 0 585 466 . . '" i585 585 483. Total 828,862 : 5,244 5,829 5,829 5829, 8,829 5,567 Special Note(s):1.For the November 15,2002 base year the Board accepted the superintendent•certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: r ' 4.„, ,, (i,. /,...,,,,,/,. �,— t��� a S 'erintendenfi,- Date SOCC Chair Date Certification: 0 Date Date BuCC C =ir Date 14 30 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2016-17) (page 2 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPF°CAPS Year: November 15,2016-November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 2012-2913 2013-2014 2014-2015 2915-2016 2016-2017 111et bership Square Justification Middle School Requestetl Requested Requested Requested Requested (re e:cueetl Feel footnote i# Capacity Capacity ('npacity Capacity ("apaeity school year) Culbreth . . 122,467 670 670 774 774 774 712 McDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 732 671 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 706 6S1 Smith 128,764 732 732 732 ;: 732 732 795 Total. 496,950 . 2,840, 2,840 2,944 !: 2,944 2,944 2,829 Special Note(s): 1. For the November IS,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 CIF or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: f /f-/F A A 'plc=, ,perintende Date BOCC Cho' Date Membership Certification: 0 n-lam/L 4111 Wmntende Date BC Ch_ir Date 15 31 Section 1 Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2016-17) (page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2016-November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 2012-21/13 2013-2014 2014-21114 2015-2016 2016-2017 Niembtership Square dustifitatittn High School feet t Requested Requested Requested 12equesteti Retltiestetl" untnotc# (refet-enced Capacity Capacity Capacity C'altacity Capacity sehool fear) Chapel Hill" 241,111 "-; 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,521 East Chapel Hill 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 ' "1,515 1,515 1,381 Carrboro..."" 148,023 800 800" 800 800 800 828 Phoenix Acad. 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 '32 Total 654,210 ." 3,8751 3,875 3,875 3,$75 3,875 3,7.62 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(1)the School CIA or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: /c... "r 0 //,-//-/4 / ' � 0 S erintendent Date Ai Chair,' Date Membership Certification:i,..,,,_,t . . . ,./ 47 S erintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 16 32 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 SAPFO 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 HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District November 15 of each year November 15 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 HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District No change at this time. No change at this time. 17 33 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 HilUCarrboro 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, 2017. 5. Recommendation: Not subject to staff review. 18 34 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 HilUCarrboro 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 2015-16 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. 19 Attachment II.B.I—Student Membership Projection Descriptions Lo co L 8 o } m ° ° tii o ui cl u y E m ° E a1 ° E m or ;14 : m v; As N a `m • N R W L L a . >` n• °i . › 5 '� a• �i E. m rn v rn m Cl) ° ..c E L ° •c E L w L E-a o Z = O L O p .- 5 h ° S N a i N 2 Ti D• 8 5 .c u c y rn R c m rn NU c rn ° c a N R p, u °' y°, 21 a0i ._ p o is m 4 y is i 3 y m v 4 F, [fS m e C C "U' N c 0 ° C a ° to m° 0 6 N o W N • P N O Q L ° ° P. ° R 5 ` b a1 0 `' °s o .0 Qi N N ° c M U N ° Ca N N 0 4 1 2 pt ° ° !6 N -L a N IT 0- N a N °r• E ccco E c ea E 0 c m U C N 4 E, -0 o y 1 N G h ` ° m U m ` < W L. a. 0 0 c N r .M Y �C -o .. ._... c a C R 0 ra 1s mm 41 as T m E E ° m ° E. n u .1° c b a c > > > .� c ° N c .� 111 2 R ° R •Q - a c _! ° c - •a ' _• L o ° L o A. 2 !Z E C4. W 0- o. E it J n ff 61- o,-.0 01 LU i 36 Section II Attachment II.B.2—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 Protection is T 3309 L9 OCP 3318 Equal 100 3279 L39 5C 3268 L50 3C 3251 L67 AVG 3285 L33 11/14/14 11/13/15 Middle 1762 1739 -23 Model Protection is T 1789 H50 OCP 1791 H52 100 1730 L9 5C 1722 L17 3C 1721 L18 AVG 1751 H12 11/14/14 11/13/15 High 2502 2469 -33 Model Protection is T 2541 H72 OCP 2545 H76 100 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 100 7465 L61 5C 7478 L48 3C 7492 L34 AVG 7546 H2O H means High L means Low 21 37 Section II Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2015-16) (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. 