HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-12-2007-4ee revised SAPFO report 2007 Revised 6 - 1M7 . Changes to page numbers contained in table on page 2 are in bold italic font .
These were the only changes made . 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date : June 12 , 2007
Action Agenda
Item No . 4 - ee
SUBJECT : Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO ) — Approval of
Annual 2007 Report
DEPARTMENT : Manager/ Budget/ Planning / PUBLIC HEARING : ( Y/ N ) No
Attorney
ATTACHMENT ( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT :
Draft SAPFOTAC Annual Report Craig Benedict , 245 - 2592
( Under Separate Cover ) Donna Coffey , 245 - 2151
Geoff Gledhill , 732 - 2196
Perdita Holtz , 245 - 2611
PURPOSE : To approve the 2007 SAPFOTAC Report related to various aspects of Orange
County Schools ( OCS ) and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools ( CHCCS ) , as outlined in the draft
Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee ( SAPFOTAC ) and the incorporated
forms .
BACKGROUND : At the December 12 , 2006 Board of County Commissioners ' meeting , the
Board approved the November 15 , 2006 actual membership and previously adopted capacity
numbers for both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools .
Additional approvals / certifications , as outlined in the table below , are required by the SAPFO
partners MOUs ( Memorandum of Understanding ) .
At the April 10 , 2007 BOCC meeting , the Board received for review the draft 2007 SAPFOTAC
report . The draft report was also posted on the Orange County Planning Department ' s web
site . A letter and the Executive Summary of the report was sent to all SAPFO partners on April
169 2007 advising them of the availability of the draft report and inviting comment . Comments
were requested for submission prior to May 16 , 2007 . No comments have been received ;
however , the Town Council of Chapel Hill adopted a resolution endorsing the 2007 SAPFOTAC
Report at its May 7 , 2007 Council meeting .
In response to the informational item on the May 15 , 2007 BOCC agenda regarding Class Size
Amendments , the relevant sections of the 2007 SAPFOTAC Report have been updated to
reflect the OCS updated capacity numbers when the K- 3 class size reductions go into effect .
The specific pages that were changed are as follows : ii , 4 , 407 47 , and 48 .
The exact pages of the 2007 SAPFOTAC report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and
certifying are listed below . The context ( i . e . : definitions and standards ) of the various SAPFO
elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full report .
Revised 6 - 1 M7 . Changes to page numbers contained in table on page 2 are in bold italic font . 2
These were the only changes made .
Element Page in Certification to be made by BOCC
SAPFOTAC
Report
Building capacity 11 through 16 Building capacity and current year
with CIP changes membership was approved at the
December 12 , 2006 meeting .
( Change )
Student membership 19 Certification that the average of 5 models
projection methodology will be used , as noted in # 3 on page 19
( No Change )
Student membership 47 and 48 Orange County Elementary , Middle ,
projections and High Schools Student Projections
( row that notes average only) ( p . 4. 7)
• Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary ,
Middle , and High Schools Student
Projections ( row that notes average
( Change ) only) p . 48)
Student Growth Rate 49 Orange County Elementary , Middle ,
and High Schools
• Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary ,
( Change ) Middle , and High Schools
Student/ housing generation 54 Orange County Elementary , Middle ,
rate and High Schools
• Chapel Hill / Carrboro Elementary ,
Middle , and High Schools
( No Change )
( Change ) denotes a change from last year .
FINANCIAL IMPACT : As was included in the April 10 , 2007 BOCC agenda abstract materials ,
CHCCS have projected capital facility construction needs as follows :
Projected need for :
New Elementary # 10 in 2008 - 2009
New Elementary # 11 in 2010 - 2011
New Middle School # 5 in 2013 - 2014
Expanded High School in 2016 - 2017
OCS is not expected to have new school construction needs in the 10 -year planning period , but
approved development within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane may impact
future projections and needs .
RECOMMENDATION ( S ) : The Manager recommends that the Board approve the 2007
SAPFOTAC Annual Report as specified in the report certification summary table herein .
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date : June 12 , 2007
Action Agenda
Item No . E�
SUBJECT : Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO ) — Approval of
Annual 2007 Report
DEPARTMENT : Manager/ Budget/ Planning / PUBLIC HEARING : (Y/ N ) No
Attorney
ATTACHMENT ( S ) . INFORMATION CONTACT .
Draft SAPFOTAC Annual Report Craig Benedict , 245 - 2592
( Under Separate Cover) Donna Coffey , 245 -2151
Geoff Gledhill , 732 -2196
Perdita Holtz , 245 -2611
PURPOSE : To approve the 2007 SAPFOTAC Report related to various aspects of Orange
County Schools ( OCS ) and Chapel HilkCarrboro City Schools ( CHCCS ) , as outlined in the draft
Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee ( SAPFOTAC ) and the incorporated
forms .
BACKGROUND : At the December 12 , 2006 Board of County Commissioners ' meeting , the
Board approved the November 15 , 2006 actual membership and previously adopted capacity
numbers for both Orange County Schools and Chapel HilkCarrboro City Schools .
Additional approvals/certifications , as outlined in the table below , are required by the SAPFO
partners MOUs ( Memorandum of Understanding ) .
At the April 10 , 2007 BOCC meeting , the Board received for review the draft 2007 SAPFOTAC
report . The draft report was also posted on the Orange County Planning Department ' s web site .
