HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-20-2018 8-c - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) – Receipt and Transmittal of 2018 Annual Technical Advisory Committee ReportORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 20, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-c
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) – Receipt and
Transmittal of 2018 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. SAPFO Partners Transmittal Letter
2. Draft 2018 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and
Larger Scale Projection Worksheets
Ashley Moncado, Planner II, 919-245-2589
Craig Benedict, Director, 919-245-2575
PURPOSE: To receive the 2018 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC) and transmit it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in May.
NOTE: The School Capacity Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Needs Analysis projects no new
school capacity needs in the next 10 years for elementary, middle and high school levels for
both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS).
ADDITIONAL NOTE: The State of North Carolina passed legislation in 2017 resulting in a
decrease in class size averages from 1:21 to 1:20 for kindergarten to third grade for the 2017-
2018 school year. As a result, both school districts experienced a decrease in capacity at the
elementary school level this school year.
This legislation also proposed an additional decrease in class size averages from 1:20 to 1:17
for kindergarten to third grade for the 2018-19 school year. Due to significant statewide
ramifications as a result of the reduced class size averages, the North Carolina General
Assembly unveiled House Bill 90 which allows for a phasing-in process to address the decrease
in class size averages over the next four years. Based on House Bill 90, average class sizes for
kindergarten to third grade will be phased-in as provided below:
2019 – 2020 1:19
2020 – 2021 1:18
2021 – 2022 1:17
Over time the phasing-in of the 1:17 class size averages will result in a decrease in capacity of
approximately 660 students for CHCCS. Due to a waiver from the state, CHCCS will have an
additional year to plan for impacts resulting from changes in class size. OCS has begun the
process of adjusting average class sizes this school year in order to prepare for future
reductions. The SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will continue to monitor this issue and
determine the need for the reconvening of the Schools Joint Action Committee (SJAC), which is
comprised of elected officials, in the future. The SJAC is rarely used, but can suggest how to
implement legislation as it relates to SAPFO. The Board of Commissioners should at some
point consider whether or not to move forward on this implementation, and this issue is
proposed as a topic for an upcoming County/Schools Collaboration Meeting.
1
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Charter and private 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. SAPFO projections are used for projecting only public school capacity
needs. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter and private
schools and their effect on student enrollment in both school districts. Charter and private
schools numbers are not collected for SAPFO purposes; however, impacts due to enrollment at
these schools are accounted for in SAPFO process with the annual reporting of student
membership and growth rates contained in the 10-year student projections.
BACKGROUND:
1. Annual Report
Each year, since 2004, the SAPFOTAC Report is updated to reflect actual changing
conditions of student membership and school capacity. This information is analyzed and
used to project future school construction needs based on adopted level of service
standards. There are two steps to the full report. The first part (Student Membership and
Capacity) is certified in the fall and then this full report, in the following spring, is to keep
the SAPFO system calibrated. At the December 12, 2017 Board of County
Commissioners meeting, the Board approved the November 15, 2017 actual membership
and capacity numbers (i.e. first part) for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel
Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). A draft of the full annual SAPFOTAC Report is
complete and has been reviewed by the SAPFOTAC members.
2. SAPFOTAC
The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems, the Planning
Directors of the County and Towns, and County Finance staff, is tasked to produce an
annual report for the governing boards of each SAPFO partner outlining changes in
actual membership, capacity, student projections, and their collective impacts on the
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and the future issuance of Certificates of Adequate Public
Schools (CAPS). Orange County’s Planning Staff compiles the report, holds a meeting
discussing the various aspects, and then prepares a draft report, which is reviewed by
the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee.
3. Membership Data
CHCCS total increased from the previous year: 124 students
(45) Elementary School
4 Middle School
165 High School
OCS total decreased from the previous year: 105 students
(110) Elementary School
6 Middle School
(1) High School
( ) denotes decrease
4. Capacity Data
The State of North Carolina passed legislation in 2017 resulting in a decrease in class
size averages from 1:21 to 1:20 for kindergarten to third grade for the 2017-2018 school
year. As a result, both school districts experienced a decrease in capacity at the
elementary school level this school year. Changes in class size averages resulted in a
loss of 165 seats for CHCCS and 333 seats for OCS. OCS experienced a greater loss in
capacity due to the adjusting of average class sizes this school year in order to prepare
2
for future reductions. The 10-year projection worksheets illustrate capacity changes at the
elementary school level.
5. Capacity Information
SAPFO vs. DPI
The SAPFO is a local ordinance, independent of State Department of Public Instruction
(DPI) projections and rules regarding class size. The SAPFO, for instance, does not
count temporary modular classrooms as fulfilling the capacity level of service outlined in
the SAPFO interlocal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU requires ‘bricks
and mortar’ instead of temporary facilities and also requires its own set of future student
projections to identify long-term capital school construction needs. However, the County
did phase in the smaller class size mandates in previous years that decreased capacity.
Decisions will have to be made if new discussions at the state level create any class size
changes that should or should not be reflected in the County’s SAPFO. Future decisions
would reflect the timing and impact of new state legislation.
This year, CHCCS and OCS did not exceed the adopted level of service standards
established in the SAPFO, nor do projections show a potential need for additional
capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school levels within the 10-year planning
period.
6. Student Projection Analysis
CHCCS
Student membership projections show a mix of increases and decreases at all levels
within the 10-year planning period. Projections are shown on page 37 of the report.
OCS
Student membership projections show a mix of increases and decreases at all levels
within the 10-year planning period. Projections are shown on page 36 of the report.
The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange
County portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, Mebane does is not
party to the SAPFO agreement and does not require that CAPS be issued prior to
development approvals. Although the SAPFO system is not formally regulated in
Mebane, students residing within the Orange County portion of Mebane are accounted
for in the SAPFO process with the annual reporting of student membership and growth
rates contained in the 10-year student projections.
7. School Capacity CIP Needs Analysis
CHCCS
Projected needs:
Elementary School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
Middle School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
OCS
Projected needs:
Elementary School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
Middle School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years
NOTE: School capacity changes as part of a school renovation/upgrade project will be
reviewed as necessary by the BOCC and school districts.
3
8. Student Generation Rates
The updated student generation rates were approved on May 19, 2015 and are shown in
Attachment II.E.1 on page 43 of the report. Updated rates began to be used for CAPS
issuances in the fall of 2015 and are based on an inventory of recently built units from
January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013.
9. Access to Full Report
The draft SAPFOTAC report will be posted on the Orange County Planning Department’s
web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report will be sent to all SAPFO
partners after this BOCC meeting advising them of the availability of the draft report and
inviting comment. It is anticipated the draft 2018 SAPFOTAC report will be brought back
to the BOCC for certification at the May 15, 2018 regular meeting.
10. Additional Information
There are two primary parts to the SAPFO system. The first part, Certificate of Adequate
Public Schools (CAPS), is the testing and gaging of the student generation rate (SGR)
from development projects against available capacity within the schools. The second
part, student projections and capacity needs assessment, is the tracking of historical
enrollment and the projection of future student enrollment against existing capacity at a
certain school level. This part is not directly related to a development project, but a
current year outcome of how many children actually ‘show up’ in a school year. This
includes new students that also come from existing housing stock.
The purpose of explaining these two parts of the SAPFO system is to illustrate how
projects can be approved as part of the CAPS system when capacity is available yet
aberration in actual enrollment can cause future year projections to accelerate capital
needs dramatically. The 10-year student projections developed for the SAPFO Annual
Report forecast future school needs based on current student membership numbers and
historic growth rates derived by the five projection models.
The process accounting for students once they are actually enrolled in the school system
emphasizes a delay that exists from the time a residential development is approved and
developed to when students begin to enter the system. For example, the proposed
residential growth that has occurred in the recent past within Mebane’s jurisdiction has
yet to be seen with OCS student membership numbers and fully entered into the
historically based projection methods. Orange County staff will continue to work with the
SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and our planning partners to monitor future
residential development throughout Orange County.
In summary, although the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee report does not show
immediate capital needs, the development approvals in both school districts will, after a
normal lag, accelerate capital school needs and renovations based on localized student
increases at specific schools. These local impacts will have to be analyzed by the school
district to determine the best method to resolve new demands (i.e. redistricting,
renovation, new school construction, etc.).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current student growth projections do not show capacity needs for
additional schools in either the CHCCS District or OCS District during the 10-year projection
period.
4
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this agenda item:
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the 2018 SAPFOTAC Annual Report; and
2. Authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained in
Attachment 1.
5
March 21, 2018
Pam Hemminger, Mayor Dr. Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair
Town of Chapel Hill Orange County Board of Education
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 200 E. King Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Lydia Lavelle, Mayor Rani Dasi, Chair
Town of Carrboro Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education
301 W. Main Street 750 Merritt Mill Road
Carrboro, NC 27510 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Tom Stevens, Mayor
Town of Hillsborough
P.O. Box 429
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Subject: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC) Annual Report
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to update you on the status of the 2018 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. In accordance with the
SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the
November 15, 2017 actual membership and capacity numbers for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill –
Carrboro City Schools at its meeting on December 12, 2017.