22 38 Section II Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2015-16) (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2015-2016 School Year (November 13, 2015) 11/14/14 2015 Report 11/13/15 Change between Actual Projection for Actual actual Nov 2014- 2014-15 2015-16 2015-16 Nov 2015 Elementary 5541 5501 -40 Model Protection is T 5625 H124 OCP 5641 H140 100 5606 H105 5C 5586 H85 3C 5573 H72 AVG 5606 H105 11/14/14 11/13/15 Middle 2861 2844 -17 Model Protection is T 2905 H61 OCP 2898 H54 100 2910 H66 5C 2888 H44 3C 2874 H30 AVG 2895 H51 11/14/14 11/13/15 High 3730 3701 -29 Model Protection is T 3787 H86 OCP 3818 H117 100 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 100 12,217 H171 5C 12,181 H135 3C 12,143 H97 AVG 12,243 H197 H means High L means Low 23 39 Section II Attachment II.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2015-16) (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. 24 40 Section II Attachment II.B.3 —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17) (page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2016-17 School Year (November 15, 2016) 11/13/15 2016 Report 11/15/16 Actual Projection for Actual Change between actual 2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 Nov 2015 - Nov 2016 Elementary 3318 3293 -25 Model Protection is T 3366 H73 OCP 3376 H83 100 3306 H13 5C 3289 L4 3C 3288 L5 AVG 3325 H32 11/13/15 11/15/16 Middle 1739 1724 -15 Model Protection is T 1764 H40 OCP 1769 H45 100 1733 H9 5C 1726 H2 3C 1724 Equal AVG 1743 H19 11/13/15 11/15/16 High 2469 2446 -23 Model Protection is T 2504 H58 OCP 2511 H65 100 2478 H32 5C 2506 H60 3C 2519 H73 AVG 2504 H58 Totals 11/13/15 11/15/16 Elementary 3318 3293 Middle 1739 1724 High 2469 2446 7526 7463 -63 Model Projection is T 7634 H171 OCP 7656 H193 100 7517 H54 5C 7521 H58 3C 7531 H68 AVG 7572 H109 H means High L means Low 25 41 Section II Attachment II.B.3 —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17) (page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2016-2017 School Year (November 15, 2016) 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 projections were mixed low to high, ranging from 5 students below to 83 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 32 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 25 students between November 13, 2015 and November 15, 2016. Middle School Level • The majority of projections were all high, ranging from 2 students to 45 students above actual membership. One projection equaled actual membership. On average, the projections were 19 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 15 students between November 13, 2015 and November 15, 2016. High School Level • Projections were all high, ranging from 32 to 73 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 58 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 23 students between November 13, 2015 and November 15, 2016. TOTAL • The totals of all school level projections were all high, ranging from 54 to 193 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 109 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership decreased in total by 63 students, which is the sum of-25 at Elementary, -15 at Middle, and -23 at High. 26 42 Section II Attachment II.B.3 —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17) (page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2016-17 School Year (November 15, 2016) 11/13/15 2016 Report 11/15/16 Actual Projection for Actual Change between actual 2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 Nov 2015 - Nov 2016 Elementary 5501 5567 +66 Model Protection is T 5576 H9 OCP 5602 H35 100 5547 L20 5C 5534 L33 3C 5502 L65 AVG 5552 L15 11/13/15 11/15/16 Middle 2844 2829 -15 Model Protection is T 2883 H54 OCP 2878 H49 100 2815 L14 5C 2798 L31 3C 2775 L54 AVG 2830 H1 11/13/15 11/15/16 High 3701 3762 +61 Model Protection is T 3752 L10 OCP 3792 H30 100 3753 L9 5C 3757 L5 3C 3732 L30 AVG 3757 L5 Totals 11/13/15 11/15/16 Elementary 5501 5567 Middle 2844 2829 High 3701 3762 12,046 12,158 +112 Model Projection is T 12,211 H53 OCP 12,272 H114 100 12,115 L43 5C 12,089 L69 3C 12,009 L149 AVG 12,139 L19 H means High L means Low 27 43 Section II Attachment II.B.3 —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17) (page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2016-2017 School Year (November 15, 2016) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT (3C) Elementary School Level • Projections were mixed, ranging from 65 students below to 35 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 15 students lower than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 66 students between November 13, 2015 and November 15, 2016. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed, ranging from 54 students below to 54 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 1 student higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 15 students between November 13, 2015 and November 15, 2016. High School Level • The majority of projections were low, ranging from 30 to 5 students below actual membership. One projection was 30 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 5 students lower than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 61 students between November 13, 2015 and November 15, 2016. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were mixed, ranging from 149 students below to 114 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 19 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership increased in total by 112 students, which is the sum of+66 at Elementary, -15 at Middle, and +61 at High. 28 44 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' middle school level and at the Orange County Schools' elementary, middle and high school levels. The attachments show an increase at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools' elementary and high school levels. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools projected average annual growth rates for elementary and middle school levels have decreased slightly, but remain positive. The projected average annual growth rate at the high school level has increased. Future growth rates show positive growth at the elementary school level during the entire 10-year projection period. Middle and high school levels see mostly positive growth rates with only one year of negative growth for both levels in the 10-year projection period. Projected average annual growth rates for Orange County Schools have all decreased 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 29 45 Section II were updated using current(November 15, 2016) memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter. Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Elementary The previous year(2015-16)projections for November 2016 at this level were underestimated by 15 students. The actual membership increased by 66 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 2015-16. Growth rates during the past ten years have ranged from -1.57% to+3.88%. 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. This is similar to last year's projections. Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre-K programs continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre-K programs exist. Specific impacts of Pre-K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed and discussed in the coming year. Middle The previous year(2015-16)projections for November 2016 for this level were overestimated by 1 student. The actual membership decreased by 15 students. Over the previous ten years, this level has shown varying increases before experiencing a decrease in 2015-16 and 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. This is similar to last year's projections. High School The previous year(2015-16)projections for November 2016 for this level were underestimated by 5 students. The actual membership increased by 61 students. Over the previous ten years, change has been variable with decreases in membership in five of the ten years. Growth rates 30 46 Section II during this time period have ranged from -1.74 to+3.27%. The need for additional high school 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 Following the economic downturn, there has been an increase in residential projects, specifically multifamily development, in the Town of Chapel Hill. Currently, there are over four thousand proposed single family and multifamily housing units approved, but undeveloped in the CHCCS district. As previously