Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-16-2017 - 8-f - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Approval and Certification of 2017 Report 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. 8-f SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance —Approval and Certification of 2017 Report DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comments from Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Craig Benedict, Director, 919-245-2575 Schools (CHCCS) Ashley Moncado, Planner II, 919-245-2589 2. Town of Carrboro Resolution 3. Comments from Town of Chapel Hill 4. 2017 SAPFOTAC Annual Report 5. 11x17 Copies of Student Projection Charts PURPOSE: To approve and certify the 2017 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report. NOTE: The current 10-year student growth projections show no future capacity needs for additional schools in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District and Orange County Schools District. BACKGROUND: At the December 5, 2016 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Board approved the November 15, 2016 actual membership and capacity numbers for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). Additional approvals/certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO partners MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding). At the March 7, 2017 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2017 SAPFOTAC Report. The draft report was also posted on the Orange County Planning Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report were sent to all SAPFO partners on March 8, 2017 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and inviting comments. Comments were requested for submission by April 10, 2017. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) administration presented the draft 2017 SAPFOTAC report to the CHCCS Board of Education at its April 6, 2017 meeting. The Board did not recommend any changes to the report. Attachment 1 contains a memorandum from CHCCS administration summarizing the Board of Education's discussion. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen received the draft SAPFOTAC Report at its April 4, 2017 meeting and approved the Resolution contained in Attachment 2. The Town of Hillsborough received the draft report at its April 10, 2017 Town Board meeting and had no comments. The Chapel Hill Town Council received the draft SAPFOTAC Report at its April 24, 2017 Town Council meeting. Attachment 3 contains a memorandum summarizing the Council's comments. 2 New School Needs vs. Capacity Renovations Currently, SAPFO student projections illustrate when the adopted level of service capacities are forecasted to be met and/or exceeded in anticipation of 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. The SAPFO can be adapted to add capacity as schools are expanded. Class Size Averages The State of North Carolina passed legislation in 2015 proposing a decrease in class size averages for kindergarten to third grade for the 2017-18 school year. Due to significant statewide ramifications as a result of the reduced class size averages, the North Carolina General Assembly proposed House Bill 13 to delay the decrease in class size averages to the beginning of the 2018-19 school year. House Bill 13 was signed into law on April 27. The SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will continue monitoring this issue. The exact pages of the 2017 SAPFOTAC report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and certifying are listed below. The context (i.e.: definitions and standards) of the various SAPFO elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full Report. Page in Element SAPFOTAC Certification to be made by BOCC Report Building Capacity Building capacity and current year with CIP changes 11 through 16 membership for OCS and CHCCS were approved at the December 5, 2016 (Change from previous year) meeting. Student Membership Projection Methodology 20 Certification that the average of 5 models will be used, as noted in #3 on page 20 (No change from previous year) Student Membership Projections • Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average only) (p. 37) 37 and 38 • Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average (Change from previous year) only) (p. 38) Student Membership Growth Rate • Orange County Elementary, Middle, and 39 High Schools • Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, (Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools Student/Housing Generation Rate • Orange County Elementary, Middle, and 42 High Schools • Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, (No change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools 3 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current 10-year student growth projections show no future capacity needs for additional schools in the CHCCS District and OCS District. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this agenda item: • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve the 2017 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the summary table above. Attachment 1 4 II 1 off„),0,, , CLTY SCHOOLS Date: April 10, 2017 To: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director From: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Re: SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments On April 6, 2017 administration presented the draft SAPFOTAC annual report to the Board at the regular Board of Education meeting. As requested, Board members shared their thoughts and feedback with respect to the draft report. A summary of that feedback is contained below. • Due to slower growth, the new projections show no new school needs at all levels within the 10-year planning period. However,projects at each level are just outside the 10-year window and we should be mindful that the district is currently operating close to capacity at all levels. • The Board