A letter and the Executive Summary of the report was sent to all SAPFO partners on April 16 ,
2007 advising them of the availability of the draft report and inviting comment . Comments were
requested for submission prior to May 16 , 2007 . No comments have been received ; however ,
the Town Council of Chapel Hill adopted a resolution endorsing the 2007 SAPFOTAC Report at
its May 7 , 2007 Council meeting .
In response to the - informational item on the May 15 , 2007 BOCC agenda regarding Class Size
Amendments , the relevant sections of the 2007 SAPFOTAC Report have been updated to
reflect the OCS updated capacity numbers when the K- 3 class size reductions go into effect .
The specific pages that were changed are as follows : ii , 41 40 , 47 , and 48 .
The exact pages of the 2007 SAPFOTAC report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and
certifying are listed below . The context ( Le . : definitions and standards ) of the various SAPFO
elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full report .
2
Element Page in Certification to be made by BOCC
SAPFOTAC
Report
Building capacity 21 through 26 Building capacity and current year
with CIP changes membership was approved at the
December 12 , 2006 meeting .
( Change )
Student membership 29 Certification that the average of 5 models
projection methodology will be used , as noted in #3 on page 29
No Change )
Student membership 59 and 60 Orange County Elementary , Middle , and
projections High Schools Student Projections ( row
that notes average only ) ( p . 59 )
• Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary ,
Middle , and High Schools Student
Projections ( row that notes average
( Change ) only ) . 60
Student Growth Rate 61 Orange County Elementary , Middle , and
High Schools
• Chapel Hill /Carrboro Elementary ,
( Change ) Middle , and High Schools
Student/housing generation 68 • Orange County Elementary , Middle , and
rate High Schools
• Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary ,
Middle , and High Schools
No Change )
( Change ) denotes a change from last year .
FINANCIAL IMPACT : As was included in the April 10 , 2007 BOCC agenda abstract materials ,
CHCCS have projected capital facility construction needs as follows :
Projected need for :
New Elementary # 10 in 200 & 2009
New Elementary # 11 in 2010 -2011
New Middle School #5 in 2013 -2014
Expanded High School in 201 & 2017
OCS is not expected to have new school construction needs in the 10 - year planning period , but
approved development within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane may impact
future projections and needs .
RECOMMENDATION ( S ) : The Manager recommends that the Board approve the 2007
SAPFOTAC Annual Report as specified in the report certification summary table herein .
Compiled by : Orange County Budget Office
01 /29/07
OCS Student Projections (1 ) (4) Capacity Figures Revised by Planning Dept. on 5/22/07
Elementary
School Year 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 =03 2003 =04 2004-05 2005=06 2006 -07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010 =11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014-15 2015 =16 201647
Actual 31078 2 ,893 21901 21945 31016 3 , 006 iiF39144
Tischler 3 , 130 31189 31247 3 , 306 32364 31423 31481 3 , 540 3 , 598 31657
OC Planning 31119 31164 31240 31334 31431 3 , 531 31634 3 , 741 39851 31964
10 Year Growth 31120 31140 31181 31165 31203 31235 3 , 267 31300 3 , 333 31366
5 Year Growth 31186 39232 31216 39250 31282 31315 31348 31381 31415
3 Year Growth All 3 , 137 39172 3 , 214 31203 39237 3 , 269 3 , 302 39335 31368 31402
Average 33130 31170 31223 31245 31297 31348 39400 31453 39506 39561
Annual Change - Increase ( Decrease) in Actual & Projected Membership) ( 185) 8 44 71 ! '"1 '+ 66 58 40 53 22 52 51 52 53 53 55
Capacity - 100 % Level of Service 31820 39820 3 ,820 3 ,820 31820 31920 39920 3 , 920 39920 31694 39694 31694 39694 31694 30694 39694 31694
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 100 % LOS ( 742 ) (927) (919) (875) IL ? 14 ) ( 3A £ ) ( 790 ) ( 471 ) (449) ( 397) (346)
105% Level of Service 41011 49011 41011 45011 41011 4, 0i 16 116 4, 116 49116 31879 3 ,879 31879 3 ,879 39879 3 , 879 39879 3 , 879
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 105 % LOS ( 933) ( 19118 ) ( 17110 ) ( 19066) (995) ( 13110 ) ( 1 , 0 ( 986) ( 946) ( 656) ( 634) ( 582 ) ( 531 ) (4 `i (426) (373 ) ( 31 :` '
Actual - % Level of Service 1 80 . 6 % 75 * 7 % 1 75 . 9 % 7741 % 1 79 . 0 % 1 76 . 7 % 78 . 4%
Average - % Level of Service 79 . 8 % 80 , 9% 1 87 . 2 % 87 . 8 % 89 . 3 % 90 . 6% 92 . 0 % 93 . 5% 94 . 9 % 96 . 4 %