stated,proposed growth is not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment. The CAPS test is conducted during the approval process at a certain stage. Once students are enrolled in a school year, through annual reporting of student membership numbers, 10-year student projections can be updated to display future capacity needs in time to efficiently plan for future school construction requests. Staff and the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will need to continue monitoring and evaluating the demand and growth of residential development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as its effect on student membership rates. PACE Academy High School, located within the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District, closed prior to the beginning of the 2015 school year. Some students from Pace Academy were absorbed into the OCS and CHCCS systems, while other students may have enrolled in public schools or charter schools located outside of Orange County. Due to the closing of Kestrel Heights Charter in Durham County, CHCCS reported an increase in membership at the high school level. The Expedition School, located in the Town of Hillsborough, serves approximately 277 students and 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. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter schools and their effect on student enrollment at both school districts. If a charter school does close and a spike is realized in school enrollment, the student projections will likely accelerate the need in future years, still within an appropriate time for CIP planning. Charter Schools are additionally monitored by the Department of Public Institution (DPI) which provides pupil information, based on data received from Charter Schools located in Orange County, to the County for funding purposes. 31 47 Section II Orange County School District Elementary The previous year(2015-16)projections for November 2016 at this level were overestimated by 32 students. Actual membership decreased by 25 students. Over the previous ten years, this level experienced positive growth before experiencing a decrease in 2014-15 and this year. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -5.07% to+2.80%. In the Orange County school system, historic growth is more closely related to new residential development than in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District, which has a sizeable number of new families in older, existing housing stock. The need for an additional Elementary School is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre-K programs continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre-K programs exist. Specific impacts of Pre-K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed and discussed in the coming year. Middle The previous year(2015-16)projections for November 2016 for this level were overestimated by 19 students. The actual membership decreased by 15. 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. High School The previous year(2015-16)projections for November 2016 for this level were overestimated by 58 students. The actual membership decreased by 23. Over the previous ten years, growth was positive before experiencing a decrease in membership in 2009-10. Following this decrease, membership and growth rates increased every school year before experiencing additional decreases in 2015-16 and 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. 32 48 Section II Similar to last year's projections, the need for additional capacity at Cedar Ridge High School is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. However, to address public safety concerns with the current high school capacity exceeding the 100% threshold, Orange County Schools is in preliminary planning stages to expand Cedar Ridge High School from initial capacity of 1,000 students to1,500 students for the 2020-21 school year. Additional Information for Orange County School District The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange County portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, the City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not require that CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools)be issued prior to development approvals. Following the economic downtown, there has been a slight increase in approved and undeveloped residential development