of Education has approved and requested County financial support for a comprehensive solution to our older facilities' significant needs. Recommendations across all of the older schools include increased capacity as part of the needed renovations. If all of the recommendations are funded and completed, the need for Elementary#12 and the High School expansion could be delayed significantly; well beyond our 10 year planning window. Bond proceeds used for Lincoln Center will provide us additional space needed to conduct renovations at the remaining older elementary schools. Completing these projects would also delay the significant operational expenses with opening new schools and help preserve the few remaining school sites. The Board requests access to planned new school funds (Elementary#12 @ $40 million and Middle School#5 @ $53 million) that were previously included in the County's 2015 Capital Investment Plan(CIP) to address phase two projects. Phase two projects (comprehensive renovations and additions to Estes Hills Elementary, Seawell Elementary, Ephesus Elementary, and Phillips Middle School) are included in our Board approved CIP at an approximate total cost of$80 million. • Enacted class size legislation will have a profound effect on elementary level school capacity and would result in the need for additional elementary level classroom space unless repealed. We estimate an additional 40+ classrooms would be required. This is approximately the size of two elementary schools at a combined estimated cost exceeding$50 million if built today with additional operational cost increases too. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks to you and Ashley for leading this process. CC: D. Andrews, R. Stancil Attachment 2 5 A motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman Seils, that this resolution be approved. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) 2017 REPORT WHEREAS, the Town has had a longstanding interest in the success and excellence of the Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools; and WHEREAS, the Town has participated in the development and implementation of the schools adequate public facilities ordinance provisions since 2003; and WHEREAS, the annual technical advisory committee report has been prepared and distributed for review. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Carrboro accepts the report. This the 4th day of April 2017 The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Alderman Seils, Alderman Slade, Alderman Chaney, Mayor Lavelle and Alderman Johnson Alderman Gist, Alderman Haven-O'Donnell I, Catherine Dorando,Town Clerk for the Town of Carrboro,NC do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. ,000"1""mo, own 414,--000 Sce F Clerk ,..aPOR,cr 0 s I.- St 1911 ‘. Ii 1#47,,nato Attachment 3 6 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL i r 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Chapel Hill,NC 27514-5705 www.Townofchapelhill.org MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Dorosin, Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners CC: Craig N. Benedict, Orange County Planning & Inspections Director Ben Hitchings, Director of Planning & Development Services, Town of Chapel Hill FROM: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager SUBJECT: 2017 SAPFOTAC Draft Annual Report Comments DATE: April 28, 2017 This memorandum is in response to your letter dated March 8, 2017 regarding the 2017 Report of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) Technical Advisory Committee. The Chapel Hill Town Council received a presentation on the report from Orange County staff on April 24, 2014. In response to your request,please find below the Council's comments. The Council: • Suggested that school capacity should be increased to the extent possible during planned renovations. Specifically, the Council expressed interest in further increasing capacity at Chapel Hill High School. • Expressed concern that the report doesn't take into account approved but unbuilt development. • Noted the potential school impacts of emerging single-family housing trends, with empty nesters downsizing and selling houses to younger families who may add children to the school system. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. 1 Attachment 4 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 16, 2017 8 Table of Contents 2017 SAPF 'TAC Executive Su ary i Itro uctio v Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners...............................................................................................vi Planning Directors/School eprese tatives Technical Advisory Co ittee.............................................................vii I. ase a ora u o ersta i g 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 IL 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. ii 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 I 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Elementary Middle High School Elementary Middle High School 105% 107% 110% 105% 107% 110% 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District These standards are acceptable at this time. These standards are acceptable at this time. 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District No change from above standard. No change from above standard. 1 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The original certified capacity for each of the The original certified capacity for each of the schools was certified by the respective schools was certified by the respective superintendent and incorporated in the superintendent and incorporated in the initialization of the CAPS system(Chapel Hill initialization of the CAPS system(Orange County Carrboro School District April 29, 2002 - Base) School District April 30, 2002 - Base) Capacity changes were made each year as follows: Capacity changes were made each year as follows: 2003: Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary. 2003: No net increase in capacity at Elementary 2004: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High level. No changes at Middle School level. School levels. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge High School. 2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2004: No net increase in capacity at Elementary 2 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners each year. the Board of County Commissioners each year. The requested 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported by CHCCS and shown in Attachment I.B.4. by OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3. 4 20 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2015-16) page 1 of 3 School APF0 Capacity„ Membership and Change Request form School District: Orange County Schools SAPP°CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November14,2016 'Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 11, Z911-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015 16 -20 ""? "c Requested Requested Reuttested Requested Requested "7°":"°,1,.",'7k kleathership ""6"1"" "''''eet Capacity (.:41pacity ("outteity Caputatv C"upocitv 70,812 565/1,4, /%4477;1 565 52,492 455 455::%;0 64,316 497 ,' *ki/!'; 497 . 74,016 544 oioge 544 51,406 471 (1 4 471 586 85,282 576,''ff,/,,;;,7 JP 576 498,188 3,694 vxxfzj 3,694 Special Note(s): lair the November.15,2002 base year the board accepted the super intendenticertifind capacities as pan a the School Facilities Task FOreC review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report These eapacitivis will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this ham that is certified by the 13002 2 Due to November 15th falling on a Sunday this year,meinbership and capacity numbers shall he providect liar Friday,November 13,2015, Justification: Capacity Certification: 1,;"'"4/1114)"- 7V1/5/;15! :/ !!! " ! S perintenoent Date BOCC Chair ate Membership Cm7,ation: ! E0.4 12115-1)2.- Su rintendent Date BOCC Chair Date 5 21 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2015-16) page 2 of 3 School APPO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Farm . . . _ . . . . School District Orange County Schools SAPP°CAPS Year Novegther 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 M i n ,,.. 2013.2012 2012-2013 21113.2014 2014-21115 2015-2016 '' "1"6": "'?"3.re Requested Reg%tested Regorged Requested Regoested ,""'41114::1 tklembership "c"ffich ''''."'" (opacity ()Ipacily Capacity Capaclty C opacity /"""" 'Wfc(5'l4)4!%' 136,000 740 7,,%*,'' ', 'I 740 ,*,;',/flr,,,,,':, /,; 107,620 726 ,T -' ft6 726 ■ jay"',0,4!/:/j:/' 123,000 700 ',;" Witt 700 , – , I 366,620 2,166 /;' ' '' X 2,166-, ,,,,,aLDL::::,,,),firc Special Note(s) or the November IS,2002 base year the board accepted the pet intendent.etrtitied capacities as.part i3f the School Facilities changed by(1)the School.CV or l2)an amended veon of this form that is eertified by he BO CC 2,..Due to November 15th billing on a Sunday this year,rnemhership and capacity numheis shall he provided kir Vriday,tvorlher 13,201S Justification: Capacity Certification: " ' )\I„—,(-)i://) (A-11,„„!' (141,.61i 1,5 &J 1)11/4CL ‘1/5- Su;erintendent ate 80CC Chair at Me77,ship crtin.,non: ) y -: ',, ti '''''' 1 , , .,,, ,,,,,, ,, tt vf(ipr ( It2A) ill i ilemea 12. lc 1($.' Su erintendent Da e 60CC Chair Date 6 22 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,& High) (2015-16) page 3 of 3 School APO Cripacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange(minty Seh(rools SAPP°CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 s I 21111-2012 2012-211U 21113.21/14 2014.21115 2015.2010 10,11riovool, 1111.0,12,14,14m4 4,1,14141c 1,240.0001201 144,4404.01t01 14ti,q00,514„11 12,‘,401e2.0,,41 144.5104.514t1 15,1t900e4511112 C 4231 , 400(moien 0100^11,2 C4100014 0100,142, 11 d C apacity 213,509 1 518 (1;/ 206,9110 1,000 i„0420 1,000 4,ire,- 6,600 40 :444 40,///,Z%11/ A//%/// tt 427,C109 2,558J 2,439 :zii //;g11Z Special Note(s):1 01 the Noventher I 2002 base yea.;thc heard accepted the supotntendent-certitied capacities as part of the School 1 actlates changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an arnentlet1 vetsion of this tbrm that certtlied by theli()C12 2 The 2012-201 ettpuetty numbers for Orange litgh Justification: Capacity Certifirion: ) t.A Si qedntendent Date BOCC Chair Da/. Membership Cr:rfifi ation: VC4, tejtAlLe gJt Su4,ennterldent Date 730CC Chair Date 7 23 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) page 1 of 3 School AFF0 Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools 'SAPP°CAPS Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 --olCapacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 , '2011-2912 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 '21115-2111h ,„ , Nteraliecyhip "' '41"re 11c1.1 I.1 11,1,cyled Ircirliesivil ltraitcyleil Irciiiicsical 3"1411""1"1 to:fon:awed 1 School Feel ,. '' 4'1( “'"- '' ' ' ' 'I ' ' ' ' ' toomme a u)taimicity 4'.Oparily ("'it%wiry COmicily Capacity school yearl i Carehoto 60832 533 533 533 533 533 502 Ephesus 66,952 448 448 448 448 440 I Estes Rills 56,299 527 527 527 527 5271 485, Glenwood 50,764 4231 423 423 423, 4231 4541 FP Graham 66,689 538 538 538 536 $38 531 MeDougle 98,000 564 564 564 564 564 499 '"i hikis 95,729 585 585 585 58 585 517 lishrogsh 90,980 575 575 575 1V75' 575 505 .1 Seamen 52,896 466 466 466 466 466 525 Mortis Grove 90,221 585 585 585 5851 585 558 No17184130 99,500 0 0 585 $8.5. 585 485 :total 828,862 5,244 5,244 5,829 5,829 5,829 5,501 Special Note(s):6.For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-cernfied capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Repreientalive Techtucal Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(11 the School t,IP or(21 an amended version of Ons Mmt that is certified by he 130CC,2„11ue to November 15th falling on a Sunday this year,membership and capacity numbers shall be provided h Friday,November 13,2015 Justification: „, Ca city Ce ! tif , 1 .