Annual Student ro Rate -6.01 % 1 0 . 28 % 1 .52% 2 .41 % -0 . 33% 2 . 20 % 11 . % 1 .28% 1 .66% On68% 1 1 .61 % 1 .55% 1 .55% 1 . 56% 1 . 55% 1 .56%
additional 100 new seats @ Hillsborough Elementary
OCS Student Projections(l )
Middle
School Year 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 =03 2003=04 2004=05 2005=06 2006=07 2007=08 2008 -09 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012-13 2013 =14 2014=15 2015 -16 2016- 17
Actual 1 , 504 11527 11631 12671 19593 1 , 590 19580
Tischler 11606 1 , 636 11666 1 , 696 12726 1 , 756 11786 11816 11846 11876
OC Planning 11612 1 , 653 11697 11727 11757 11789 11821 11854 19888 1 , 923
10 Year Growth 19585 19553 19551 11631 1 , 631 10656 11623 19646 11662 1 , 679
5 Year Growth 1 , 605 1 , 592 1 , 620 11728 1 , 755 11787 11753 19773 11790 1 , 808
3 Year Growth 11597 11585 1 , 609 19705 11723 11750 11722 11742 11759 11777
Average 1 , 601 11604 11629 1 , 697 19718 1 , 748 15741 13766 19789 11813
Annual Change - Increase ( Decrease) in Actual & Projected Membership) 23 104 40 (78) (3) ( 10 ) 21 3 25 69 21 29 25 23 24
Capacity - 100 % Level of Service 1 ,466 11466 11466 1 ,466 1 ,466 11466 21166 2 , 166 21166 25166 23166 2 , 166 29166 2 , 166 25166 2 , 166 21166
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 100 % LOS 38 61 165 205 127 124 ( 586) ( 565) ( 562 ) ( 537 ) (469) (448) (418) 1 1 ='_ >; ( �' U ? qJ ` ' )
107 % Level of Service 11569 11569 19569 1 , 569 1 , 569 11569 21318 318 29318 29318 2 , 318 21318 2 ,318 29318 21318 2 , 318 29318
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over (Under) 107% LOS 1 ( 65) (42 ) 1 62 1 102 1 24 1 21 1 ( 738 ) ( 7 7 } ( r �! %;� � ( 689 ) ( 620 ) ( 599 ) ( 570 ) ( 577) �; > 'u ) ( � a29 )
Actual - % Level of Service 1 102 . 6% 1 104 . 2 % 1 111 . 3 % 1 114 . 0 % 1 108 . 7 % 1 108 . 5% 72 . 9 %
Average - % Level of Service 73 . 9 % 74 . 0 % 75 . 2 % 78 .4 % 7903 % 1 80 , 7% 1 80 , 4 % 1 81 , 5 % 1 82 , 6 % 1 83 . 7 %
Annual Student ro Rate 1 . 53% 6*81 % 1 2o45% 1 -4 . 67% -0 . 19 % -0 . 63 % 1 . 33 % 1 17% 1 1 . 55% 4.22 % 1 .24% 1670 % 1 -0.38% 1 .45% 1 .29 % 1 .32 %
middle school # 3 opens in fall 2006 with 700 additional seats 771
OCS Student Projections
High
School Year 2000 =01 2001 =02 2002 =03 2003 =04 2004-05 2005 =06 2006-07 2007=08 2008 -09 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 =14 2014-15 2015=16 2015=16
Actual 11672 11753 11828 11887 2 , 057 21124 21180
Tischler 2 , 226 21267 2 , 309 21351 2 , 392 2 ,434 21475 21517 2 , 559 27600
OC Planning 21247 21309 21345 2 ,381 21419 21458 21497 21537 21578 21620
10 Year Growth 29138 29100 21005 19970 21003 11968 21041 29056 21063 29088
5 Year Growth 21167 21191 21139 21137 21192 21194 21309 21359 21387 2 ,414
3 Year Growth 21146 21150 21089 2 , 074 21123 21121 21219 21259 21281 21303
Average 21185 29203 29177 29183 2 ,226 2 ,235 29308 21346 22374 23405
Annual Change - Increase ( Decrease) in Actual & Projected Membership) 81 75 59 170 67 56 5 19 (26) 5 43 9 73 37 28 31
Capacity - 100 % Level of Service 1 , 518 1 , 518 29518 21518 23518 21518 21518 2 , 518 21518 21518 21518 29518 29518 2 , 518 2 $ 18 21518 21518 n
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 100 % LOS 154 235 (690 ) (631 ) (461 ) ( 394) (338) (333) ( 315) (341 ) (335) (292 ) (283 ) (210 ) ( 172 ) ( 144) ( 113 ) '�
110 % Level of Service 11670 1 , 670 21770 2 ,770 22770 29770 21770 29770 2 , 770 29770 29770 29770 29770 21770 29770 2 ,770 29770
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 110 % LOS 2 83 (942 ) ( 883 ) ( 713 ) ( 646) ( 590) ( 585) ( 566) ( 592 ) ( 587 ) ( 544 ) ( 535) (462 ) (424 ) ( 396) (365) (0
Actual - % Level of Service 1 110 . 1 % 1 115 . 5 % 1 72 . 6 % 1 74 . 9 % 81 . 7% 84 . 4 % 86 . 6% Z
Average - % Level of Service 608 % 1 87 . 5 % 8605% 1 86 . 70/6 8844 % 1 88 , 8 % 1 91 , 7 % 1 93 . 2 % 94 . 3 % 95 . 5 %
Annual Student ro Rate 4.84% 4.28% .23% 9.01 % 126% 1 2 .64% 0 .22% Oo85% 1 4 .18% 0 .24% 1 .98% 0 .41 % 3 . 28 % 1 .62 % 1019% 1 1 .320f
cedar ridge high opens with 1,000 seats in fall 2002
indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
It is important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2006 date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance . It does not include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School . "V
(2 ) The Tischler Model provides for the " Linear Method " of projections for both CHCCS and OCS . Original projections used in prior years projection models included the " Linear Extrapolation Method " for CHCCS .