The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County
and Towns has produced the 2018 Annual Report. As per the SAPFO MOU, the annual technical report
contains information on Level of Service, Building Capacity, Membership Date, Capital Investment Plan,
Student Membership Projection Methodology, Student Membership Projections, Student Membership Growth
Rate, Student/Housing Generation Rate, and the SAPFO Process. Enclosed for your use are copies of the 2018
Executive Summary and the March 20, 2018 BOCC meeting agenda item abstract when the BOCC received the
draft report.
The full draft SAPFOTAC report is available on the Orange County Planning Department website in the
Current Interest Projects section at the following link: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/SpecialProjects.asp
The 2018 Annual SAPFOTAC Report is scheduled to be certified by the BOCC at a regular meeting in May
2018. Therefore, if you have any comments pertaining to the report, please forward them to Craig N. Benedict,
Planning Director, no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2018. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at (919)
245-2592 or by e-mail at cbenedict@orangecountync.gov. Any comments received will be part of our agenda
package in May.
BOCC Letterhead
Attachment 1 6
Please share this information and the 2018 SAPFOTAC report with your respective boards.
Sincerely,
Mark Dorosin
Chair
Enclosures
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager
Travis Myren, Deputy Orange County Manager
Roger L. Stancil, Manager, Town of Chapel Hill
David Andrews, Manager, Town of Carrboro
Eric Peterson, Manager, Town of Hillsborough
Pamela Baldwin, Superintendent, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Todd Wirt, Superintendent, Orange County Schools
Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Chapel Hill–Carrboro City Schools
Catherine Mau, Coordinator for Student Enrollment, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Patrick Abele, Chief Operations Officer, Orange County Schools
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Orange County
Ben Hitchings, Planning and Development Services Director, Town of Chapel Hill
Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, Town of Hillsborough
Trish McGuire, Planning Director, Town of Carrboro
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
2018
(BASED ON NOVEMBER 2017 DATA)
CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY X, 2018
Attachment 2 8
Table of Contents
2018 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ i
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ v
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ............................................................................................... vi
Planning Directors/School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................. vii
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding ......................................................................................................................... 1
A. Level of Service ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Building Capacity and Membership ................................................................................................................... 2
Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2016-17) .............................................. 5
Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2016-17)........................................... 8
Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2017-18) .................................................. 11
Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2017-18)......................................... 14
C. Membership Date................................................................................................................................................ 17
II.Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System ............................................................ 18
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) .......................................................................................................................... 18
B. Student Membership Projection Methodology ................................................................................................ 19
Attachment II.B.I – Student Membership Projection Descriptions............................................................................................. 20
Attachment II.B.2 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17) ............................................... 21
Attachment II.B.3 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2017-18) ............................................... 25
C. Student Membership Projections ...................................................................................................................... 29
Attachment II.C.1 – Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2016-17) ......................................... 34
Attachment II.C.2 – Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2016-17) ............................... 35
Attachment II.C.3 – Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2017-18) ......................................... 36
Attachment II.C.4 – Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2017-18) ............................... 37
D. Student Membership Growth Rate ................................................................................................................... 38
Attachment II.D.1 – Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates
(Chart dates from 2017-2027 based on 11/14/16 membership numbers) (2016-17) .................................................................. 39
Attachment II.D.2 – Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates
(Chart dates from 2018-2028 based on 11/15/17 membership numbers) (2017-18) .................................................................. 40
E. Student / Housing Generation Rate .................................................................................................................. 41
Attachment II.E.1 – Current Student Generation Rates (2015) .................................................................................................. 43
III.Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process .......................................................... 44
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Process 1) ....................................................................................................... 44
Attachment III.A.1 – Process 1 Capital Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................ 45
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Update (Process 2) .............................................................................................................................................. 46
Attachment III.B.1 – Process 2 Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation ..................................................... 47
9
i
2018 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary
I. Base Memorandum of Understanding
A. Level of Service ....................................................................(No Change) ........Pg. 1
Chapel Hill/Carrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
Elementary 105% 105%
Middle 107% 107%
High 110% 110%
B. Building Capacity and Membership ..................................(Change) ..............Pg. 2
Chapel Hill/Carrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
Capacity Membership Increase from
Prior Year
Capacity Membership Increase from
Prior Year
Elementary 5664 5522 (45) 3361 3183 (110)
Middle 2944 2833 4 2166 1730 6
High 3875 3927 165 2439 2445 (1)
C. Membership Date – November 15 .......................................(No Change) ........Pg.17
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 2017-18 School Year – Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools
(The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2017-18 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 proje ction was low compared to the
actual, whereas an “H” indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.)
Year Projection Made for 2017-18 Membership
Actual 2017
Membership 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Elementary 5522 5875 H353 5927 H405 5730 H208 5584 H62 5605 H83
Middle 2833 3072 H239 2999 H166 2966 H133 2854 H21 2847 H14
High 3927 4108 H181 3982 H55 3858 L69 3820 L107 3832 L95
10
ii
Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2017-18 School Year – Orange County Schools
(The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2017-2018 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 2017-18Membership
Actual 2017
Membership 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Elementary 3183 3654 H471 3627 H444 3234 H51 3308 H125 3253 H70
Middle 1730 1824 H94 1862 H132 1782 H52 1776 H46 1751 H21
High 2445 2472 H27 2533 H88 2581 H136 2539 H94 2480 H35
D. Student Membership Growth Rate ....................................(Change) ..............Pg. 39
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over Next 10 Years
Chapel Hill/Carrboro
School District
Orange County
School District
Year Projection
Made: 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2016-17
Elementary 1.44% 1.11% 0.92% 0.91% 0.36% 1.30% 0.55% 0.80% 0.51% 0.58%
Middle 1.58% 1.15% 0.82% 0.95% 0.21% 1.42% 0.09% 0.67% 0.36% 0.13%
High 1.27% 1.22% 0.93% 0.72% 0% 1.35% 0.39% 0.56% 0.22% -0.10%
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 97.5%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years,
but remain positive (average ~0.36% per year compared to 1.15% 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 96.2%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years,
but remain positive (average ~0.21% compared to an average of 1.15% 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 the 110% LOS standard (current LOS is 101.3%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years
(average ~0.0% compared to 0.59% over the past 10 years).
11
iii
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 94.7%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over
the next 10 years (average ~0.58% compared to 0.72% 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 79.9%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over
the next 10 years (average ~0.13% compared to 0.90% 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 100.2%).
B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease the next 10 years (average
~ -0.10% compared to 1.16% 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. Both school districts continue planning
efforts to renovate and expand existing facilities to address school capacity needs in a more
feasible way. 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 (i.e. capacity
additions) funding would be directly linked to the SAPFO model at the appropriate time.
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 maintenance and renovation projects that need to
12
iv
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.
Changes in Average Class Size
The State of North Carolina passed legislation in 2017 resulting in a decrease in class size
averages from 1:21 to 1:20 for kindergarten to third grade for the 2017-2018 school year. As a
result, both school districts experienced a decrease in capacity at the elementary school level this
school year. This legislation also proposed an additional decrease in class size averages from
1:20 to 1:17 for kindergarten to third grade for the 2018-19 school year. Due to significant
statewide ramifications as a result of the reduced class size averages, the North Carolina General
Assembly unveiled House Bill 90 which allows for a phasing-in process to address the decrease
in class size averages over the next four years. Based on House Bill 90, average class sizes for
kindergarten to third grade will face a decrease from 1:20 to 1:19 for the 2019-2020 school year,
1:19 to 1:18 for the 2020-21 school year, and 1:18 to 1:17 for the 2021-2022 school year.
Overtime the phasing-in of the 1:17 class size averages will result in a decrease in capacity of
approximately 660 students for CHCCS. Due to a waiver from the state, CHCCS will have an
additional year to plan for impacts resulting from changes in class size. OCS has begun the
process of adjusting average class sizes this school year in order to prepare for future reductions.
The SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will continue to monitor this issue and determine
the need for the reconvening of the Joint Action Committee in the future.
Charter Schools
Currently, there are two Charter Schools located in the Town of Hillsborough. Eno River
Academy (K-12) serves 326 students and The Expedition School (K-8) serves 542 students.
Charter and private 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. SAPFO projections are used for projecting only public school construction needs.
However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter and private schools
and their effect on student enrollment in both school districts. If a charter or private school were
to close and a spike were to be realized in school enrollment, the student projections would likely
accelerate the need for additional capacity in future years, but likely still within an appropriate
time for CIP planning. Charter Schools are also 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. Although charter and private
schools numbers are not collected for SAPFO purposes, impacts due to enrollment at these
schools are accounted for in SAPFO process with the annual reporting of student membership
and growth rates contained in the 10-year student projections.
13
v
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.
14
vi
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.
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners
ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum
of Understanding (SAPFO MOU)
SECTION 1d
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORDINANCE PARTNERS
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
SAPFO
Orange County School District
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
15
vii
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
16
1
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.