„ I lit ) c 14/ -- / 117/:crr ,t, , - Sup rintendent Date BOCC Chair Date hers erfification: 7/1-1 / // cr” tit)/ [ 5 M 17. erintendent Date BOCC Chair Date' 8 24 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) page 2 of 3 School APFO Capacity/ Membership and Change Request Form Icsooi District: Chapel Hill-Carrbore City Schools SAPP°CAPS Year November 13,2015-November 14,2016 'Capacity and Membership Submittal bate: November 13,2015 .. " .. 2011-21112 2012,2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Membership Squat e „lustolicourm Middle Seho uil , Requested 14equested Requested Requested Requested , trelereueed R"I , Capacity Capari1y t'opacity (a mcdy Capacity school year) Culbeeth 108,058 670 670 670 774 774 716 MoDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 732 689 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 706 642 'Smith 128,764 732 732 732 732 732 797 . . „„ .. , Total 482,541 Z840 2,840 2,840 24944 2,944 2,844j Special Note(s): I For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the supermtendeMicertified capacities as part of the School Facilities changed by(l)the School C or(2)an amended VIMSEOR of this form that is certified by the BOCC 2 Due to November I iith falling on a Sunday this Justification: 7licity rtli4litcpn: , tedliCil- ,, 7 / , 149 7 " /di-C'-' - , 0 - , uperintendent Date BOCC Chair Date' harsh ve ert f ication: ( i lji5/1 uperintendent Date 80CC 5-, Chair Date i 9 25 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) page 3 of 3 School APF0 Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel 11111-Carrboro City Schools . . . .. ... . .... ... .... . , 'LAPP°CAP C Year: November 13,2015-November 14,2016 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 13,2015 2011-2012 .201.2-2013 10(34014 2014.21115 '2015-21116 re Nteoitiersbip Squa ' '' tuslificatlart High School 1,,ect Requested 11.equested Requested Requested Requested 1.,0400100,It (rettiretieed triplicity Capacity ("opacity ("opacity. Capacity ' school year), eh/ape:1160 241,111 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 M71 East Chapel Hill 259,869 1,515 1$15 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,373 Canton) 148,023 800 800 800 800 ..o0 824 !Phoenix Mat 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 33 Toted :11 654,21(1 3,875 3,2175 3,875 3,8751 3,875 3,70'11 Special Mote(s): 0' For.the November 15 2002 he year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certified cape Mes as part of the School Facilities changed by r I)th e School OP or r 2)an amended vers■on of this form that is certified by the liCWC 2 Due to November I Sth falling on a Sunday this Justification: Ca•,city Corztific tion:, 41' ' if'el'r./:;''''' ' ' , ' 'z,..5 Ei...,1 101 14-4- /,...-..),/,,,.; 7,r S .•erintendent Dat . -BOCC Chair Dat 10mbersr)14,ritif1f/ationt (a ?(,--- r e-_ 4,, ii/Llete- Superintendent 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 IS,2016-November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November t5,2016 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Elementary Square Justifkation seltcrol �cet Requested Requested Requested Re€guested Requested Membership Footnote# Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity n9tit`o Eatk 70,812 , 'SS 565 4'. 5 - ft5; 0 C tr41 52,492 4 5 455 4�" " " 455 d leeks 64,316 497 497 49' 45'7 497 Or1dy Brost 74,016 544 544 $44 844'" 544' .bf r ugli. "r 51,106 1" 471 471 .<... 411 ' ' 411 4'71'' 4 0 w .o 5e'. 100,164 .' $6 586 .,: 586 ;.. 58tr; ,.�. 97 Pathways 85,282 ` " $76 576 51 576 ,. 76 X87 T'`d i 498,188 6194 3,694 X16,,4'. ` $4 3;594 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(I)the School CIF or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: it�__ t1/(z4 l(e i‘b-)6 Sup ri�nt Date 40 C Chairl Date -. Membership Certification: ( Su erint Date BOCC Ch.' Date p 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 SAPFD CAPS Year:November 15,2016-November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2(117 Middle Square .itrst Men tion Schaal Feet 1�"oob�ote# Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Membership Capaeity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity L.Staiibacic 136,000 140 740 146 140 140 ,w t ford 107,620 1 726 7 6 746 726 614 t1v ii 1 123,000 110 700 `, 700 700 fJl , r' + ~ ""tr t ;,r ` 1'6 t 366,620 t 2,166 . 4 . r + 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: Capacitty�Certification: *' f• Li (C,,. ti 1t-1 t te 17/(fro6 Su: rintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification: r ` 161 szkse-a i �_ 0 Superintendent ate BOCC Ch. Date 12 28 Section 1 Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2016-17) (page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPP()CAPS Year: November 15,2016 November 14,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 Square 2012-2013 2013-2(114 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 JusthicItioi Nigh School Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested , Membership eet F oolnote Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity 213,509 OS 1,399 „i`,tAI$ todif-A1,40;,,,..-. 206,900 OOft 1,000 4000 300 " Poottlxitfr;, 6,600' 40 ' ' 40 . ,34 427,009 ;,t,;;SCA,,1 2,439 49 Special Note(s) 1.For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted he 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.2.The 2012-2013 capacity numbers for Orange High School(1,399)is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012. Justification: CapacityCertffication: / 1 — Sulherintendent Date C Chair Date Membership Cartification: fi tc Saperintendent Date :OCC 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 Hitt-Carrboro City 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 Membership Elementary Square Justification Requested Requested Requested Requested Requester] (referenced School I+eet Footnote t C`apacily Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school year) Cturboro 60,832 533 533 533 533 "- 533 496 Ephesus 66,952 448 448 448 448 448 408 Estes Hills 56,299.. 