(3) Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000-01 through 2006-07 and average membership for years 2006-07 through 2016- 17 .
(4) Class sizes for grades K-3 = 1 : 23 for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08 . In accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction , with planned opening of CHCCS Elementary # 10 in school year 2008-09 , K-3 class sizes for school years 2008-09 through 2015- 16 reflect 1 : 21 as directed by past State legislative action .
This results in OCS elementary capacity reduction (district wide) of 297 seats (decreasing from 4 , 116 [ 105% LOS @ 1 : 23 class size] to 3 , 819 [ 105 % LOS @ 1 : 21 class size] ) .
Compiled by : Orange County Budget Office
01 /29/07
CHCCS Student Projections (' ) (4) Capacity Figures revised by Planning Dept . on 5/22/07
Elementary
School Year 2000 =01 2001 -02 2002-03 2003=04 2004=05 12005=06 12006=07 2007 -08 2008 -09 2009-10 2010 -11 2011 =12 2012A3 201344 2014=15 2015 =16 201647
Actual 41444 41474 41551 1 4 ,692 1 4 ,695 1 41879 1 4 , 980
Tischler 5 , 103 51227 5 ,350 5 ,473 51596 51719 5 ,842 53965 61088 61211
OC Planning 51079 51170 51253 51359 51465 51597 51729 51863 50997 6 , 132
10 Year Growth 5 , 233 51429 51597 51810 52945 61005 61065 61126 61187 69249
5 Year Growth 51157 51290 51405 5 ,569 51673 51729 51787 51845 50903 51962
3 Year Growth 5 , 138 1 5250 51342 51494 57590 51646 51702 51759 51817 51875
Average 57142 51273 5$ 89 5$ 41 51654 52739 51825 59912 51998 69086
Annual Change - Increase ( Decrease) in Actual & Projected Membership) 30 77 141 3 184 101 162 131 116 152 113 85 86 87 87 87
Capacity - 100 % Level of Service ( LOS) 4 , 302 41302 4 , 302 4,921 4 , 921 43921 4, 921 5 , 506 5 , 244 53244 5 , 244 53244 51244 51244 51244 5 , 244
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 100 % LOS 142 172 24 (229 ) (226) (42 ) 59 221 (233) 5 297 410 495 581 668 754 842
Capacity - 105% Level of Service ( LOS) 49517 4, 517 43517 59167 51167 51167 5, 167 5 , 167 1 50781 51506 5,506 51506 5 , 506 5 , 506 51506 5,506 5 , 506
Number of Students, Actual and Projected , Over (Under) 105% LOS 1 ( 73 ) 3 ) 1 34 1 (475 ) (472 ) ( 288 ) ( 187 ) (25 ) ( 508 ) ( 117 ) 5 148 233 319 405 492 580
Actual - % Level of Service 10 ° 104 . 0 % 105 . 8 % 95 . 3% 95 .4% 99 . 1 % 101 . 2%
Average - % Level of Service 104 .5% 95 * 8 % 1 102 , 8 % 1 105 . 7 % #% J 109 .4% 111 . 1 % 112 . 7% 114 . 4% 116. 1
AnnualStudent row Rate 0 . 68 % 1 .72 % 3o10 % J 0.06% 1 3.920/6 2.07% 3.25% 2.55% 2.20% 2 .81 % 2.040/6 1 .51 % 1 .49% 1 .49% 1 .47% 1 .46%
Elementary # 9 opens in fall 2003 with additional 619 seats Per November 15, 2005 Certified Capacity Calculations, CHCCS projects Elementary # 10 opening for school year 2008-09 . In accordance
with BOCC adopted School Construction Standards, elementary school capacity totals 600 students.
Important Note : Per 2005 agreement of School Collaboration Work Group, Grades K-3 class size reduced from 1@23 to 1 : 21
the year after Elementary # 10 opens (to allow for prior Legislative Action re : reduced class size) and School Construction
Standards for the Elementary level will have a capacity of 585 students. (The new capacity of 585 students is reflected in
the capacity numbers shown ) .