17
Section I
2
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
schools was certified by the respective
superintendent and incorporated in the
initialization of the CAPS system (Chapel Hill
Carrboro School District April 29, 2002 - Base)
The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective
superintendent and incorporated in the
initialization of the CAPS system (Orange County
School District April 30, 2002 - Base)
Capacity changes were made each year as follows: Capacity changes were made each year as follows:
2003: Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary.
2004: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
2003: No net increase in capacity at Elementary
level. No changes at Middle School level.
Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge High School.
2004: No net increase in capacity at Elementary
18
Section I
3
School levels.
2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2007: An increase of 800 at the High School level
with the opening of Carrboro High School.
2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary
School level due to the opening of Morris Grove
Elementary School and the implementation of the
1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3
2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2010: An increase in capacity of 40 students at the
High School level with Phoenix Academy High
School becoming official high school within the
district
2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2012: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2013: An increase in capacity of 585 students due
to the opening of Northside Elementary School.
2014: An increase in capacity of 104 students due
to the opening of the Culbreth Middle School
addition.
2015: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2016: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2017: A decrease in capacity of 165 students due
to the implementation of the 1:20 class size ratio in
grades K-3.
level. No changes at Middle or High School
levels.
2005: An increase in capacity of 100 at
Hillsborough Elementary with the completion of
renovations.
2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the
Middle School level with the completion of
Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of 15
at the High School level with the temporary
location of Partnership Academy Alternative
School. An increase of 2 at the Elementary level
due to a change in the capacity calculation for each
grade at each school.
2007: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2008: A decrease of 228 at the Elementary School
level due to the implementation of the 1:21 class
size ratio in grades K-3 and an increase of 25 at the
High School level with the completion of the new
Partnership Academy Alternative School.
2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2010: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
School levels.
2012: No changes at Elementary or Middle School
levels. A decrease of 119 at High School level as a
result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction
(DPI) study.
2013: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High
19
Section I
4
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.
2017: A decrease in capacity of 333 students due
to the implementation of the 1:20 class size ratio in
grades K-3.
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
system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to
year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by
the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to
SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by
the Board of County Commissioners each year.
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to
year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by
the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to
SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by
the Board of County Commissioners each year.
The requested 2017-18 capacity is noted on
Attachment I.B.4
The requested 2017-18 capacity is noted on
Attachment I.B.3
5. Recommendation: Recommendation:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported
by CHCCS and shown in Attachment I.B.4.
Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported
by OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3.
20
Section I
5
Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2016-17)
(Page 1 of 3)
21
Section I
6
Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2016-17)
(Page 2 of 3)
22
Section I
7
Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2016-17)
(Page 3 of 3)
23
Section I
8
Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2016-17)
(Page 1 of 3)
24
Section I
9
Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2016-17)
(Page 2 of 3)
25
Section I
10
Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2016-17)
(Page 3 of 3)
26
Section I
11
Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2017-18)
(Page 1 of 3)
27
Section I
12
Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2017-18)
(Page 2 of 3)
28
Section I
13
Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2017-18)
(Page 3 of 3)
29
Section I
14
Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2017-18)
(Page 1 of 3)
30
Section I
15
Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2017-18)
(Page 2 of 3)
31
Section I
16
Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle, & High)
(2017-18)
(Page 3 of 3)
32
Section II
17
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.
33
Section II
18
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, 2018.
5. Recommendation:
Not subject to staff review
34
Section II
19
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 fifteen 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.
35
Section II
20
Attachment II.B.I – Student Membership Projection Descriptions 36
Section II
21
Orange County School District
School Membership 2016-2017 School Year (November 15, 2016)
11/13/15
Actual
2015-16
2016 Report
Projection for
2016-17
11/15/16
Actual
2016-17
Change between actual
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
Attachment II.B.2 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17)
(Page 1 of 4)
37
Section II
22
Orange County School District
School Membership 2016-2017 School Year (November 15, 2016)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
‘TISCHLER’ LINEAR (T)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP)
10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
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.
Attachment II.B.2 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17)
(Page 2 of 4)
38
Section II
23
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2016-2017 School Year (November 15, 2016
11/13/15
Actual
2015-16
2016 Report
Projection for
2016-17
11/15/16
Actual
2016-17
Change between actual
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
Attachment II.B.2 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17)
(Page 3 of 4)
39
Section II
24
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2016-2017 School Year (November 15, 2016)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
‘TISCHLER’ LINEAR (T)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP)
10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
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.
Attachment II.B.2 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2016-17)
(Page 4 of 4)
40
Section II
25
Orange County School District
School Membership 2017-18 School Year (November 15, 2017)
11/14/16
Actual
2016-17
2017 Report
Projection for
2017-18
11/15/17
Actual
2017-18
Change between actual
Nov 2016 - Nov 2017
Elementary 3293 3183 -110
Model Projection is
T 3335 H152
OCP 3329 H146
10C 3213 H30
5C 3203 H20
3C 3188 H5
AVG 3253 H70
11/14/16 11/15/17
Middle 1724 1730 +6
Model Projection is
T 1746 H16
OCP 1744 H14
10C 1763 H33
5C 1753 H23
3C 1750 H20
AVG 1751 H21
11/14/16 11/15/17
High 2446 2445 -1
Model Projection is
T 2477 H32
OCP 2476 H31
10C 2472 H27
5C 2493 H48
3C 2482 H37
AVG 2480 H35
Totals 11/14/16 11/15/17
Elementary 3293 3183
Middle 1724 1730
High 2446 2445
7463 7358 -105
Model Projection is
T 7558 H200
OCP 7549 H191
10C 7448 H90
5C 7449 H91
3C 7420 H62
AVG 7484 H126
H means High
L means Low
Attachment II.B.3 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2017-18)
(Page 1 of 4)
41
Section II
26
Orange County School District
School Membership 2017-2018 School Year (November 15, 2017)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
‘TISCHLER’ LINEAR (T)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP)
10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
3-YEAR COHORT (3C)
Elementary School Level
The projections were all high, ranging from 5 students to 152 students above actual
membership. On average, the projections were 70 students higher than the actual
membership.
The membership actually decreased by 110 students between November 14, 2016 and
November 15, 2017.
Middle School Level
The majority of projections were all high, ranging from 14 students to 33 students above
actual membership. On average, the projections were 21 students higher than the
actual membership.
The membership actually increased by 6 students between November 14, 2016 and
November 15, 2017.
High School Level
Projections were all high, ranging from 27 to 48 students above actual membership. On
average, the projections were 35 students higher than the actual membership.
The membership actually decreased by 1 student between November 14, 2016 and
November 15, 2017.
TOTAL
The totals of all school level projections were all high, ranging from 62 to 200 students
above actual membership. On average, the projections were 126 students higher than
the actual membership.
The membership decreased in total by 105 students, which is the sum of -110 at
Elementary, +6 at Middle, and -1 at High.
Attachment II.B.3 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2017-18)
(Page 2 of 4)
42
Section II
27
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2017-18 School Year (November 15, 2017)
11/14/16
Actual
2016-17
2017 Report
Projection for
2017-18
11/15/17
Actual
2017-18
Change between actual
Nov 2016 - Nov 2017
Elementary 5567 5522 -45
Model Projection is
T 5641 H119
OCP 5632 H110
10C 5599 H77
5C 5580 H58
3C 5575 H53
AVG 5605 H83
11/14/16 11/15/17
Middle 2829 2833 +4
Model Projection is
T 2867 H34
OCP 2893 H60
10C 2844 H11
5C 2822 L11
3C 2807 L26
AVG 2847 H14
11/14/16 11/15/17
High 3762 3927 +165
Model Projection is
T 3812 L115
OCP 3812 L115
10C 3850 L77
5C 3848 L79
3C 3839 L88
AVG 3832 L95
Totals 11/14/16 11/15/17
Elementary 5567 5522
Middle 2829 2833
High 3762 3927
12,158 12,282 +124
Model Projection is
T 12,320 H38
OCP 12,337 H55
10C 12,293 H11
5C 12,250 L32
3C 12,221 L61
AVG 12,284 H2
H means High
L means Low
Attachment II.B.3 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2017-18)
(Page 3 of 4)
43
Section II
28
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
School Membership 2017-2018 School Year (November 15, 2017)
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
‘TISCHLER’ LINEAR (T)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP)
10-YEAR COHORT (10C)
5-YEAR COHORT (5C)
3-YEAR COHORT (3C)
Elementary School Level
Projections were all high ranging from 53 students to 119 students above actual
membership. On average, the projections were 83 students higher than the actual
membership.
The actual membership decreased by 45 students between November 14, 2016 and
November 15, 2017.
Middle School Level
Projections were mixed, ranging from 26 students below to 60 students above actual
membership. On average, the projections were 14 students higher than the actual
membership.
The actual membership increased by 4 students between November 14, 2016 and
November 15, 2017.
High School Level
Projections were all low, ranging from 77 to 115 students below actual membership. On
average, the projections were 95 students lower than the actual membership.
The actual membership increased by 165 students between November 14, 2016 and
November 15, 2017.
TOTAL
The total of all school level projections were mixed, ranging from 61 students below to
55 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 2 students
higher than the actual membership.