527 527 527" 527 : 527 499 Glenwood 50,764 423 423 538 423 423 483: FP Graham j 66,689: 538 538 „ 423 538 ..= 538 582 McDougle 98,000 564 564 564 564 564 516 Raslrkis" " 95,729 585 585 . 585 585 585, 502 Scroggs 90,980 ; 575 575 585 -:.;575 5/5 505 Seawvell 52,896 466 466 585 466 466 549 Morris Grove " ;i 90,221 585 585 575 585 585 544 Northside ,, 99,500 0 585 , 466 585 „ 585 483 'Total 828,862 5,244 5,829: ,'' 5,829 5,829 5,829 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: I. //-it/C t2�� 1 S Derintendente Date BOCC Chair Date le 14/embership Certification: .7 0 //./t-/‘ - 12/4 lit( %erintendent Date BoCC C =1r 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 SAPFO CAPS Year November 15,2016-November 14,2047 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 s( , _ 2012-2013 24)13-2014 201-1-21115 2015-2016 2016-2017 , ,, A le1111)ersIlip Middle School Jild I t Reg nested Reg a este(1 Regtleste41 Requested Iteq tt es te41 "j"st111"iwn (re l'e ren cot! Feet Foiitiiiite it Capacity (r.'llpilcity C'apacity Ca pa eit:, ('a parity school year) Culbreth 122,467 670 670 774 774 774 712 McDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 732 671 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 706 651 Smith 764 732 128 i 732 732 732 732 795 Total 496,9O 2,840 2,840 2,944 2,944 2,944 2,829 Special Nete(a): 1. For the Noverriber 15,2002 base year the Board accepted the superintendent-certitied capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(I)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: -r--- 62, q) //1-/,--X ' , (-- .., ic ,erintende tiff Date BOCC Cha Date Membership Certification: ,,erintende-K 0 4111 Date l)- BO 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 1.4,2017 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2016 2012-2013 2013-2411-1 2(114-21115 2015-2016 2016-2017 Nleitthersltip Square .Justification [link School Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested , feet ootnote it Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school Sear) Chapel Bill 241,111 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,521 East Chapel lilt 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,51.5 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 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,762 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 CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: 0Capacity Certification: -i ,.,.„..-------- t7/ S erin#endent Date :OCC Chair Date Membership Certification: ,. ,,,,..,,,/ a. /4,1../4 , it S erin#endent 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 Hill/Carrboro 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 Hill/Carrboro 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: The MOU outlines a system of implementing the SAPFO, including issuing Certificates of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) to new development if capacity is available. The Requests for CAPS will be evaluated using the most recently adopted Capital Investment Plan. A new Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior to June 30, 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Presently, the average of five models is being used: namely 3, 5, and 10 year history/cohort survival methods, Orange County Planning Department Linear Wave, and Tischler Linear methods. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Performance of the models is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the annual Capital Investment Plan (CIP)updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and construction. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment II.B.3 shows the performance of the models for the 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 STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIPTION 1 CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS Tischler Linear(OCS& Mathematical formula;straight line projection y=((c*b)*x)+b Historical growth is reflected in projected growth CHCCS) y--projected population;e=historical annual change;b=base year;x=projection years BYM+(BY[+5(n))=EYM EYM*%SL=EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10-Year average; BYM=base year 2nd month membership;BYI=year student membership increment OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school 0 6 increase in BYI of 5 every other year reflects (OCS) levels;reflects progressing waves of membership base;EYMr ensuing year membership; ,middle,hi year; loSL=e s fatal increases in housing growth; reflects buildout membership per school level(i.e.elementary,middle,high);EYMISL=ensuing year member by school level constraints BYM+(BYI-15(n))=EYM EYM*%SL=EYM/SL Base year growth reflects 10-year average; BYM=base year 2nd month membership;BYI=year student membership increment OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school decrease in BY]of 15 until school year 2{)10-2011 (CHCCS) levels;reflects progressing waves of membership base;EYM=ensuing year membership;n=projection year;%SL=ale of total reflects decreases in housing growth; reflects membership per school level(i.e.elementary,middle,high);EYMISL=ensuing year buildout constraints member by school level Y r� n Kn=kn.1+(kn.1*0.01) CD Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each a=(E Gn 1 g,1)13 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the F~� 3-Year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=3 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g n-;(a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K=kindergarten membership;n=given school year;G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year I and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average advancement rate;b=projected membership ¢ fD K.