CHCCS Student Projections
Middle
School Year 2000 =01 2001 -02 2002 =03 2003=04 2004-05 2005 =06 2006-07 2007 -08 2008 =09 2009-10 12011 =12 2012A3 201344 12014=15 12015 =16 201647
Actual 21326 21540 2 ,608 21612 21560 2 ,572 1 21592
Tischler 21656 21720 21784 23848 21913 21977 31041 31105 31169 3 , 233
OC Planning rg21670 21742 21810 21855 21899 21943 21986 3 , 029 3 ,072 31114
10 Year Growth 21605 29683 21806 23905 31018 31177 31382 3 , 502 30537 31572
5 Year Growth 21588 2 , 636 2 , 720 21775 21843 2 ,939 31087 3 , 170 3 ,201 31233
3 Year Growth 21593 21649 21740 21784 21837 2 ,909 31045 31120 31151 31182
Average 2 ,622 21686 21772 21833 27902 21989 33108 31185 33226 3 , 267
Annual Change - Increase ( Decrease) in Actual & Projected Membership) 214 68 4 (52) 12 20 30 64 86 61 69 87 119 77 41 41
Capacity 100 % Level of Service 23108 21840 2,840 21840 21840 21840 2 , 840 21840 2 , 840 21840 2 , 840 2 , 840 2 , 840 2 , 840 21840 23840 2 , 840
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 100% LOS 218 (232 ) (228 ) (280 ) IL 1 62 149 268 345 386 427
107 % Level of Service 23256 33039 31039 31039 31039 31039 3 ,039 31039 3 , 039 35039 3 , 039 3 , 039 39039 3,039 31039 3 ,039 33039
Number of Students, Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 107 % LOS 70 (479) (467 ) (447 ) (416 ) 69 146 187 228
Actual - % Level of Service 1 110 . 3% 1 89 , 4 % 1 91 . 8 % 1 92 . 0 % 9061 % 1 90 . 6 % 91 . 3%
Average - % Level of Service 92 , 3% 1 94 , 6 % 1 97 . 6 % 1 99 , 8 % 1 102 , 2 % 1 105 . 2 % 1 109 ,4 % 1 112 . 2 % 1 113 . 6% 115 . 0 %
JAnnual Studentrow a e 9.20% 2 .68% 0015% 1 =11 699% 1 0 .47% 0.78% 1 . 17% 2 .43% 3 .20 % 2 .22% 2 .42 % 3 .00 % 3.99% 2 .48% la28 % 1 1 .26%
CHCCS Student Projections
High
School Year 2000-01 2001 =02 2002 -03 2003-04 2004=05 2005 =06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013-14 2014-15 t4lt37O
t555
iY389
Actual 2 ,815 2 ,963 31162 39330 3 ,422 31514 3 ,520
Tischler 3 ,606 31693 31780 31867 31954 41041 41128 41215
OC Planning 3 ,613 3 , 706 3 , 794 3 ,883 3 ,973 4 ,037 4 , 101 4 , 165
10 Year Growth 3 ,589 31621 3 , 587 3 , 605 31708 31848 3 , 942 41143 l
5 Year Growth 3 ,616 3 , 653 3 , 616 3 , 628 3 ,692 3 , 784 3 , 827 3 ,963 4 , 106 4 ,224 N
3 Year Growth 3 ,570 31569 31517 31538 31607 3 , 708 3 , 740 31855 31974 41065 O
Average 3 , 599 3 ,648 31659 39704 35787 35884 31948 49068 4, 196 49305 d �.
Annual Change - Increase ( Decrease) in Actual & Projected Membership) 148 199 168 92 92 6 79 50 10 45 83 97 64 121 128 109
Capacity - 100 % Level of Service 30035 33035 31035 3 , 035 31035 39035 31035 33835 3 , 835 31835 39835 39835 31835 3 , 835 3 ,835 3 , 835 31835
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 100 % LOS (220 ) 6 :° ; 127 295 387 479 485 (236) t . 7 ` ( 131 ) 49 113 233 361 470 J
110 % Level of Service 3,339 31339 31339 31339 39339 3 , 339 39339 49219 219 1 43219 1 4,219 1 41219 41219 4 , 219 4,219 1 4,219 41219
Number of Students , Actual and Projected , Over ( Under) 110% LOS (524) (376 ) l 83 176 182 ( 620 ) ( 0 ) ( 560 ) ( 514) ( 432 ) ( 335) (271 ) ( 150 ) ( 23) 86
L
- % Level of Service 92 .8 % 97 . 6% 104 . 2 % 109 . 7 % 112 . 8 % 115 . 8 % 116 . 0 %
e - % Level of Service 93 . 8 % 95 . 1 % 95 . 4 % 96 . 6% 98 . 7% 101 . 3% 102 .9% 106. 1 % 109 . 4% 112.3%
u ent Growth Rate 5.26% 6 .72% 5 .31 % 2 .76% 2 .69% 0.17% 2 .24% 1 . 36 % 0 .29% 1 .24% 2 .23% 2 .56% 1 .65% 3.06% 3 . 14% .39°7a J
Carrboro High School opens in fall 2007 with 800 additional seats
indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service
(1 ) It is important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2006 date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance . It does not include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School .
(2) The Tischler Model provides for the " Linear Method " of projections for both CHCCS and OCS . Original projections used in prior years projection models included the "Linear Extrapolation Method " for CHCCS .
(3) Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000-01 through 2006-07 and average membership for years 2006-07 through 2016-17.
(4) Class sizes for grades K-3 = 1 : 23 for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08 . In accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction , with planned opening of CHCCS Elementary #10 in school year 2008-09 , K-3 class sizes for school years 2008-09 through 2015- 16 reflect 1 : 21 as directed by past State legislative action . This
results in CHCCS elementary capacity reduction (district wide) of 275 seats (decreasing from 5 , 797 [105% LOS @ 1 : 23 class size] to 5 ,522 [105% LOS @ 1 : 21 class size] ) . Class size reduction results in need for CHCCS Elementary # 11 to come online in school year 2011 -12 ( 1 : 21 ratio) compared to 2014- 15 ( 1 : 21 ratio) .