in the City of Mebane and the Town of Hillsborough. Currently, there are over two thousand proposed single family and multifamily housing units approved, but undeveloped in the City of Mebane and the Town of Hillsborough. The residential growth that has occurred in the recent past within Mebane's and Hillsborough's jurisdiction has yet to be seen with OCS student membership numbers and fully realized into the historically based projection methods due to the recession, charter schools, and possibly new family dynamics effecting family size. Staff and the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will need to continue monitoring and evaluating the demand and growth of residential development in Mebane and Hillsborough as well as its effect on student membership rates. Eno River Academy, formerly known as Orange Charter School, currently serves approximately 238 student from kindergarten to 11th grade. A future expansion is planned for Eno River Academy to include a new high school and additional elementary and middle school classrooms for the 2017-18 school year. The Expedition School, in the Town of Hillsborough, currently serves approximately 277 elementary and middle school students. Both of these charter schools continue 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. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter schools and their effect on student enrollment at both school districts. If a charter school does close and a spike is realized in school enrollment, the student projections will likely accelerate the need in future years, still within an 33 49 Section II appropriate time for CIP planning. Charter Schools are additionally monitored by the Department of Public Institution (DPI)which provides pupil information, based on data received from Charter Schools located in Orange County, to the County for funding purposes. 5. Recommendation: Use statistics as noted in 3 above. 34 Section II Attachment II.C.1—Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) C e '451 g III ®ICI pp 1. .,_ i IIIIN } 0v Viqi R N gg F 7 MIN i !6F:Tig"' 5 )0 i milli i ,: Mil _ R' pr■r r III i ,} ■® i R ffi ■iii e R ii 6 i - MI i 1! § Gail a a IN i 1 qi m 1111 H. ION h R ,.. — - R iii■ � 1 R NH i im I ii ,_ I II a NIII 4. a s iiii ' i . � VIII i i il _ I l' III ° = ICI III a �� I ° II il i I g ICI # i MITI I I i h i I l III . i IIII i E Iii i w iiii i _ 1 �6IhI II # m s' s s a in i I I 246 y4. ➢i iiIi gig III 3: E liii a 8 :I o I; ! _ C ill i' g ', a` i ERi Es a a i ° # g s t x '� a Rk .. l 3 a a Z !$ L F !eft i $ 1 ill F R9 c 6 k 6 w i [ r� E _ _ I I G i# i I4 5 i & 8 i 9 5 s Oil Q a o !! i 2 .8.Y.4: t I W •« i _ E t p a < ii u1 1 643 eo 2 E ; E f N o w i6 E{ 2.;5 $¢ , O 3 �.. 6 _ E s o � 3 !I t li x 35 Section II Attachment II.C.2—Chapel HiWCarrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2015-16) F 1 L _ _ BRIM a °c^8a a5 n p F 7 HE 111111 $ ' s R - 1 1/1111/1 :.1188 . i :!5: •:. 5 ^_ a^0e S e 11111 $ m ; d m, 1 (fill 1 14 I ili 1 i 1 °1:51. f, 1 11111 I pas ' �h I I I I5 " xt 1 Ifni 11 it 11 I i $' ' 1 1 11111I3: 1 El 1 Ir ' ° gl 1 Iii iii I I 14 r 1 11111 I li#i�� ® I I IRP�� 1 1 , 1 11111 lid of I 1 I 1 ILIIi 1 11 I I I WE I, 1 1 111111- 1 IM I I 1E§=i 5 1 'MI I I �s.� 1 I Epp_ C 11111 I 1 19 I I�°�, f C 1111I 1 1 I I I z I I�'�a 1 Mil i I 1 I I Illi 1 1E/E•_- 5 : C IHIII I ` I 11 111 I I ` = I III - ' di 1 Iflll 1 ii F i1. .f 11E: 3 ii ii ii Ili ill Ii g Iii Ilif i! ' f i f�i f{ 6 Ii tip lif to ,i i .I H i ; fi 1 F - G P- 1 1 I (. 12 _ : ; ; lee- _ € l 6 10 C i1 3 G i t i I 6 t£i i I n .% i 01 zt t 4 f- Litt 9ti� s5f:5- III H • c . 2 .I y6 t ;8 K l;e y j- 8�i 5 i iii 1 t� V = i I= c i �+p g��� f/� u Es`.. 35 € 51,5 € e uii.io .,., iilk FP V z° i_ !il !#�°i';;! esa 36 Section II Attachment II.C.3—Orange County Student Projections (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2016-17) N LC) 1 1.iR ° °t s r,§M- _e vi_ ,i q R g R - R m 3 m S i l l -.g ff A n -1 s s ARi 01 A - ":4!=-12'W- "R ; e i&p. E—A a 1 Re.,, 6a :1 A d= arts A g _ Ra e ge?, aawi I -RRSae x 152 s 4 egg'. Vigi x - stet ni _c z 9xF 1 _q R .= R A R R A it m R' ii ° R � R' R S ® ir F- 1- III6 rg �� S: i Mir liiit 8 �R e'Cm Ib Y R.� 11�l - y RD 1111 F �.