=k n-i+(kn-1*0.01) a Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 CD CD advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each a=(E Gn 1 gn.1)15 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the 5 year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=5 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same C CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g n•1(a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K=kindergarten membership;n=given school year;G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year �• and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average ro advancement rate;b=projected membership CD n Kn=kn,1+(kn.l*0.01) O Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 advancement rate over the previous 10 years for each a=(E Gn 1 9,1)110 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the d 10 year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=10 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) O projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g n-t(a) percentage of students in each grade level ■S (� r.. kindergarten membership is based on birth records K=kindergarten membership;n=given school year;G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average advancement rate;b=projected membership 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 Projection is T 3309 L9 OCP 3318 Equal 10C 3279 L39 5C 3268 L50 3C 3251 L67 AVG 3285 L33 11/14/14 11/13/15 Middle 1762 1739 -23 Model Projection is T 1789 H50 OCP 1791 H52 10C 1730 L9 5C 1722 L17 3C 1721 L18 AVG 1751 H12 11/14/14 11/13/15 High 2502 2469 -33 Model Projection is T 2541 H72 OCP 2545 H76 10C 2456 L13 5C 2488 H19 3C 2520 H51 AVG 2510 H41 Totals 11/14/14 11/13/15 Elementary 3259 3318 Middle 1762 1739 High 2502 2469 7523 7526 +3 Model Projection is T 7639 H113 OCP 7654 H128 10C 7465 L61 5C 7478 L48 3C 7492 L34 AVG 7546 H2O H means High L means Low 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 Projection is T 5625 H124 OCP 5641 H140 10C 5606 H105 5C 5586 H85 3C 5573 H72 AVG 5606 H105 11/14/14 11/13/15 Middle 2861 2844 -17 Model Projection is T 2905 H61 OCP 2898 H54 10C 2910 H66 5C 2888 H44 3C 2874 H30 AVG 2895 H51 11/14/14 11/13/15 High 3730 3701 -29 Model Projection is T 3787 H86 OCP 3818 H117 10C 3701 Equal 5C 3707 H6 3C 3696 L5 AVG 3742 H41 Totals 11/14/14 11/13/15 Elementary 5541 5501 Middle 2861 2844 High 3730 3701 12,132 12,046 -86 Model Projection is T 12,317 H271 OCP 12,357 H311 10C 12,217 H171 5C 12,181 H135 3C 12,143 H97 AVG 12,243 H197 H means High L means Low 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 Projection is T 3366 H73 OCP 3376 H83 10C 3306 H13 5C 3289 L4 3C 3288 L5 AVG 3325 H32 11/13/15 11/15/16 Middle 1739 1724 -15 Model Projection is T 1764 H40 OCP 1769 H45 10C 1733 H9 5C 1726 H2 3C 1724 Equal AVG 1743 H19 11/13/15 11/15/16 High 2469 2446 -23 Model Projection is T 2504 H58 OCP 2511 H65 10C 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 10C 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 Projection is T 5576 H9 OCP 5602 H35 10C 5547 L20 5C 5534 L33 3C 5502 L65 AVG 5552 L15 11/13/15 11/15/16 Middle 2844 2829 -15 Model Projection is T 2883 H54 OCP 2878 H49 10C 2815 L14 5C 2798 L31 3C 2775 L54 AVG 2830 H1 11/13/15 11/15/16 High 3701 3762 +61 Model Projection is T 3752 L10 OCP 3792 H30 10C 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 10C 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 50 Section II Attachment II.C.1—Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle, &High) 418m: �P$ MIN (2015-16) Q • 1 V o - ��$ v i INN 6 m:_�9� !_ - q i III I Ag a- i -!t=n r i IIIEM i i 18111®M II .a _ i IIII®I�I I i R R III i IIII®III 6 a 1;= a ,z INN' i . 1III i, R� F ®IIII i 1 IIII ee� R° IIIII ®IIII6 _! i IIII 6 �' I m, mill I MI ill l i MI g R MI I g� : ` MU I_ IN h 1 �m IIII g � R IIII Ell i 1 IIIIa �€ R �I Q OW 1 m IIII i�lll IIII i p 1! IIII I l ill 1 . Illll 1 A' IN 1! ; 1 i�IIII $ Illlll m II 111 i ill l �llll 15 hill I 1 l Iii I ` loll m lily I 1 I l'_ III I 1 111 a 11111 11 . 1 l= IIII I I- Eli r 111111I1I Q I1111I , a ®lllll ` i � Z E � 8 � IIIIH I.1 l 11011 ] Nil I 1 . I k i 1 i 8 4 z ii ii P,I Pt i d € H i? 4_ a !i a s PO °a s §4 a ;s a PI.- �R . a . ill a . 4 a!i!I d i g R I " E 1 II z a e & t i i$Fm S s o 5 Q d 1 1 s WE 9 1 d !fli . i a a.a ,o. i < i ill` a sz; = as = _[ l w W _P 7- x f➢ a I $66a0i 1¢g Un : € Ili _a ;. O ( i O . ,: 35 51 Section II Attachment II.C.2—Chapel Hi1UCarrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2015-16) 8 18 6 __ 1 1 ! 8 T. 1 °G k Z -e ! 6 9 ` 6 _ $ RR R i R Fl_ _g 8 n i ,F 8 — j=a. i 8 p a ° . F8F 8 8 • p9p `A -I R K i ' 116°_ e- 't 9 a & . h a 1 I !, ! • i e e • 6 8 6 6 _ 8 _ k e g r R i • Bib _ ; a . 9 a • P LIE. j 1 !• E °` i 2:q Ili 1 i1 Nil 11 ., s III 1 .1 s9 ii111 1 1�® rl ml 1 }1 i! 8 Nil ., 11�I z F El 1 n11a Li Oil I i 1i® fillI §111 = 1111I I III Iii I .1 Iii I I l Bill jilt i 111 I I NV' fI $ 1111 I . 1 Iii® =_ j I I ! 1 111111 1 A . a F,61 i i III I I I ilia IlliI I i I I1 I A }. I 111® ?. i Ill 1 !4 1 i Ili I i, I 1i® iii ill 1 .111 I Ill Id. 1 Will ii, iii ai& sit a l i t it }I I ;I!! lit it. Hi i H - iE tf. 9 o S Of a .q y i 1.1 '1 H 1 I l i - G III s Hlip _ < f 1 f:�_ - g d ![ E§ d sSp ayy lei w o € i§e ` H i i} ° v Y F Iii ° - t F ?[ts LL o i i{ ! 'J 1 2 t£,9 F f!iu .1F aEp ill , s i i, ' a G 1 _ t i a } J yy @ ill 8 1 i 1 i E t J S 1=6}C I}I N ti S} ' i 1 1 "5 " L 8 8 i t i 4 N • 5 i L !10,5, W i g ' 4 i i 8 iz a a _i} ! I aka i}l8 �: t; - 1 1}l 36 52 Section II Attachment II.C.3 —Orange County Student Projections (Elementary,Middle, &High) (2016-17) AR R 8 oxa ai R R ,nk'a`Rm- a - 1sril ;_0 $gym Qs$sRi ti $ a1:41 _ s " C— S P Lj Fi i _ gx' `9_.�',s3 A ^. $l$ __ E wAmm= R ____ R mm R '--- R h.... R ..... R n.. —tt s' " e a F^ " " !" " 333 = R R R „„ ii- 16 L 'it R! R� ®li d 3" ����c ' gall w^ �, " V I■�I s 8 BR-i£ % Rm NU s� fir `_ E III !I- "„ III ; ;� •�a �: a s71. IN "—. R 11 " _ S a SF ®II�` k m liii'' @ C ME ^ ®iii r R IN v I- ,; IN s y a- iiir s a a- MI,i a ®iii s 7 1 S o $Y R$R R m ®ii 1kb � 8888 BC !i i ' F _ ! ci j i t!R ill ll Ai4 ill iii; !ii !ii g lid g :fj I 1f : .