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 )
( OIt711iiANCES ADOPTED IN3ULY , 2003 )
Annual Report
2007
(BASED ON NOVEMBER 2006 DATA
CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON XXX , 2007
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . a some goes esomeese gee oesess 9 * 60000600 moses6sees a boessb $ o 09sovol
Introduction . . . . . Goes beemootesee a & * & sea peat * * @ 040 5 8 8 a a a AV
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Planning Directors , School Representatives , Technical Advisory
Committee ( SAPFOTAC) members . . . . . . . Ban a 8 too @Boost * $ * sees WasseemossomVi
I . Base Memorandum of Understanding
A . Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Be Building Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sees too agog as boa message@ & @ fee as 0 8 @a woo 0008 @ * ago Boom * * @ & * a * * seems 8 Samoa 2
Attachments* I. B. 1 . - Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Attachments* I. B. 2 . - Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2005 ) . . . . . . 8
Attachment.• I. B. 3 . . Orange County School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 011
Attachment: I. B. 4. - Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2006) . . . . . . 14
C . Membership Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
II . Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System
A . Capital Investment Plan (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Be Student Membership Projection Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Attachment: H. B. I . — Student Membership Projection Descriptions . . . . . . as * Sea 009 Sea * 90 * 09 * me few Sea see Sea few 000 so@
Attachments* H. B. 2. — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2005- 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Attachment: H. B. 3 . — Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis for 2006- 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
C . Student Membership Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Attachment: II. C. 1 . — Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High Sch000 (2005 ) . . . . . . 45
Attachment: II. C. 2 . — Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2005 ) . .46
Attachment: II. C. 3 . — Orange County Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2006) . . . . . . 47
Attachment: II. C. 4. — Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections (Elementary, Middle & High School) (2006 ) . . 48
D . Student Membership Growth Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Attachment: II. D. 1 . — Orange County & Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2006 — 2016 based on 11115105 membership numbers (2005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Attachment: II. D. 2. — Orange County & Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates
Chart dates from 2007 — 2017 based on 11115106 membership numbers (2006 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
E . Student / Housing Generation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Attachment: II. E. 1 . -Student Generation Rates (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
III . Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process
A . Process 1 - Capital Investment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . goo . . . . . . . . . . . . son Sea . . . . . . woe too . . . . . . . . : . . 55
Attachment: III A . 1 . — Process 1 Capital Investment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Be Process 2 - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ;
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Attachment: III B. 1 . — Process 2 Certificate ofAdequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation . . . * 08 we * Sea gas 60859
2007 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary
I . Base Memorandum of Understanding
A. Level of Service . . . . 00000 00 0 * 0 0 0000 * 0 * * * got 000046 Change) . . . . . . . . .Pg. I
Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County
School District School District
Elementary 105 % 105 %
Middle 107 % 107 %
High 110% * 110%
* Temporarily suspended. Note: The opening of Gravelly Hill Middle School in October 2006 reinstated
the CAPS test in OCS.
B . Building Capacity and Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Change) . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 2
Chapel HillICarrboro Orange County
School District School District
Capacity Membership Increase Capacity Membership Increase
from Prior from Prior
Year Year
Elementary 4921 4980 101 3920 3072 66
Middle 2840 2592 20 2166 1576 ( 13 )
High 3035 3520 6 2533 2184 63
C . Membership Date — November 15 . . . . . . . . . . . (No Change) . . . . . . . Pg. 17
II . Annual Update to SAPFO System
A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Change) . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 18
B . Student Membership Projection Methodology . . . . . . (No Change) . . . . . . .Pg. 19
The average of 3, 5, and 10 year history/cohort survival and 2 linear projection models.
NOTE: A change proposed for implementation next year is noted and discussed.
C . Student Membership Projections , . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & 0 & 0 9 0 0 a 0 . . . . . (Change) . . eeeoe e e 99Pg. 39
5 Year out Snapshot Comparison
(arrow indicates whether there was an overestimate (up arrow) or underestimate (down arrow) in
projection total between projection estimate for that future year and the actual year)
Chapel HilUCarrboro School District Orange County School District
Year Projection Made
2002 1 2003 1 2004 1 2005 2006 112002 2003 1 2004 1 2005 1 2006
Projection made for Year. 2007 -2008
Elementary 5405 5366 1 50401 1 5177 t 51421 3067 3126 t 3201 t 31344 31301
Middle 2954 2883 1 26771 1 26761 26221 1587 1656 t 16184 15954 1601 t
3719 3737 t 36511 1 36281 35994 1952 2070 t 2135 t 2148 t 2185 t
1
Executive Summary
D . Student Growth Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Change) . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 49
Average Annual Growth Rate over 10 Years
Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County
School District School District
2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006
Elementary 2 . 34% 1 . 79% 1 . 95 % 2 . 03 % 1 . 54 % 1 . 68 % 1 . 60% 1 . 49 %
Middle 2 . 63 % 1 . 91 % 2 . 41 % 2 . 35 % 0 . 79 % 1 . 50 % 1 . 18 % 1 . 39 %
High 2 . 81 % 2 . 04 % 1 . 95 % 2 . 04 % 1 . 28 % 1 . 2l % 0 . 92 % 0 . 99 %
E . Student / Housing Generation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (No Change) . . . . . . .Pg. 52
Note : Orange County expects to enter into a contract with Tischler & Associates in mid 2007
which will include analyzing student generation rates and proposing updates if warranted.
SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS
(based on future year Student Membership Projections)
A ` Joint Action Committee ' (language used in original MOU) met in November 2005 to discuss
Elementary level K- 3 class size reductions related to legislation from the North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction . The Committee has recommended that capacity changes be
implemented equally in both school districts the year after the next elementary school opens
which is anticipated to be CHCCS Elementary School # 10 in 2008 - 09 . When the reduced class
size capacities go into effect, the result is 262 fewer seats available in CHCCS and 228 fewer
seats available in OCS . The effect of this reduction is that the need for new elementary schools
is accelerated because the loss of seats represents approximately 2 to 5 years of student growth .
CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School District
A . Does not currently exceed 105 % LOS standards (current LOS is 101 . 2 %) .
B . Decrease in the increase of the growth rate at this level over the next 10 years .
Co Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary School # 10 is scheduled for a 2008 - 09 opening .
However, a 2009 - 10 may be a more realistic opening date due to approvals that need to
occur and construction time . If Elementary School # 10 does not open until 200940 , the
result could be an overcapacity situation at this level during the 2008 - 09 school year. In
accordance with the MOU and implementing regulations , CAPS (Certificate of Adequate
Public Schools) would not be issued during a period of overcapacity. This generally
means that development approvals for new residential developments could not be made
for projects expected to generate students during periods of overcapacity.
D . Due partially to reduced class size capacities going into effect in 2008 - 09 , the projections
are showing a need for Elementary School # 11 in 2010 . 11 .
Middle School District
A . Does not currently exceed 107 % LOS standards (current LOS is 91 . 3 %) .
B . Decrease in the increase of the growth rate at this level over the next 10 years .
11
Executive Summary
C . Chapel Hill/Carrboro Middle School 95 would likely be needed in 201344 versus the
prior year projection of 201243 .
High School District
A. Currently exceeds the 110 % LOS standard (current LOS is 116 . 0 %) , but Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) suspended the Certificate Adequate Public Schools ( CAPS )
adequacy test at this level so CAPS may still be issued .
Be Increase in the increase of the growth rate at this level over the next 10 years .
C . Chapel Hill/Carrboro High School #3 (Carrboro High School) is still needed as soon as
possible with current construction schedule estimates at 2007 -2008 . After the high
school opens , all school levels would be tested for CAPS , in accordance with the Schools
APFO MOU. Expansion of Carrboro High School from the initial capacity of 800
students to the ultimate capacity of 1 , 200 students is projected to be needed in 2016 - 17
versus prior year proj ection of 2014 - 15 .
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Elementary School District
A . Does not currently exceed 105 % LOS standard (current LOS is 78 . 4%) .
Be Steady increase of the growth rate at this level over the next 10 years .
C . Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10 - year timeframe . However, staff is
monitoring new development activity in the Orange County portion of Mebane, which is
not a party to the Schools APFO MOU .
Middle School District
A . With the opening of Gravelly Hill Middle School in October 2006 , the present LOS is
72 . 9 % . The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS ) adequacy test at this level
has been reinstated at this level .
Be Small decrease in the increase of the growth rate at this level over the next 10 years .
C . Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10 -year time frame .
High School District
A . Does not currently exceed 110 % LOS (current LOS is 86 . 6 %) .
Be Slight increase in the increase of the growth rate at this level over the next 10 years .
C . Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10 -year time frame .
NOTE : In August 2006 , the Orange County Board of Education redistricted all school districts
at all levels concurrent with the opening of Gravelly Hill Middle School to re-balance individual
school capacities . LOS is linked to the totals of all schools within a level ; therefore, the Schools
APFO does not have a LOS for a specific school so redistricting by the Board of Education can
independently ameliorate the unique school condition . An understanding of locational growth
from the local governments assists in this rebalancing .
111
Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and its Memorandum of
Understanding are ordinances and agreements , respectively. Supporting documents are
anticipated to be dynamic to incorporate the annual changing conditions of membership , capacity
and student projections that may affect School Capital Investment Plan (CIP) timing . This
formal annual report will be forthcoming to all of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance partners each year as new information is available .
This updated information is used in the schools capital needs process of the Capital
Investment Plan (Process 1 ) and within elements of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS ) spreadsheet system (Process 2) .
This report and any comments from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
partners will be considered in the first half of each year by the Board of County Commissioners
at a regular or special meeting . The various elements of the report are then "certified" and
formally considered in the process of the upcoming Capital Investment Plan . The Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools system is updated after November 15 when data is received from the
school districts with actual membership and pre- certified capacity (i . e . CIP capacity or prior
"joint action" capacity changes) .
The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Memorandum of Understanding
have dynamic aspects . The derivation of the baseline and update to the variables will continue in
the future as a variety of school related issues are fine-tuned by technical and policy groups .
The primary facet of this report includes the creation of mathematical projections for
student memberships by school levels (Elementary, Middle and High) and by School Districts
(Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County) . This information is found in Section II, Subsections
B , C , D , and E .
In summary, this report serves as an update to the dynamic conditions of student
membership and school capacity which effect future projected needs considered in Capital
Investment Planning .