The membership increased in total by 124 students, which is the sum of -45 at
Elementary, +4 at Middle, and +165 at High.
Attachment II.B.3 – Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2017-18)
(Page 4 of 4)
44
Section II
29
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 City
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
II.B (Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.4
The 5 model average discussed in Section
II.B (Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II.C.3
4. Analysis of Existing Conditions
The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show a decrease
at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools’ elementary school level and at the Orange
County Schools’ elementary and high school levels. The attachments show an
increase at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools’ middle and high school levels and
Orange County Schools’ middle school level. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools and
Orange County Schools projected average annual growth rates have all decreased
since the previous year. The projected annual growth rates show positive and
negative growth for all three levels in the 10-year projection period. Attachment
II.C.3 and Attachment II.C.4 show year by year percent growth and projected level of
service (LOS). The projection models were updated using current (November 15,
2017) memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter.
45
Section II
30
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District
Elementary
The previous year (2016-17) projections for November 2017 at this level were overestimated by
83 students. The actual membership decreased by 45 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, 2015-16, and this school year. 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 (2016-17) projections for November 2017 for this level were overestimated by
14 students. The actual membership increased by 4 students. Over the previous ten years, this
level has shown varying increases before experiencing a decrease in 2015-16 and 2016-17.
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 (2016-17) projections for November 20176 for this level were underestimated
by 95 students. The actual membership increased by 165 students. Over the previous ten years,
change has been variable with decreases in membership in five of the ten years. Growth rates
during this time period have ranged from -1.74 to +3.27%. The need for additional high school
46
Section II
31
capacity at Carrboro High School is not anticipated in the 10-year projection period. This is
similar to last year’s projections. Due to renovations to Chapel Hill High School, this level will
experience an increase in capacity of 105 seats for the 2020-21 school year.
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 continue to monitor and evaluate the demand and
growth of residential development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as its effect on student
membership rates.
Due to the closing of Kestrel Heights Charter in Durham County in 2017, CHCCS reported an
increase in membership at the high school level. 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.
Orange County School District
Elementary
The previous year (2016-17) projections for November 2017 at this level were overestimated by
70 students. Actual membership decreased by 110 students. Over the previous ten years, this
level experienced positive growth before experiencing a decrease in 2014-15, 2016-17, and this
47
Section II
32
school year. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -5.07% to +2.80%. In the
Orange County school system, historic growth is more closely related to new residential
development than in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District, which has a sizeable number of
new families in older, existing housing stock. The need for an additional Elementary School is
not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. 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 (2016-17) projections for November 2017 for this level were overestimated by
21 students. The actual membership increased by 6 students. 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 (2016-2017) projections for November 2017 for this level were overestimated
by 35 students. The actual membership decreased by 1 student. 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, 2016-17, and this school 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. 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.
48
Section II
33
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.
Currently, there are two Charter Schools located in the Town of Hillsborough. Eno River
Academy (K-12) serves 326 students and The Expedition School (K-8) serves 542 students. Both
of these charter schools continue to have an effect on OCS membership numbers. 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 were to close and a spike were to be realized in school
enrollment, the student projections will likely accelerate the need for additional capacity in future
years, still within an appropriate time for CIP planning. Charter Schools are also 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
49
Section II
34
Attachment II.C.1 – Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2016-17) 50
Section II
35
Attachment II.C.2 – Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2016-17) 51
Section II
36
Attachment II.C.3 – Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2017-18) 52
Section II
37
Attachment II.C.4 – Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle, & High) (2017-18) 53
Section II
38
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
attachments show continued growth at each school level
within the system.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
The membership figures and percentage growth on the
attachments show continued growth at each school level
within the system.
Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next
ten years:
5. Recommendation: Recommendation:
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Use statistics as noted. Use statistics as noted.
Year Projection
Made:
2013-
2014
2014-
2015
2015-
2016
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
Elementary 1.44% 1.11% 0.92% 0.91% 0.36%
Middle 1.58% 1.15% 0.82% 0.95% 0.21%
High 1.27% 1.22% 0.93% 0.72% 0%
Year Projection
Made:
2013-
2014
2014-
2015
2015-
2016
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
Elementary 1.30% 0.55% 0.80% 0.51% 0.58%
Middle 1.42% 0.09% 0.67% 0.36% 0.13%
High 1.35% 0.39% 0.56% 0.22% -0.1%
54
Section II
39
Attachment II.D.1 – Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2017-2027 based on 11/14/16 membership numbers) (2016-17) 55
Section II
40
Attachment II.D.2 – Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2018-2028 based on 11/15/17 membership numbers) (2017-18) 56
Section II
41
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
57
Section II
42
housing is dominant or new families move into a large inventory of existing housing
stock.
5. Recommendation:
No change at this time.
58
Section II
43
Attachment II.E.1 – Current Student Generation Rates (2015) 59
Section III
44
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, 2017
membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June 2018).
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.
60
Section III
45
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 1 - Capital Investment Planning (CIP)
Projection Method
(Historical Membership1
plus Hypothetical Growth Rate
CIP
Approval
(Proposed New Construction
i.e. School Capacity
Added by number seats & year)
CAPS
System2
(Certificate of
Adequate Public
Schools)
Actual Adjustments
(Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year
Membership Projection)
1Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: (1) pre-existing/approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2)
existing housing stock with new families/children, and (3) newly approved housing development (in the future this component will be known as
CAPS approved development)
2The only part of the CAPS System (i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking) that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual
membership (November 15 of preceding CIP year) and new school capacity amount (seats) in a specific year pursuant to the CIP.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
I
I
I
.
A
.
1
– Pr
o
c
e
s
s
1
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
61
Section III
46
B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Update (Process 2)
Timeframe: The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the
school districts report actual membership and ‘pre-certified’ capacity, whether it is CIP
associated or prior ‘joint action’ agreement. ‘Joint action’ determinations of changes in capacity
due to State rules or other non-construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the
November 15 capacity and membership reporting date. This update may reflect the Board of
County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects
capacity and addition of new actual fall membership. The Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year
– (e.g.: November 15, 2005 to November 14, 2006).
New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated, each
CAPS projection year is ‘absorbed’ by the actual estimate of a given year. Later year CAPS
projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For
example, if a 50-lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 lots may be assigned to “Year 1,” 10 lots to
“Year 2,” 10 lots to “Year 3,” 10 lots to “Year 4,” and 5 lots to “Year 5.” When “Year 1” is
updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The
students generated in “Years 2, 3, 4, and 5” are held in the CAPS system and added to the
appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated.
As previously noted 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.
62
Section III
47
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 2018 - 2028)
November 2017 – June 2018 (using 2018 SAPFOTAC Report)
SAPFO CAPS Process 2 (for SAPFO System 2018 – 2019)
November 2017 - November 2018
63
49
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation
2018 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2017 through November 14, 2018.
The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC/School District joint
action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2017. 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, 2017.
CAPS Allocation System
1. Certified Capacity
2 LOS Capacity
3. Actual Membership
4. Year Start Available Capacity
5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity (includes available
capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by year)
6. CAPS approved development
a. Total units
b. Single Family1
c. Other Housing1
CAPS System
AC2=SC2 - (ADM2+ND12+ND22+…)
AC0 - Issue CAPS
AC0 - Defer CAPS to later date
1Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate. Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is
different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1. This estimate only captures new
development impact, which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate.
2AC - Available Capacity - Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system.
SC - Certified School Level Capacity
ADM - Average Daily Membership
ND - New Development; ND1 means first approved CAPS approved development
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
I
I
I
.
B
.