% {F o t'° a €.E u i B E I i i = F 8 3 ?, 5 N o 8 8 8 E 5 U1 W {i 3 N . • . F S g 1 = EE,iII, A 1 0 0 3 F lit U . 37 53 Section II Attachment II.C.4—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary,Middle, & High) (2016-17) a ep,"i' i o q-R ' _I , a C;F_R E M■nIII ENN I = x-' g - —a_:, : a"" E llillililii I A 's R= N R R a - i - - = E l@IlliNH i ass i m^T g 7,�R R R_ I Illllililii i Q _F =,:,r; it - i F, a 16llllililii i _.,.1- ; = 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment II.D.2 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The membership figures and percentage growth on the The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued growth at each school level attachments show continued growth at each school level within the system. within the system. Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next ten years: ten years: Year Projection 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Use statistics as noted. Use statistics as noted. 39 55 Section II Attachment II.D.1—Orange County and Chapel HiWCarrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2016-2026 based on 11/13/15 membership numbers)(2015-16) (G 0 N Ill e sa e 4) e e o O o o i-moo 0 CD 8 o CO o CO a co o O N O O N CO( co N O M N M co O N CO c j N O N IN �,N o (fl o o C) N (?CO o (h o o N O - co- o CO- p O N N N N N N v. v, v. v. v. In O e O I o O COQ_ O (Do O IN (no O (no N In Co N M 0) N O N (D O N V O N V (O 4 (n r- 4 CO o 4 (O o 4 O)o 4 o N A 0 0 () o Q O o CC) ,- o N N N N N N ' � O o ,- .e o - o o (n N o O CO o o N N co Q N Q N Q O N V �▪; (n*- .N CO .'f co.(D M O) ,- { o 0 J O I O ( O o O ( O O O CO-N N N n .n n 0 .n n n o oe a co ...-f2. a no a (n o � � o CO '-..° L• N 14 CO N r- co N (D / � N M ,c.,'-, N N U) N V O N t- N ice_CO N (O Q V N C0 N- N O r� �N1 Q V o M� o � O O (uN a) O s- O INO o 71--N N N N •^n N N N U :".-1 N N O N N N Qo o ao o (flo /L� o co o o 1� o o � o •O N M O N i•9. CD N ,� 0. N CO N 0) Q N O V ... M ' (D r- N . O O Cr) c0 4.Cl. O CO- O 0 O N O I . N (n ,- N o O M O l N Cl Si = N N N C• o 0 0 o O o o 0 71. o o) o N (D o N O M N O)(N N O M = N 0) O N M N co C O r CU O co n O I- o p (0 r� I p (fl 1- " CT o d CO (fl o M� o � M o N � VI o (n . t No O (`) O ``/= N N N N N N V/ \C N u C (D o O O c 0 o ,� c N N N CO O N V' Q N (o 0 N M N CT Q N 1.C7 >. d (')co d co o) d 10 (o 12 d o N d a) r� d co Co C O co-Q C ,- Q = N ,-. L O in ? NN = co-Q N N N L N N N • •^ T O+ ^ a T O O N Q Q Cl oM 0 N . (0 N (N 0) N In to Si Q V ob ?co ob o ob ro \ oe (fl(o ob O) cob co w o (h 0 0 M o N O o in 0 o N N p (h o N N N N N N 01 _ C 00 00 oo 00 oo oo co e`v N O N N �O N M t-.4.-' J WA © co N to N N co O co co .r1, I- O) N (n V CL N ((7 ti CO co H c0 Co O n-Q O O N /�� O (() O O N o O (h N N N ea N N N N N N ( ) N N N N O (n c O M o O e O o N N r N 'Q ,r N Q no N (n M N O O N to N b c .N •b r N ,b in V .b in cn d co(r? d In N co-O O � p O N , 1C) p O C N O co � N N N N N N b b_ sot ‘O_ V_ ,O N co N R CO N Q N R O N R Q N O � tM �$ I� 75 W �t1O �tco � £i l� O.R,.C) O.R. r N p O v In o c (Ni O te CO- IN N N N 1 N I y co y U U J U U cU N U a3 v t o a L 6,! L Y L e y 41 • e V e L V L..' e N• ^ j 0 . C 0 .vC 7�i a> fv E , 7_ Lv _ Q1 u^ 0 W 'l, t. d E cZ 12< Z v � Q W v 2 Q X 1 V1 Z I :Z Q 40 56 Section II 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) 0 N L ko N N N N N N o ',1" O`,' o 7r ..4-:-! o coo o Lo o co g o0 o N Co r N co O N 0) O N O) U) N 0 1- N V ni C yr v6 0 ,6 vv e Oo) s.o e ov o CO r o r p N O CO p (.0-• `') r p V O N N N N N N O '0 'Cg 0 00 o CO OE,' o N— o e') ,--if-' o do N N N CO O N O CO N CO (O N - V N LO V O 1-- O V1 '-c?r C 0 CA C O r ti, 0 LC) O 0 o r o N 0 0 p o co-r o O N N N N N N kn In in be, in O O o Si CO o O o O O o O CO o O o N CO (o N V V N CO CO N CO co N CO b N CO (O A c 1 1 lf) O A O) c 1 1 O c C CO r 0 r 0 C N O Ln r COI M r cA� V p ,,/w� N N N WI N g YI O o O o O L() o O o (3) e O C')o O O o N L() � N LC) co N CO 00 N co N 0 r N U) A CO SS r-- CO S Ln V V 0o A Om d, oN o co-r r o N� a) o L0,_ g co r N o ID N N N •^i N N N en ela CU o cOo o Imo o co g-,' O o 0) ;?,9. o •i-8-`: 0 00 '0 A (2o cN5 N N CO A LC) N rn7 N 00, /L� ('7r o r N N r N Lnr o N a-• N V 6 OE N N N = N N N CU 4=I N N N N N N ea N (h o N c N O LC) o O O o• O O) o w= N COO N V CO N Ln CO = N CA CO N 0)O N CT V W N LC) .i I-- O) LC) • r .i CT LO ' c0 V O m 0 o r O, o N O o r o N O ON C7 0 .= N N N N N N v o N- o o LC) o o O o 0 o CO o o V o o O o N Co V N CO V N CO V 0 N N N CO co N r O d N r d N- N d NCO .0 d N- N d O N d CO o c6 r o r (h O N N L o LO r O N O o O • N N N /L N N N O r•Y' O O O O O o O o O o U O CO o O a O o V N CO � N N N N N- co N LO L() N N- O N (0 O� N O. 01 V \ O. CO O en O N- O, co V O c6 O, o r 0 o CV r ■ o O o N N o co O N N N Ilim N N N C F4 01 O O r o O 0) o� O LCD o O co o O (O o MI N (o CO N N CO LC) W N LC) O N 0)N N 'Cr N- L o6 N LC) a6 a) V 00 V CO 12. a6 0 CO o6 CD CO o6 CO CO O N (h O N r CO N N N LC) O N N r N (`0 O s 00 00 0o V o0 00 00 o ('7 0 0 0 0 0 g'',' a LC) o e ti a o N o N L() O N LC) r N CO 0) N O b N t N N CO N- t` N N r I� 0 h V Ch r CO CO t` CO CO t` CO CO o CO o r o N r O LC) O O N O o (h r N N N N N N N N. N N N N o CO e V o n CO o f N- o i'O) o 1 N N p 0) N Lp N NL= V N p CO N (N N p (0 16 j N V U N- b r^j \D rt LO 1D t CO C 'j N. O--..i O O O O O N N N N N N IC0 0 cN N N N cN CU) V V V o ao o L Y .4 V 0 .2-\ Y .4 o L n o C - on ID - ' on U) - V on aCi - on Er'' to O - w m -6 0 - m o m o ro o m _c 8 w cZ d 5 c d 2 n d w rn d Z cZ d 2 d 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 Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.E.1 See Attachment II.E.1 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: At the January 2014 SAPFOTAC meeting, members discussed the increased number of students generated in both school