° n g ke —°iii ° 5 1- 11.1 m IR ;- ®iir R- MU v 8 N MI f ST iiii M a:i iiiir ; " eaRrtg° c e 1; I R 1kb e o 1 s = R II ° i t 8' 0 3 i ; 3 ig 3 i s a _ lig 1 :I 11 i WI if! iii !iii fi Ili W I f; I` iiii I o itid C . , 18 S i !ii 13 - tlfi i s i : . �`Ni k 1 z i C�C G i f t lC S i 6 1.1 1 O_ : e i F 1 O : P :i O Z : t 1•' I tfip c s;iYit sx c •sa i- g H i g ;Ili N r -0— O H 'as N S Y PM! I id 4 es ;! 1 Iii N � I iu ,, " u = - 1.u 11 ili. l 1 ° 1 €: F $ k -$ < , , - 37 Section II Attachment H.C.4—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary,Middle,&High) (2016-17) co in a .i R A- _ __ 6 R a' = F z- -a i _ r ti �_ .S E.. K. - t, I Illi®iiii I 's q RSNR ;— SASRR E IMRE 1 . N R R._ i , _ ! ,4 R VIII®1111 IIII111I1111 i 9 = 3 0- a C MINE I EN [Fh! v I Ili I R INIVIII ; dill IN f� Rm CRA OE.;' �iilii �F ; 1101 ELI II ms: [ NM 1 1 MI VIA. El Mil I R EN inliii £ EN I,:� k. - CI iiiii 1 ®Ni j R El I��i�i i_ EN Ii : I i' a g, o g l' 11111 I EN I-- MCI I 3 l' .o. R .x C MN I R rv_q^. ii 0 x IN I g; i t `, C NM f NM I ii , MI I lit l' ,ii . w 111 f1 f ill 'i Ili _ !ill Ili `E e o ;II _ alt 1 f i J i _i i j o i 8 8 = S 6 'Y._ P I k ,°, ss tt F f 9 A v d! 9- — 6 9 N i d Q i Y a - y€y L{f Y _ 1 d Y FE j{9 0 : a:y i F 4 .ii ! — �E i I! S E ii' ! 7 a as j t .1 1. lit 38 54 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 HilUCarrboro 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 HilUCarrboro 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 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- Year Projection 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- Made: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Made: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Elementary 1.18% 1.44% 1.11% 0.92% 0.91% Elementary 1.31% 1.30% 0.55% 0.80% 0.51% Middle 1.59% 1.58% 1.15% 0.82% 0.95% Middle 1.64% 1.42% 0.09% 0.67% 0.36% High 1.60% 1.27% 1.22% 0.93% 0.72% High 1.43% 1.35% 0.39% 0.56% 0.22% 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District Use statistics as noted. Use statistics as noted. 39 Section II Attachment ILD.1—Orange County and Chapel HiWCarrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2016-2026 based on 11/13/15 membership numbers) (2015-16) to • F"til 0,4 Al' PA cn' �w� � x" � � �� �� "��� [� el a)I i... �.... ti7 C'D ("4 a' cry. 7 C.7,,pm..a " " r rzy c I ti) R iii ;, �w.. ,fi ..r" �6 Liz y ▪ C'} NwL" -1-Lf'A M' fir: a a'res • as cs e+ C ,4 ar ▪ co 0' - «; ", 1 cum �.' A�1 2 el go' C'J,P '� . iCJ 0 4., G r• l+11' S.r .. W"7 fir,• 44 ol A..0 'ca "., Re c:,r`- w c A Ftca a C " . • CO LCD c; cal Cl• co _ ma i rn 4 esr" f ° _'a �C4 z cc 7 ca h, a �� 1,?...• 41 g-':, y e? c '% cD N ): "1"",cu-', r n rte In r: :.c�z .ua "'D A c """ a "" c„ t 7 1, Ana ., u3 ° u▪ c omf ra u� • cc cs "a ` ca • .— • rya'.. ......... u a es • 'c ' ' '�° Or rip N. en cv �:- nr eea ca xa a nr a,ci Lc) '~J V J'.... Cdr i3 u • a. �M` .. p" i� • ,. .c �; I, p. ,.a,� ". �, c.q,M '+ af3 " to 4c1 , w u1 q9 w a,yl LJ"i w raly. • l per ' ,�, �. • c ao �o ,,�, a s L N 40 Section II Attachment II.D.2—Orange County and Chapel HiWCarrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2017-2027 based on 11/15/16 membership numbers) (2016-17) r. 0 rl ry 7 ice,8 i4 'CN ^ a �,Y C3'�T. wrl rt cr ur co c r,7 r r "" ry Cl (D r v" c� "i I C. 11,.. � 0.0) ° r I C r�ica i� v I" caamr�w IR 0 , "Ire_ " t' ni 'ua " y� 4 , 0 O 1J 6 "mo d 7r csi N% r"J C7 c. if) GI SAN CD I SCI" J ra w r CN ice- CO _ 7 " "sue C p4: r� ` " Pc .Vn 4 +,' r I car L I uy- 3 47 ir-7) CNI 4F4 in CD ri C9 v c s co P .« 0 '4 4 cs C J u,4 i LP s "fir '" K; s.�+' acr N Ca Q ��r .�.,,. C7 'may", „I-. Y c� (r c- r La a+ co er a C — +M4,' lC7 i r C71 ro l6'7 a fA o „,Ri ; rr tLi rn ^"i, r rw cr r r 7 ry = Rt ' ca : i a ca '” 4r C, pal SFr 7,,, ,' r1'7 q7 C`J :. 1 M rriN g` rw nl :, -u b c, mN. u� w ., .�c rs' rd In r� rr r "�„r� � �un r'r,~'"' Vii ''"' u 'U :u _ — �- = ww � �� :. a� 417 ^,� CJ d, ^- a' v p. q7 T u r u7 "''7 t E i'. -0 t ..,g .J-� '� "C7 �, "". ..0 tip-. a X7 m� p7 a - L7 a v 437 ,"L''. .... r _ ,.,,i w .. 41 57 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 HilUCarrboro 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 58 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 Section II Attachment II.E.1 —Current Student Generation Rates (2015) o) Lo w w a) to Ca MI DI 01 /- r- (I , > > I q„, co co co olz < a co co ,- N- "4" 126 '12 0 CD 0 6 0 0 0 $$-- ,-- LC ("0 Ty, 8 7 0 0 0 0 .... ..., 01 VII 0) CM 1., ),-- t Ir. E 1.6 .... E 0 7... 