1
– Pr
o
c
e
s
s
2
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
A
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
(
C
A
P
S
)
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
64
REVISED 2/1/2018
CH
C
C
S
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
)
(
4
)
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
20
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
2
0
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2
0
-
2
1
2
0
2
1
-
2
2
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
2
0
2
3
-
2
4
2
0
2
4
-
2
5
2
0
2
5
-
2
6
2
0
2
6
-
2
7
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
Ac
t
u
a
l
4,
4
7
4
4
,
5
5
1
4
,
6
9
2
4
,
6
9
5
4
,
8
7
9
4
,
9
8
0
5
,
1
7
3
5
,
3
0
2
5
,
2
1
9
5
,
2
9
6
5
,
4
6
4
5
,
5
4
3
5
,
5
5
4
5
,
5
4
1
5
,
5
0
1
5
,
5
6
7
5
,
5
2
2
Ti
s
c
h
l
e
r
(
2
)
5,5565,5905,6245,6585,6925,7255,7595,7935,8275,861
OC
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
5,5415,5865,6295,6725,7135,7545,7805,8075,8185,817
10
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
5,4965,4035,3925,4015,4085,4625,5175,5725,6285,684
5
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
5,4755,3665,3395,3335,3355,3895,4425,4975,5525,607
3
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
5,4795,3915,3805,3755,3735,4275,4815,5365,5915,647
Av
e
r
a
g
e
5,5095,4675,4735,4885,5045,5515,5965,6415,6835,723
An
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
-
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
i
n
A
c
t
u
a
l
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
)
7
7
1
4
1
3
1
8
4
1
0
1
1
9
3
1
2
9
(8
3
)
77
1
6
8
7
9
1
1
(1
3
)
(
4
0
)
66(45)(13)(42)615164744454240
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
-
1
0
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
L
O
S
)
4
,
3
0
2
4
,
3
0
2
4
,
9
2
1
4
,
9
2
1
4
,
9
2
1
4
,
9
2
1
4
,
9
2
1
5
,
2
4
4
5
,
2
4
4
5
,
2
4
4
5
,
2
4
4
5
,
2
4
4
5
,
8
2
9
5
,
8
2
9
5
,
8
2
9
5
,
8
2
9
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
5
,
6
6
4
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
0
%
L
O
S
1
7
2
2
4
9
(2
2
9
)
(
2
2
6
)
(
4
2
)
59
2
5
2
5
8
(2
5
)
52
2
2
0
2
9
9
(2
7
5
)
(
2
8
8
)
(
3
2
8
)
(
2
6
2
)
(
1
4
2
)
(
1
5
5
)
(
1
9
7
)
(
1
9
1
)
(
1
7
6
)
(
1
6
0
)
(
1
1
3
)
(
6
8
)
(
2
3
)
1959
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
-
1
0
5
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
L
O
S
)
4,
5
1
7
4
,
5
1
7
5
,
1
6
7
5
,
1
6
7
5
,
1
6
7
5
,
1
6
7
5
,
1
6
7
5
,
5
0
6
5
,
5
0
6
5
,
5
0
6
5
,
5
0
6
5
,
5
0
6
6
,
1
2
0
6
,
1
2
0
6
,
1
2
0
6
,
1
2
0
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
5
,
9
4
7
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
5
%
L
O
S
(4
3
)
34
(4
7
5
)
(
4
7
2
)
(
2
8
8
)
(
1
8
7
)
6
(2
0
4
)
(
2
8
7
)
(
2
1
0
)
(4
2
)
37
(5
6
6
)
(
5
7
9
)
(
6
1
9
)
(
5
5
3
)
(
4
2
5
)
(
4
3
8
)
(
4
8
0
)
(
4
7
4
)
(
4
5
9
)
(
4
4
3
)
(
3
9
6
)
(
3
5
1
)
(
3
0
6
)
(
2
6
4
)
(
2
2
4
)
Ac
t
u
a
l
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
10
4
.
0
%
1
0
5
.
8
%
9
5
.
3
%
9
5
.
4
%
9
9
.
1
%
1
0
1
.
2
%
1
0
5
.
1
%
1
0
1
.
1
%
9
9
.
5
%
1
0
1
.
0
%
1
0
4
.
2
%
1
0
5
.
7
%
9
5
.
3
%
9
5
.
1
%
9
4
.
4
%
9
5
.
5
%
9
7
.
5
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
97.3%96.5%96.6%96.9%97.2%98.0%98.8%99.6%100.3%101.0%
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
(
3
)
1.
7
2
%
3
.
1
0
%
0
.
0
6
%
3
.
9
2
%
2
.
0
7
%
3
.
8
8
%
2
.
4
9
%
-
1
.
5
7
%
1
.
4
8
%
3
.
1
7
%
1
.
4
5
%
0
.
2
0
%
-
0
.
0
4
%
-
0
.
7
2
%
1
.
2
0
%
-
0
.
8
1
%
-
0
.
2
3
%
-
0
.
7
7
%
0
.
1
0
%
0
.
2
7
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
8
6
%
0
.
8
0
%
0
.
8
1
%
0
.
7
5
%
0
.
7
0
%
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
w
h
e
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
u
r
p
a
s
s
e
s
S
A
P
F
O
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
CH
C
C
S
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
)
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
20
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
2
0
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2
0
-
2
1
2
0
2
1
-
2
2
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
2
0
2
3
-
2
4
2
0
2
4
-
2
5
2
0
2
5
-
2
6
2
0
2
6
-
2
7
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
Ac
t
u
a
l
2,
5
4
0
2
,
6
0
8
2
,
6
1
2
2
,
5
6
0
2
,
5
7
2
2
,
5
9
2
2
,
6
2
2
2
,
6
9
7
2
,
7
0
8
2
,
7
2
2
2
,
7
5
3
2
,
7
8
5
2
,
8
5
8
2
,
8
6
1
2
,
8
4
4
2
,
8
2
9
2
,
8
3
3
Ti
s
c
h
l
e
r
(
2
)
2,8502,8682,8852,9032,9202,9372,9552,9722,9903,007
OC
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
2,8482,8462,8422,8392,8352,8552,8742,8942,9002,918
10
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
2,9263,0133,0113,0022,9252,8862,8682,8482,8772,906
5
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
2,9072,9762,9592,9422,8562,8022,7692,7452,7722,800
3
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
2,9152,9752,9462,9322,8712,8332,8032,7732,8012,829
Av
e
r
a
g
e
2,8892,9362,9292,9242,8812,8632,8542,8462,8682,892
An
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
-
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
i
n
A
c
t
u
a
l
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
)
6
8
4
(5
2
)
12
2
0
3
0
7
5
1
1
1
4
3
1
3
2
7
3
7
6
(1
7
)
(
1
5
)
45646(7)(5)(42)(19)(9)(7)2224
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
-
1
0
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
2,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
8
4
0
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
2
,
9
4
4
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
0
%
L
O
S
(3
0
0
)
(
2
3
2
)
(
2
2
8
)
(
2
8
0
)
(
2
6
8
)
(
2
4
8
)
(
2
1
8
)
(
1
4
3
)
(
1
3
2
)
(
1
1
8
)
(
8
7
)
(
5
5
)
18
(8
3
)
(
1
0
0
)
(
1
1
5
)
(
1
1
1
)
(
5
5
)
(
8
)
(
1
5
)
(
2
0
)
(
6
3
)
(
8
1
)
(
9
0
)
(
9
8
)
(
7
6
)
(
5
2
)
10
7
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
3,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
0
3
9
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
3
,
1
5
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
7
%
L
O
S
(4
9
9
)
(
4
3
1
)
(
4
2
7
)
(
4
7
9
)
(
4
6
7
)
(
4
4
7
)
(
4
1
7
)
(
3
4
2
)
(
3
3
1
)
(
3
1
7
)
(
2
8
6
)
(
2
5
4
)
(
1
8
1
)
(
2
8
9
)
(
3
0
6
)
(
3
2
1
)
(
3
1
7
)
(
2
6
1
)
(
2
1
4
)
(
2
2
1
)
(
2
2
6
)
(
2
6
9
)
(
2
8
7
)
(
2
9
6
)
(
3
0
4
)
(
2
8
2
)
(
2
5
8
)
Ac
t
u
a
l
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
89
.
4
%
9
1
.
8
%
9
2
.
0
%
9
0
.
1
%
9
0
.
6
%
9
1
.
3
%
9
2
.
3
%
9
5
.
0
%
9
5
.
4
%
9
5
.
8
%
9
6
.
9
%
9
8
.
1
%
1
0
0
.
6
%
9
7
.
2
%
9
6
.
6
%
9
6
.
1
%
9
6
.
2
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
98.1%99.7%99.5%99.3%97.9%97.2%96.9%96.7%97.4%98.2%
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
(
3
)
2.
6
8
%
0
.
1
5
%
-
1
.
9
9
%
0
.
4
7
%
0
.
7
8
%
1
.
1
6
%
2
.
8
6
%
0
.
4
1
%
0
.
5
2
%
1
.
1
4
%
1
.
1
6
%
2
.
6
2
%
2
.
7
3
%
-
0
.
5
9
%
-
0
.
5
3
%
0
.
1
4
%
1
.
9
8
%
1
.
6
1
%
-
0
.
2
4
%
-
0
.
1
7
%
-
1
.
4
4
%
-
0
.
6
5
%
-
0
.
3
1
%
-
0
.
2
6
%
0
.
7
6
%
0
.