districts from new development,particularly multifamily housing. The SAPFOTAC recommended further evaluation of the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts the number of bedrooms a particular housing type may have on student generation rates. As a result, Orange County entered into a contract with TischlerBise to update the student generation rate analysis. The new student generation rates were approved on May 19, 2015 and are shown in Attachment II.E.1. New rates from the 2014 Student Generation Rates for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District Report are based on an inventory of recently built units from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013. It should be noted that students are generated from new housing as well as from existing housing where new families have moved in. The CAPS system estimates new development impacts and associated student generation, but it is important to understand that student increases are a composite of both of these factors. This effect can be dramatic and can vary greatly between areas and districts where either new 42 58 Section II housing is dominant or new families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock. 5. Recommendation: No change at this tine. 43 59 Section II Attachment II.E.1 -Current Student Generation Rates (2015) 7 7, ,- ,-, 1 U a) cu a) a) a) a) a) c r-- ..,, E '2 0) a) r) U .c ,4 > > > .1• v- .CZ co co co a) CE 'a' ct u-) 1--- N l'-- .0 co .0 co — r.-- Tr 71- -a a — — 1.0 C., .2.3 0 2 000 © .28 0 2 000 0 C) cu a) a) - i- r.) :4i. v) i n'• cll T— E I% E 7 0 0 i5 o a 0 tNI 2 C's) o 2 0N-- .: — „ o , -0 i -0 . o a) d 0 tv — .c a U) m .5 m ,..) -,9 cu 41+ co + co .1- - in >. q CI3 (1) 2 'E' = c r 0 o 0 ,t 8 0 ,:. o ...7. u) u, u ., 0 . . -. CO 0 E E E 0 E E 0 a 7 = u) o o co m •3) ° 71- a cv N. co 0 N- 2 N-- N-- r-- '-' c 0 2 co .- .1- 71- co Q) >, 1■ LO .0 ,— (D V- 0 • a) -2 7, 0 "c'm - W 000 O O ck- ' -05 6 cu 000 ■ v, c a) 0 8 03 m Rs .c m ca m .2 ci I-, 0 .4. + r) c) 0 . + cu —6 C .., 13 0 e, cm 2 r0 0 w a) - v, Y E a) co a) :.,.., > - = a) c ct T) cu cts 4-, 0 `a.)" ._ co E 0 E > 0 E E cu • o o < o o C) U) (-) 2 7 2 I-- — CO?, . 2 10 2 1--- co N- a" 0 0 (0 ,1O M u a c c cC 0 a 00 6 m m a) 13 _ C? cli c? cli 4' .c c. CD 0 0 C.) in Va . „ P 7:, CD cu a) cu c.) . .c .c u c.) a) a) u ea co E et: Rs E c) °C = 1 c) •Ii 2 = v, „ 'X M ■' Lo, :12 E ...... 0 0 a) u. ur E c(-4 ur 1+ E (%) U c c Rs c c c Rs in , . 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 61 Section III School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process I - Capital Investment Planning (CI" CIP CAPS Projection Method Approval System2 (Historical Membership' (Proposed New Construction (Certificate of plus Hypothetical Growth Rate i.e. School Capacity Adequate Public Added by number seats & year) 1 Schools) T � y Actual Adjustments fD (Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year Membership Projection) y fDb 0 rA n 'Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1)pre-existing/approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built,(2) a existing housing stock with new families/children, and(3)newly approved housing development(in the future this component will be known as CAPS approved development) a The only part of the CAPS System(i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking)that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual c membership(November 15 of preceding CIP year)and new school capacity amount(seats)in a specific year pursuant to the CIP. fD fD 46 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 maybe assigned to "Year 1," 10 lots to "Year 2," 10 lots to "Year 3," 10 lots to "Year 4," and 5 lots to "Year 5." When"Year 1"is updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The students generated in "Years 2, 3, 4, and 5" are held in the CAPS system and added to the appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated. As was discussed in Section II.C, The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not require that CAPS be issued prior to approving development activities. 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 64 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation 2017 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2016 through November 14, 2017. The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC/School District joint action approved capacity prior to November 15,2016. This information is received within 5 days of November 15 and posted within the next 15 days. This CAPS system recalibration is retroactive to November 15, 2016. CAPS Allocation System CAPS System 1. Certified capacity AC2=SC2 - (ADM2+ND 12+ND22+. . .) ro 2 LOS Capacity o 3. Actual Membership 4. Year Start Available Capacity N 5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity(includes available n capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by year) 6. CAPS approved development AC>_O - Issue CAPS a. Total units b. single Family' AC<O - Defer CAPS to later date C. Other Housingi CD CDc C b 'Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate. Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1. This estimate only captures new development impact, which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate. 0 SAC- Available Capacity- Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system. SC- Certified School Level Capacity n ADM -Average Daily Membership ND - New Development;ND1 means first approved CAPS approved development 49 MA RPM . . . . ������n�������e,�l������®�������������e������e�1����� .. . . . ©o©o©�©m©®©m©o©m©m©m©m©m©m©m©o©o ©m©:fl©�©a©a©a©m�� ,' ©o©o©o©�©m©a©o©o©o©o©�©m©a©o�©o©o©�©�©a©a©o©o�r©m�r �m��������������������m��m���m������m��m�®�®����� �m��������e��m����m����������������������em�m����m������m . .. . ©o©�©o©m©�©�©o©o©o©o©�©m©m©m©�©m .. . . ems®������.�n����.��m�����m�e�n��n�m��m��m��©®���� ���e��m��������������������m��m�������m�m���������� �������� �