01 o co 2 '-'- — -5 in 0 15 0 w o 0 LO co .c. CO Q .r... a) + ICO f Ch N >4 '— CI crp 0 Ce 0 C — C 0 2 3 8 0 0'. Vol CO 4n ti) IC) ..,C ei3 0 E E FE 0 E E 01 c 7 s.. ... o o = of) o 0 00 LF, _ 0 t.-- 2 [I- N. r-0. 4) 17 >4 1... in. - ,-. co 1° MO 15 o 0 o o c 0- ,.... 0 Iro c (0, w to o co 0 *6 al co c = 0 el V I 40 0) ■ , ,$' = CA c 4-I CO m co Cs) 0. 01 ra E pi E ,... cu ..c 0 0 < 0 a) 01 0 0 o r,- co .. 11.. ," k. „,,,, Xi 2 lin ° IN CO h. IL. '0 " '' IN al ▪ 0 4) 0 0 "" 'V (Y) 1:3 0 0 CO a) 0 0) 0 0 0 0 03) CO CO n. moffe $ g 0 0 ° 0 0 E$ ,c10 gs o E .3 3 ,_ E —, .... o w ,.., a, ›., ›'" 0 73 ›, ›, r„ ) = --- ., 4) E E '5,-, 0 E "- o o — .- to to ,— u r ur E eztj Li. ur E 0 Zi) .... 4.. = CO i705 03 2 2 u,),- in- E E 44 60 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, 2016 membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June 2017). 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 SAPFO 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 Attachment III.A.1 —Process 1 Canital Imnrovement up ct ct c+-1 7E -i-,'x C) N C� '�c'D U O O U U i. E cd i. C.) rzi U U czt Nie o . �. o _y� 0 • ••— U "Q E 0 ct U V 'C U U V N cl. Czt 1.) F-�i N U i ct`./ O 0 c, •rl •I O v "Li -0 U 0 Ct ' Ct c) '—I CA ter-. 11 cr) ct O rd cn ct v � .. �, E �. ct •'� � a � ° U 1.) Q' � �,up C� O -� 0 1..) -0 +. -, is ro 0 • �. Cr i..• 0 ,4 C U U C - � � ct r--) a� LJ i. ct i- i. S U p .� •~ a 0 o U ° o .5� 0 U O 4 d O 62 Section III B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Update (Process 2) Timeframe: The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the school districts report actual membership and `pre-certified' capacity, whether it is CIP associated or prior `joint action' agreement. `Joint action' determinations of changes in capacity due to State rules or other non-construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the November 15 capacity and membership reporting date. This update may reflect the Board of County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects capacity and addition of new actual fall membership. The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year —(e.g.: November 15, 2005 to November 14, 2006). New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated, each CAPS projection year is `absorbed' by the actual estimate of a given year. Later year CAPS projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For example, if a 50-lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 lots may be assigned to "Year 1," 10 lots to "Year 2," 10 lots to "Year 3," 10 lots to "Year 4," and 5 lots to "Year 5." When "Year 1" is updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The students generated in "Years 2, 3, 4, and 5" are held in the CAPS system and added to the appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated. As was discussed in Section II.C, The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not require that CAPS be issued prior to approving development activities. 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 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. 47 63 Section III For example, the SAPFO 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 2017 -2027) November 2016 —June 2017 (using 2017 SAPFOTAC Report) SAPFO CAPS Process 2 (for SAPFO System 2017—2018) November 2016 -November 2017 48 Attachment III.B.1 —Process 2 Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) N ct a) .E O -c + up 0 N 0 o N� Z Z U a � •Q - O ct O . 1 o O k--1 O N v '� � ct o -o U1 �' z — i" Ct U a) O a o au U �" O N U ' - o � z E = 3 O a CD cu cu cu rt g C.) o z o •� � (1.) 01) ›' 0 c'N O N U o C 'C o o � vU �cn'-C:) `/ o (/) II o o s •. N AI V � i. ct O o N � •'� -,- - O. 0 CD U '(ct o U cv •C.) oo 0 o v) /� II--�� O v' ' >' •— rrT� F� P- N N V U F��•1 N cu cu U Vi C!1 � P. I C.) v - •'---,) � � au a� • c+ N c ct O H �' 7t, sue,ct° '� �� � cn U ,� O U ' U o ap o .:. � . � � to cID oars a ,9 c a ' -E a U c p U , r, O �U ad -0 6 dUQZ +, +' 0 U - C.) -,$ c-) c..) ct � did Cr P-1 H ct U (-NI � m v 4P:i 01,1arqi 87 e Z �q o� LO .,,ms 2E"_� $8 em 4 V" m "om " � �" 2 a ri sjrca g% col e" __ _ _ffl1242:"aa q "a m �m a- mp, ,g! I" a"o _F., 4 a al : 1111 ! :1,4 Re g!1.Mi! 5' aE 0g.12 n4g, Fin 12. s P it " i i" E� g!ii 5 .--" ni 242:i! iiii -,.h m :i � z pi � Ne al" i a E N i NMill I m . l�i� �� m I _ _i- a � il" q� IMF e IP Nm 0"� iN 9 Nr EL 9 gi i 81 84 z . M O aq ;" a a z M m O 2 11 a g i °" z�z m vO 0 Ux �a�o_°- y P c c£ O i 6 zaaa�* v z�U a �a�od - '31E-.11 .'m „* z�zaaE m v U w "o_-111 0 aIro 54 m .671111" CO m' e off"lin MI 3 .6 E m B m m55 5 —q q se I ii 3E ;:- 11::ag ::: 00, ,, ,,IN ,,,..0 M 4 11 !,,, ; ''''' EEL r m m 4m e c:,;: _ 'A: LE z m m ;4;.