8
4
%
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
w
h
e
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
u
r
p
a
s
s
e
s
S
A
P
F
O
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
CH
C
C
S
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
)
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
20
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
2
0
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2
0
-
2
1
2
0
2
1
-
2
2
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
2
0
2
3
-
2
4
2
0
2
4
-
2
5
2
0
2
5
-
2
6
2
0
2
6
-
2
7
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
Ac
t
u
a
l
2,
9
6
3
3
,
1
6
2
3
,
3
3
0
3
,
4
2
2
3
,
5
1
4
3
,
5
2
0
3
,
6
3
5
3
,
6
3
0
3
,
6
0
6
3
,
6
4
0
3
,
7
1
4
3
,
7
9
6
3
,
7
6
4
3
,
7
3
0
3
,
7
0
1
3
,
7
6
2
3
,
9
2
7
Ti
s
c
h
l
e
r
(
2
)
3,9513,9753,9994,0234,0484,0724,0964,1204,1444,168
OC
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
3,9383,9403,9413,9413,9403,9133,8973,8823,8893,897
10
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
3,8843,9013,9003,9144,0844,0914,0714,0683,9553,925
5
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
3,8893,8943,8783,8533,9963,9873,9523,9313,8053,759
3
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
3,9123,9393,9453,9374,0744,0594,0284,0203,9103,879
Av
e
r
a
g
e
3,9153,9303,9333,9344,0284,0244,0094,0043,9413,926
An
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
-
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
i
n
A
c
t
u
a
l
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
)
1
9
9
1
6
8
9
2
9
2
6
1
1
5
(5
)
(
2
4
)
34
7
4
8
2
(3
2
)
(
6
6
)
(
2
9
)
61165(12)153195(4)(16)(5)(64)(15)
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
-
1
0
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
3,
0
3
5
3
,
0
3
5
3
,
0
3
5
3
,
0
3
5
3
,
0
3
5
3
,
0
3
5
3
,
8
3
5
3
,
8
3
5
3
,
8
3
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
8
7
5
3
,
9
8
0
3
,
9
8
0
3
,
9
8
0
3
,
9
8
0
3
,
9
8
0
3
,
9
8
0
3
,
9
8
0
3
,
9
8
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
0
%
L
O
S
(7
2
)
12
7
2
9
5
3
8
7
4
7
9
4
8
5
(2
0
0
)
(
2
0
5
)
(
2
2
9
)
(
2
3
5
)
(
1
6
1
)
(
7
9
)
(
1
1
1
)
(
1
4
5
)
(
1
7
4
)
(
1
1
3
)
524055(47)(46)48442924(39)(54)
11
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
3,
3
3
9
3
,
3
3
9
3
,
3
3
9
3
,
3
3
9
3
,
3
3
9
3
,
3
3
9
4
,
2
1
9
4
,
2
1
9
4
,
2
1
9
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
2
6
3
4
,
3
7
8
4
,
3
7
8
4
,
3
7
8
4
,
3
7
8
4
,
3
7
8
4
,
3
7
8
4
,
3
7
8
4
,
3
7
8
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
1
0
%
L
O
S
(3
7
6
)
(
1
7
7
)
(
9
)
83
1
7
6
1
8
2
(5
8
4
)
(
5
8
9
)
(
6
1
3
)
(
6
2
3
)
(
5
4
9
)
(
4
6
7
)
(
4
9
9
)
(
5
3
3
)
(
5
6
2
)
(
5
0
1
)
(
3
3
6
)
(
3
4
8
)
(
3
3
3
)
(
4
4
5
)
(
4
4
4
)
(
3
5
0
)
(
3
5
4
)
(
3
6
9
)
(
3
7
4
)
(
4
3
7
)
(
4
5
2
)
Ac
t
u
a
l
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
97
.
6
%
1
0
4
.
2
%
1
0
9
.
7
%
1
1
2
.
8
%
1
1
5
.
8
%
1
1
6
.
0
%
9
4
.
8
%
9
4
.
7
%
9
4
.
0
%
9
3
.
9
%
9
5
.
8
%
9
8
.
0
%
9
7
.
1
%
9
6
.
3
%
9
5
.
5
%
9
7
.
1
%
1
0
1
.
3
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
101.0%101.4%98.8%98.8%101.2%101.1%100.7%100.6%99.0%98.6%
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
(
3
)
6.
7
2
%
5
.
3
1
%
2
.
7
6
%
2
.
6
9
%
0
.
1
7
%
3
.
2
7
%
-
0
.
1
4
%
-
0
.
6
6
%
0
.
9
4
%
2
.
0
3
%
2
.
2
1
%
-
0
.
8
4
%
-
1
.
7
4
%
-
0
.
7
8
%
1
.
6
5
%
4
.
3
9
%
-
0
.
3
1
%
0
.
3
8
%
0
.
0
7
%
0
.
0
3
%
2
.
4
1
%
-
0
.
1
0
%
-
0
.
3
9
%
-
0
.
1
1
%
-
1
.
5
9
%
-
0
.
3
8
%
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
w
h
e
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
u
r
p
a
s
s
e
s
S
A
P
F
O
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(1
)
I
t
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
n
o
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
1
7
d
a
t
e
o
f
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
a
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
b
y
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
A
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
I
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
C
H
C
C
S
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
t
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
.
(2
)
T
h
e
T
i
s
c
h
l
e
r
M
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
C
H
C
C
S
a
n
d
O
C
S
.
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
E
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
f
o
r
C
H
C
C
(3
)
A
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
c
t
u
a
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
a
n
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
(4
)
C
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
s
f
o
r
g
r
a
d
e
s
K
-
3
=
1
:
2
3
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
0
0
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
.
I
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
2
0
0
5
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
G
r
o
u
p
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
s
c
h
o
o
l
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
o
f
C
H
C
C
S
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
#
1
0
,
K
-
3
c
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
s
a
r
e
1
:
2
1
a
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
p
a
s
t
S
t
a
t
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
(1
)
It
is
imp
o
r
tan
t to
n
o
te
th
at th
i
s
r
e
fl
ec
ts
th
e
Nov
e
m
ber
15
,
20
1
7
date
o
f m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
a
s
o
u
tl
i
ne
d in
by
th
e
Schoo
ls
Ad
eq
u
a
te
Publ
i
c
Fac
il
i
t
i
es
Ordi
na
n
c
e
.
It
doe
s
n
o
t inc
lude
CH
C
C
S
s
tuden
ts
a
tt
en
di
ng
th
e
Hos
p
it
al Scho
(2
)
T
h
e
T
i
s
c
h
l
e
r
M
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
C
H
C
C
S
a
n
d
O
C
S
.
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
E
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
f
o
r
C
H
C
C
(3
)
Ann
u
a
l g
r
o
w
th
r
a
te
c
a
lcu
lated u
s
ing
a
c
tua
l m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
for
y
e
a
r
s
20
0
8
-09
th
ro
u
g
h 20
1
7
-18
a
n
d a
v
e
r
a
g
e
m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
for
y
e
a
r
s
20
1
8
-19
th
ro
u
g
h 20
2
7
-2
(1
)
It
is
imp
o
r
tan
t to
n
o
te
th
at th
i
s
r
e
fl
ec
ts
th
e
Nov
e
m
ber
15
,
20
1
7
date
o
f m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
a
s
o
u
tl
i
ne
d in
by
th
e
Schoo
ls
Ad
eq
u
a
te
Publ
i
c
Fac
il
i
t
i
es
Ordi
na
n
c
e
.
It
doe
s
n
o
t inc
lude
CH
C
C
S
s
tuden
ts
a
tt
en
di
ng
th
e
Hos
p
it
al Scho
(2
)
T
h
e
T
i
s
c
h
l
e
r
M
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
C
H
C
C
S
a
n
d
O
C
S
.
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
E
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
f
o
r
C
H
C
C
(3
)
A
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
c
t
u
a
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
a
n
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
7
-
2
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
#
1
1
o
p
e
n
s
w
i
t
h
5
8
5
s
e
a
t
s
Pe
r
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
0
5
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
C
H
C
C
S
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
#
1
0
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
y
e
a
r
20
0
8
-
0
9
.
I
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
B
O
C
C
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
t
a
l
s
60
0
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
Im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
N
o
t
e
:
P
e
r
2
0
0
5
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
G
r
o
u
p
,
G
r
a
d
e
s
K
-
3
c
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
re
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
:
2
3
t
o
1
:
2
1
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
#
1
0
o
p
e
n
s
(
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
p
r
i
o
r
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
:
re
d
u
c
e
d
c
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
)
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
#
9
o
p
e
n
s
i
n
f
a
l
l
2
0
0
3
w
i
t
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
6
1
9
s
e
a
t
s
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
1
0
4
n
e
w
s
e
a
t
s
a
t
C
u
l
b
r
e
t
h
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
of
f
i
c
i
a
l
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
s
c
h
o
o
l
ye
a
r
w
i
t
h
4
0
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Hi
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
#
3
o
p
e
n
s
i
n
f
a
l
l
2
0
0
7
w
i
t
h
8
0
0
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
a
t
s
Capacity decrease due to change in class size ratios per House Bill 13 (K-3 average class size ratios are 1:20 as directed by State legislative action)Chapel Hill High School adding 105 seats.65
REVISED 2/1/2018
OC
S
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
)
(
4
)
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
20
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
20
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
2
0
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2
0
-
2
1
2
0
2
1
-
2
2
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
2
0
2
3
-
2
4
2
0
2
4
-
2
5
2
0
2
5
-
2
6
2
0
2
6
-
2
7
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
Ac
t
u
a
l
2,
8
9
3
2,
9
0
1
2,
9
4
5
3
,
0
1
6
3
,
0
0
6
3
,
0
7
2
3
,
1
5
8
3
,
1
6
5
3
,
2
1
1
3
,
2
8
5
3
,
3
4
8
3
,
4
0
3
3
,
4
3
3
3
,
2
5
9
3
,
3
1
8
3
,
2
9
3
3
,
1
8
3
Ti
s
c
h
l
e
r
(
2
)
3,2013,2183,2363,2533,2713,2883,3063,3243,3413,359
OC
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
3,2003,2213,2443,2673,2933,3183,3443,3693,3913,409
10
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
3,1403,1173,1623,1703,2083,2403,2723,3053,3383,372
5
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
3,1283,0973,1343,1343,1683,2003,2323,2643,2973,330
3
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
3,1393,1153,1573,1653,2023,2343,2663,2993,3323,365
Av
e
r
a
g
e
3,1613,1543,1863,1983,2283,2563,2843,3123,3403,367
An
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
-
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
i
n
A
c
t
u
a
l
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
)
8
44
7
1
(1
0
)
66
8
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
3
5
5
3
0
(1
7
4
)
59
(25)(110)(22)(8)3311312828282827
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
-
1
0
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
3,
8
2
0
3,
8
2
0
3,
8
2
0
3
,
8
2
0
3
,
9
2
0
3
,
9
2
0
3
,
9
2
0
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
6
9
4
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
3
,
3
6
1
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
0
%
L
O
S
(9
2
7
)
(9
1
9
)
(8
7
5
)
(
8
0
4
)
(
9
1
4
)
(
8
4
8
)
(
7
6
2
)
(
5
2
9
)
(
4
8
3
)
(
4
0
9
)
(
3
4
6
)
(
2
9
1
)
(
2
6
1
)
(
4
3
5
)
(
3
7
6
)
(
4
0
1
)
(
1
7
8
)
(
2
0
0
)
(
2
0
7
)
(
1
7
5
)
(
1
6
3
)
(
1
3
3
)
(
1
0
5
)
(
7
7
)
(
4
9
)
(
2
1
)
6
10
5
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
4,
0
1
1
4,
0
1
1
4,
0
1
1
4
,
0
1
1
4
,
1
1
6
4
,
1
1
6
4
,
1
1
6
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
8
7
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
3
,
5
2
9
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
5
%
L
O
S
(1
,
1
1
8
)
(1
,
1
1
0
)
(1
,
0
6
6
)
(
9
9
5
)
(
1
,
1
1
0
)
(
1
,
0
4
4
)
(
9
5
8
)
(
7
1
4
)
(
6
6
8
)
(
5
9
4
)
(
5
3
1
)
(
4
7
6
)
(
4
4
6
)
(
6
2
0
)
(
5
6
1
)
(
5
8
6
)
(
3
4
6
)
(
3
6
8
)
(
3
7
5
)
(
3
4
3
)
(
3
3
1
)
(
3
0
1
)
(
2
7
3
)
(
2
4
5
)
(
2
1
7
)
(
1
8
9
)
(
1
6
2
)
Ac
t
u
a
l
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
75
.
7
%
75
.
9
%
77
.
1
%
7
9
.
0
%
7
6
.
7
%
7
8
.
4
%
8
0
.
6
%
8
5
.
7
%
8
6
.
9
%
8
8
.
9
%
9
0
.
6
%
9
2
.
1
%
9
2
.
9
%
8
8
.
2
%
8
9
.
8
%
8
9
.
1
%
9
4
.
7
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
94.2%93.8%94.8%95.1%96.1%96.9%97.7%98.5%99.4%100.2%
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
(
3
)
0.
2
8
%
1.
5
2
%
2
.
4
1
%
-
0
.
3
3
%
2
.
2
0
%
2
.
8
0
%
0
.
2
2
%
1
.
4
5
%
2
.
3
0
%
1
.
9
2
%
1
.
6
4
%
0
.
8
8
%
-
5
.
0
7
%
1
.
8
1
%
-
0
.
7
5
%
-
3
.
3
4
%
-
0
.
5
6
%
-
0
.
2
5
%
1
.
0
4
%
0
.
3
5
%
0
.
9
6
%
0
.
8
6
%
0
.
8
6
%
0
.
8
6
%
0
.
8
3
%
0
.
8
1
%
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
w
h
e
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
u
r
p
a
s
s
e
s
S
A
P
F
O
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
OC
S
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
)
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
20
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
2
0
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2
0
-
2
1
2
0
2
1
-
2
2
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
2
0
2
3
-
2
4
2
0
2
4
-
2
5
2
0
2
5
-
2
6
2
0
2
6
-
2
7
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
Ac
t
u
a
l
1,
5
2
7
1
,
6
3
1
1
,
6
7
1
1
,
5
9
3
1
,
5
9
0
1
,
5
8
0
1
,
6
3
7
1
,
6
0
1
1
,
6
6
5
1
,
6
9
8
1
,
7
0
4
1
,
6
8
4
1
,
7
4
7
1
,
7
6
2
1
,
7
3
9
1
,
7
2
4
1
,
7
3
0
Ti
s
c
h
l
e
r
(
2
)
1,7401,7491,7591,7681,7781,7871,7971,8061,8161,825
OC
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
1,7391,7401,7441,7461,7511,7541,7581,7851,8041,824
10
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
1,8221,8381,7281,6901,6431,6751,6661,6891,7061,723
5
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
1,8121,8171,6991,6581,6061,6281,6121,6311,6481,664
3
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
1,8141,8271,7181,6801,6331,6611,6521,6751,6921,709
Av
e
r
a
g
e
1,7851,7941,7301,7091,6821,7011,6971,7171,7331,749
An
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
-
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
i
n
A
c
t
u
a
l
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
)
1
0
4
4
0
(7
8
)
(
3
)
(
1
0
)
57
(3
6
)
64
3
3
6
(2
0
)
63
1
5
(2
3
)
(
1
5
)
6559(65)(21)(27)19(4)201616
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
-
1
0
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1,
4
6
6
1
,
4
6
6
1
,
4
6
6
1
,
4
6
6
1
,
4
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
0
%
L
O
S
61
16
5
20
5
1
2
7
1
2
4
(5
8
6
)
(
5
2
9
)
(
5
6
5
)
(
5
0
1
)
(
4
6
8
)
(
4
6
2
)
(
4
8
2
)
(
4
1
9
)
(
4
0
4
)
(
4
2
7
)
(
4
4
2
)
(
4
3
6
)
(
3
8
1
)
(
3
7
2
)
(
4
3
6
)
(
4
5
7
)
(
4
8
4
)
(
4
6
5
)
(
4
6
9
)
(
4
4
9
)
(
4
3
3
)
(
4
1
7
)
10
7
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1,
5
6
9
1,
5
6
9
1,
5
6
9
1
,
5
6
9
1
,
5
6
9
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
3
1
8
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
7
%
L
O
S
(4
2
)
62
1
0
2
2
4
2
1
(7
3
8
)
(
6
8
1
)
(
7
1
7
)
(
6
5
3
)
(
6
2
0
)
(
6
1
4
)
(
6
3
4
)
(
5
7
1
)
(
5
5
6
)
(
5
7
9
)
(
5
9
4
)
(
5
8
8
)
(
5
3
2
)
(
5
2
3
)
(
5
8
8
)
(
6
0
9
)
(
6
3
6
)
(
6
1
6
)
(
6
2
1
)
(
6
0
0
)
(
5
8
4
)
(
5
6
9
)
Ac
t
u
a
l
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
10
4
.
2
%
1
1
1
.
3
%
1
1
4
.
0
%
1
0
8
.
7
%
1
0
8
.
5
%
7
2
.
9
%
7
5
.
6
%
7
3
.
9
%
7
6
.
9
%
7
8
.
4
%
7
8
.
7
%
7
7
.
7
%
8
0
.
7
%
8
1
.
3
%
8
0
.
3
%
7
9
.
6
%
7
9
.
9
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
82.4%82.8%79.8%78.9%77.7%78.5%78.4%79.3%80.0%80.8%
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
(
3
)
6.
8
1
%
2
.
4
5
%
-
4
.
6
7
%
-
0
.
1
9
%
-
0
.
6
3
%
3
.
6
1
%
-
2
.
2
0
%
4
.
0
0
%
1
.
9
8
%
0
.
3
5
%
-
1
.
1
7
%
3
.
7
4
%
0
.
8
6
%
-
1
.
3
1
%
-
0
.
8
6
%
0
.
3
5
%
3
.
1
9
%
0
.
5
0
%
-
3
.
6
0
%
-
1
.
2
1
%
-
1
.
5
6
%
1
.
1
4
%
-
0
.
2
5
%
1
.
2
0
%
0
.
9
2
%
0
.