„:44 - 5 :':'' gm :II 1 „:„, 11:r1-'.,,,, M : Z,19 1111!'''.1 1- m , I :1R I' , i 1 ;:c9 :111: -' 4 : m mm m 111 1.. 1 2'81., „„ 7 c R. m m m e R ge g e 111111 11 i: 1111 11 11 11 I n E w� a� _ u -a `e e i[ z x g e e a a a z r III .[' zp re d I €, o Iii Ur a cam g s a [[[ z ' 1.11A m ,:. =a a _a 1 , ; a q m x ao_„€ Z'' [ r cU a a a Viii ' i u a a �= a d ia - U � o_„mi d b r a _c _v � =a U U a,go „m; Rm- - %x .;.vgaEa Al R a - %x F2EAEE, m--- i8 ig - • m h - N�m �a ���,�,� N r rr««,4 44 . F. - - xx - xx R �c4c ^M m-M N Es4i°> r-.:- m8 r„ m"m4= _ , x $= xx N xx CD - rsRImm-M- K$ „ s m r 9 :ERA VPa. a$ Rma- - 44 -sr, 3^ - Nye R ^ • m m e,x r - - x S m 3 x x Auln -il- 21 $ - - a x m = q $N$$Na=FiE - 4g , ra e x _ - - - x x m 8 Y x x gEgg-g,7 et; - 44 a w x x a d V'$g: m-.,- .“ d 8�mie=-ry Ge % E.SN r 3r -R3 4'` a �Se- - ax 5 xx a RR R rr«� r - - m x x A g Y r - - - n - M S m m ° ;^ ry og' R E i H la ii MB ige$ R sR el �� ��$ q ��� �_� r_n_m e r n,4 i R ,, e a m x as . �;— x b•„� imim a! HI" Rn r ,� m ., r a• „R �Fx _ ti� Rm -r x r� r_N_� d,„ 1 r_ri_r n Ne I'. d f b n x x $ ti- $m 8 i a = p ,<:N vi a lird$ 3 dq N_N_n < � „ JI So Erg .�4N " K- .X m- - f m - r m x x m 8^ p w . = g s@@ § "s 0 % g i ry - - '1 e 6 x 4 E— liN " 11 r M i , F-E s r e 0 iii" 1 1 1 o x $ E R Q . , 0 A q —i-E., ' - lir : 1 m w R0 5 a 8 5 $ g I Z -F m il r: '4 ' 'i .-1: ,, ,,z .; " "-- ,,, . i 6 5 qry m ro ! 3 3— ! ! R 8 E 8 i 8 Oil r.E s a s hi H s 9fiE1 .!“ a E !je ije ij e ills a lie L Ill E "g 8 2 t i E s i t E g g I I I E _ x eg o 3 x ,g a xg B a8" - - 88' — — °8 " $ � a5 ; - .9 o b 0.m _^ 3 8 b i t a m 1 E -ill w i E a1i w E i ai l:III 2 c _ a y lilt a UP s c = Y & 'ate c Tr. & 8 'at a g 3 gz� 1p g a .1d =1 o g ! 3& a f na mayor pfa a id< mx"avt ip§a id$1111 Of D • m x"i l'22,1 g ' a x E uS g• °a 0 8 W x g i g° g a l l Z J .6 -m,,v .E da, as o ' iii i � ¢��s">a -8 @@1•° m a iug 27°' >>sax3 .¢ 1q ,46n i =igg wu7s•sa.,� P¢ I t/1 -,2_ -'qg ,gqe - t gi N g �_$ - ,m,Eg� - 116 vi r �_� - ,m, - gm - 111' O w -2s a = 42 BMa z z a _ U wa'°_s 9•a x a = U -.08.2 1.132�iBi az_ 0 fY.iir8° a3 '8a .saEO idt8=8,2 .W:=27< Eaa i s m E s� Bs: mx mx A .mops., myy - $. EEs$E" -�- EEEEE `^ $q x x E p x r g CO mm$ym� y am - ;s $�o„,Q^s"c^ s! ,2-E.A^ ay � a m a 2 g-%E7,. „s s = amzxix8_ gg g `^"RE, so -y m R ^^ «« R ,9.:4J,,- S Y 8 N 8 m > 4E' S i^i s E: o x S E$R n R m yyym ^ R °°° a g s : Rm a nS a yi=i.s8! Mx R ^cRn s iiHR1— 8- a 8•,8mm" - 8= p 8 ^Rm° R y y y m R ^ «N R ° ^ ...„P !f mt^E="„, , !$y .` ii e x 42t,-;4 o « 28 ^ g °^^.o^ agaosm ^s imi4Eg ex ' °Rx Ls R ii$iny m y 8 R gii44 ^ - R .8 g3.. ^ - 80 R R 8 p,,,!, m y m R"E&E” .. - mouim. ^ - R6 a �ae o5, gus>sff ;5 a y 4s s m$i n' mm ii�aii" i r iiim4" ^ " R m y y y m - R .......... R myyym i R i R .......... ,, a : ea ° 4§ ,,g =i88^4 a - ^g -i d ^ g 9 a d R ! R a R sa sPx it m3 m �^ is dy m =a e i ; ;" R m R R R m R $ e y 8 R i 8 m " 8 8 g ^^ x m -y m b 9$ ^-y r = '8 Ry mm l8 R r n R^ Rm - .°14:i -m a'.m a. A . 1 n R^ ^ -m G ”55 fit ^2 s i s Re. gg6 is "P147 x ^i In a,R$ a h. 85 El E s8 3„ r /- zsRi9i ? .-;lm m x asn 's q it i s 'i „8 $;g9ip i.„5-:e _o ' 8 ! _ x ":1 g a bm m -fl d '-^-°' d ^ °' 2 R Fl 2 a ug,q R R A g „,"Egg gigge88 m$ -8 x y a a z Sm =8 ,il `gam -y m $ ^-°�d q R. 8 s2 8iS1a$ E $� ix i $ =isas 6 y xe x m 8m o ^R s 8N s 2 s R° ° y RN E R^ - E II E 4 2 @ 8 y 'm 2®Q y 8« F"14s 2 8 8^ ^°?gym 3 8 & 1 I 8 '1 vJI ,5° m -$ ^ _ ° t ° °fin^=! ! Ht °, =_o...=$ 8 ° y -m ^ ; e ^ - 112 B zg@ gg E p q� 2 1 3 g 0, ° ° %y r {1 Z 8, a�n^_w ! 11 8! �,F,E'g R II -8 a e i �8 g vi 8v=atq i rl 8 ° 9] 8 } 8 !t o i l iit ¢tt MI gIt aft E 3i; E: 1th a ill e E o o ijfl s o § =fit s a o It s o y :E 1 8 2 t�: 1 g € e: i "-t - E= = E F. - F F S 12. a F E [fit E F 1 Y t .� � � i e g � < � � $e ms m � � di M 0 3 ;Ili 4 - 3 b' 2 u - 4 3 ➢ i _ °; g III! .; Y F F _ 114 ��: : tei w ➢ lit w - n g m$i i - 9 ? a` 2 i :W If I. a _ “ N c $ c'u p use t3 4 14, pi! it ii _ IfatnssI 't1 $ tinzasso HI w r i - i p 8 "° " x2 i8 Ei N i -i � "�°g? y $EE N 4 �., ii ego°"_f2s EE U g m iii >x O p U y r°s°x g Ii i8 U 8 i y m x i#i = E855 61ai8ili! :i !d = 883 '8" Iia,C,h#1 :8€1 = .�85! �" "7"1" g _d U w y �i}y,. E E? U f y ��m.. -EE U y -8°y..,a a ERE