9
2
%
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
w
h
e
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
u
r
p
a
s
s
e
s
S
A
P
F
O
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
OC
S
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
)
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
20
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
2
0
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2
0
-
2
1
2
0
2
1
-
2
2
2
0
2
2
-
2
3
2
0
2
3
-
2
4
2
0
2
4
-
2
5
2
0
2
5
-
2
6
2
0
2
6
-
2
7
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
Ac
t
u
a
l
1,
7
5
3
1
,
8
2
8
1
,
8
8
7
2
,
0
5
7
2
,
1
2
4
2
,
1
8
4
2
,
2
0
1
2
,
2
4
2
2
,
2
1
7
2
,
2
2
2
2
,
2
8
3
2
,
3
1
5
2
,
4
2
1
2
,
5
0
2
2
,
4
6
9
2
,
4
4
6
2
,
4
4
5
Ti
s
c
h
l
e
r
(
2
)
2,4582,4722,4852,4992,5122,5262,5392,5532,5662,580
OC
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
2,4602,4772,4962,5142,5352,5552,5762,5732,5822,595
10
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
2,3542,3762,4392,4722,5372,4672,4072,3422,3162,349
5
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
2,3682,4042,4712,4902,5452,4642,3922,3182,2822,305
3
Y
e
a
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
2,3402,3512,3902,3972,4552,3872,3262,2622,2362,265
Av
e
r
a
g
e
2,3962,4162,4562,4742,5172,4802,4482,4102,3962,419
An
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
-
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
i
n
A
c
t
u
a
l
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
)
7
5
5
9
1
7
0
6
7
6
0
1
7
4
1
(2
5
)
5
6
1
3
2
1
0
6
8
1
(3
3
)
(
2
3
)
(
1
)
(
4
9
)
20401843(37)(32)(39)(13)22
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
-
1
0
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1,
5
1
8
2
,
5
1
8
2
,
5
1
8
2
,
5
1
8
2
,
5
1
8
2
,
5
3
3
2
,
5
3
3
2
,
5
5
8
2
,
5
5
8
2
,
5
5
8
2
,
5
5
8
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
4
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
2
,
9
3
9
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
0
0
%
L
O
S
23
5
(6
9
0
)
(
6
3
1
)
(
4
6
1
)
(
3
9
4
)
(
3
4
9
)
(
3
3
2
)
(
3
1
6
)
(
3
4
1
)
(
3
3
6
)
(
2
7
5
)
(
1
2
4
)
(
1
8
)
63
3
0
7
6
(43)(23)(483)(465)(422)(459)(491)(529)(543)(520)
11
0
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1,
6
7
0
2
,
7
7
0
2
,
7
7
0
2
,
7
7
0
2
,
7
7
0
2
,
7
8
6
2
,
7
8
6
2
,
8
1
4
2
,
8
1
4
2
,
8
1
4
2
,
8
1
4
2
,
6
8
3
2
,
6
8
3
2
,
6
8
3
2
,
6
8
3
2
,
6
8
3
2
,
6
8
3
2
,
6
8
3
2
,
6
8
3
3
,
2
3
3
3
,
2
3
3
3
,
2
3
3
3
,
2
3
3
3
,
2
3
3
3
,
2
3
3
3
,
2
3
3
3
,
2
3
3
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
A
c
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
,
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
1
1
0
%
L
O
S
83
(9
4
2
)
(
8
8
3
)
(
7
1
3
)
(
6
4
6
)
(
6
0
2
)
(
5
8
5
)
(
5
7
2
)
(
5
9
7
)
(
5
9
2
)
(
5
3
1
)
(
3
6
8
)
(
2
6
2
)
(
1
8
1
)
(
2
1
4
)
(
2
3
7
)
(
2
3
8
)
(
2
8
7
)
(
2
6
7
)
(
7
7
7
)
(
7
5
8
)
(
7
1
6
)
(
7
5
3
)
(
7
8
5
)
(
8
2
3
)
(
8
3
6
)
(
8
1
4
)
Ac
t
u
a
l
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
11
5
.
5
%
7
2
.
6
%
7
4
.
9
%
8
1
.
7
%
8
4
.
4
%
8
6
.
2
%
8
6
.
9
%
8
7
.
6
%
8
6
.
7
%
8
6
.
9
%
8
9
.
2
%
9
4
.
9
%
9
9
.
3
%
1
0
2
.
6
%
1
0
1
.
2
%
1
0
0
.
3
%
1
0
0
.
2
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
-
%
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
98.2%99.1%83.6%84.2%85.6%84.4%83.3%82.0%81.5%82.3%
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
(
3
)
4.
2
8
%
3
.
2
3
%
9
.
0
1
%
3
.
2
6
%
2
.
8
2
%
0
.
7
8
%
1
.
8
6
%
-
1
.
1
2
%
0
.
2
3
%
2
.
7
5
%
1
.
4
0
%
4
.
5
8
%
3
.
3
5
%
-
1
.
3
2
%
-
0
.
9
3
%
-
0
.
0
4
%
-
2
.
0
1
%
0
.
8
4
%
1
.
6
6
%
0
.
7
4
%
1
.
7
2
%
-
1
.
4
8
%
-
1
.
2
7
%
-
1
.
5
8
%
-
0
.
5
4
%
0
.
9
3
%
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
w
h
e
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
u
r
p
a
s
s
e
s
S
A
P
F
O
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(1
)
It
is
imp
o
r
tan
t to
n
o
te
th
at th
i
s
r
e
fl
ec
ts
th
e
Nov
e
m
ber
15
,
20
1
7
date
o
f m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
a
s
o
u
tl
i
ne
d in
by
th
e
Schoo
ls
Ad
eq
u
a
te
Publ
i
c
Fac
il
i
t
i
es
Ordi
na
n
c
e
.
(2)
T
h
e
T
i
s
c
h
l
e
r
M
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
o
f
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
C
H
C
C
S
a
n
d
O
C
S
.
O
r
i
gin
a
l
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
yea
r
s
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
E
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
f
o
r
C
H
C
C
S
.
(3)
A
n
n
u
a
l
gro
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g a
c
t
u
a
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
yea
r
s
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
t
h
r
o
u
gh
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
a
n
d
a
v
e
r
a
ge
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
yea
r
s
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
t
h
r
o
u
gh
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
(4)
C
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
s
f
o
r
gra
d
e
s
K
-
3
=
1
:
2
3
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
yea
r
s
2
0
0
0
t
h
r
o
u
gh
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
.
I
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
2
0
0
5
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
G
r
o
u
p
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
s
c
h
o
o
l
yea
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
i
n
g o
f
C
H
C
C
S
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y #
1
0
,
K
-
3
c
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
s
a
r
e
1
:
2
1
a
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y p
a
s
t
S
t
a
t
e
l
e
gis
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
(1
)
It
is
imp
o
r
tan
t to
n
o
te
th
at th
i
s
r
e
fl
ec
ts
th
e
Nov
e
m
ber
15
,
20
1
7
date
o
f m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
a
s
o
u
tl
i
ne
d in
by
th
e
Schoo
ls
Ad
eq
u
a
te
Publ
i
c
Fac
il
i
t
i
es
Ordi
na
n
c
e
.
(2)
T
h
e
T
i
s
c
h
l
e
r
M
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
o
f
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
C
H
C
C
S
a
n
d
O
C
S
.
O
r
i
gin
a
l
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
yea
r
s
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
E
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
f
o
r
C
H
C
C
S
.
(3
)
Ann
u
a
l gro
w
th
r
a
te
c
a
lcu
lated u
s
ing a
c
tua
l m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
for
yea
r
s
20
0
8
-09
th
ro
u
gh
20
1
7
-18
a
n
d a
v
e
r
a
ge
m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
for
yea
r
s
20
1
8
-19
th
ro
u
gh
20
2
7
-28
(3
)
A
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
c
t
u
a
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
a
n
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
7
-
2
8
(1
)
It
is
imp
o
r
tan
t to
n
o
te
th
at th
i
s
r
e
fl
ec
ts
th
e
Nov
e
m
ber
15
,
20
1
7
date
o
f m
e
m
ber
s
hi
p
a
s
o
u
tl
i
ne
d in
by
th
e
Schoo
ls
Ad
eq
u
a
te
Publ
i
c
Fac
il
i
t
i
es
Ordi
na
n
c
e
.
(2)
T
h
e
T
i
s
c
h
l
e
r
M
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
o
f
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
C
H
C
C
S
a
n
d
O
C
S
.
O
r
i
gin
a
l
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
yea
r
s
p
r
o
jec
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
e
"
L
i
n
e
a
r
E
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
"
f
o
r
C
H
C
C
S
.
Im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
N
o
t
e
:
P
e
r
2
0
0
5
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
G
r
o
u
p
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
BO
C
C
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
&
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
2
0
0
9
S
A
P
F
O
T
A
C
re
p
o
r
t
o
f
M
a
y
5
,
2
0
0
9
,
G
r
a
d
e
s
K
-
3
c
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
:
2
3
t
o
1
:
2
1
w
i
t
h
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
o
f
C
H
C
C
S
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
#
1
0
-
M
o
r
r
i
s
G
r
o
v
e
(
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
p
r
i
o
r
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
:
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
c
l
a
s
s
s
i
z
e
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
1
0
0
n
e
w
s
e
a
t
s
a
t
H
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
#
3
o
p
e
n
s
i
n
f
a
l
l
2
0
0
6
w
i
t
h
7
0
0
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
a
t
s
Orange High capacity decreased, per DPI study
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
-
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
d
d
e
d
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
d
d
e
d
Capacity decrease due to change in class size ratios per House Bill 13 (K-3 average class size ratios are 1:20 as directed by State legislative action)Cedar Ridge High School adding 500 seats.66