Interested parties may make their comments known to the Board of County
Commissioners prior to their review of the report and school CIP completion or ask questions of
the SAPFOTAC members .
iv
ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum
of Understanding ( Schools APFO MOU)
SECTION 1 d
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORDINANCE PARTNERS
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District
School APFO School APFO
Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Hillsborough Town Council
Chapel Hill Town Council
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board Orange County School Board
v
Planning Directors/ School Representatives
Technical Advisory Committee
(aka SAPFOTAQ
Orange County Planning Department
Craig Benedict, Planning Director and
Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Planner
3064 Revere Road
P . O . Box 8181
Hillsborough , NC 27278
Town of Chapel Hill
J.B . Culpepper, Planning 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 School District
Shirley Carraway, Superintendent
200 E . King Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Carrboro Planning Department
Roy Williford , Planning Director
P . O . Box 829
Carrboro , NC 27510
Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District
Steve Scroggs , Support Services
750 Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 25716
Includes :
SAPFOTAC/O. C . Budget Liaison
Donna Dean
208 South Cameron Street
P . O . Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
vi
I . BASE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
A . Level of Service
1 . Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — Change can only be effectuated by
amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all School APFO partners .
IDefinition — 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 (942) ] .
3 . Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
Elementary Middle High School Elementary Middle High School
105 % 107 % N/A 105 % 107 % 110 %
110 %
N/A — This means the School APFO CAPS Test has been " suspended" in accordance with
addendums to the Memorandum of Understanding until proposed capacity is added in the
specific school level area .
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 .
Please note that the High School CAPS test has Orange County ' s newest Middle School,
been suspended (i . e . , does not apply) until the Gravelly Hill, opened in October 2006 . The
new High School opens which is scheduled for opening of this Middle School brings capacity
Fall , 2007 at which time the test for the High at this level under the adopted LOS and the
School will be automatically reinstated . The CAPS test has been reinstated . Therefore ,
Elementary and Middle school levels are CAPS processing is now in effect for all
subject to the CAPS test . school levels .
S . Recommendation - Recommendation-
No Change from above standard No Change from above standard
1
Section I
B . Building Capacity
1 . Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change ing- The Plann Directors , School
Representatives , 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- CEP changes would be updated in the upcoming November
CAPS system recalibration and included in the SAPFOTAC report .
2 . Definition - "For purposes of this Memorandum, "building capacity" will be determined
by reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines (consistent with CIP
School Construction Guidelines/policies developed by the School District and the Board
of County Commissioners) and will be determined by a joint action of the School Board
and the Orange County Board of Commissioners . As used herein the term " building
capacity" refers to permanent buildings . Mobile classrooms and other temporary student
accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent buildings and may not be counted in
determining the school districts building capacity. "
3 . Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
The original certified capacity for each of the The original certified capacity for each of the
schools was certified by the respective schools was certified by the respective
superintendent and incorporated in the superintendent and incorporated in the
initialization of the CAPS system (Chapel Hill initialization of the CAPS system (Orange
Carrboro School District Apri129 , 2002 - County School District April 30 , 2002 - Base)
Base)
Capacity changes were made each year as Capacity changes were made each year as
follows : follows :
2
Section I
2003 : Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary. 2003 : No net increase in capacity at
2004 : No changes at Elementary, Middle , or Elementary level . No changes at Middle
High School levels . School level . Increase of 1 , 000 at Cedar Ridge
2005 : No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School .
High School levels . 2004 : No net increase in capacity at
2006 : No changes at Elementary, Middle , or Elementary level . No changes at Middle or
High School levels . 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 and increase
of 15 at the High School level with the
temporary location of Partnership Academy
Alternative School .
4 . Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis of Existing Conditions
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District d Orange County School District
The Schools Facilities Task Force developed The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a
a system to calculate capacity. Any changes system to calculate capacity. Any changes
year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and year to year will be itored, reviewed, and
recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved
forms distributed to SAPFO partners and forms distributed to SAPFO partners and
certified upon approval by the Board of certified upon approval by the Board of
County Commissioners each year. County Commissioners each year .
The requested 2006 - 7 capacity is noted on The requested 2006 . 7 capacity is noted on
Attachment I . B . 3 Attachment I . B . 4
3
Section I
A ` Joint Action Committee ' met in November 2005 to discuss Elementary level K 3 class
size reductions related to legislation from the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction . The Committee has recommended that capacity changes be implemented
equally in both school districts when the next elementary school opens which is anticipated
to be CHCCS Elementary School # 10 in 20M09 . When the reduced class size capacities go
into effect, the result is 262 fewer seats available in CHCCS and 228 fewer seats available
in OCS . The effect of this reduction is that the need for new elementary schools is
accelerated because the loss of seats represents approximately 2 to 5 years of student
growth .
5 . Recommendation — Change Recommendation — Change
Elementary Level capacities the year Elementary Level capacities the year after
after the next elementary school opens the next elementary school opens within
within either school district either school district
As discussed above, a ` Joint Action As discussed above, a ` Joint Action
Committee ' has recommended that capacity Committee ' has recommended that capacity
changes at the Elementary level be changes at the Elementary level be
implemented equally in both school districts implemented equally in both school districts
the year after the next elementary school opens the year after the next elementary school
which is anticipated to be CHCCS Elementary opens which is anticipated to be CHCCS
School # 10 in 200 & 09 . Elementary School # 10 in 200 & 09 .
4
Section I
Attachment I . B . 1
(page 1 of 3 )
it Change Request Form a 041*e
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Years November 15 , 2005 - November 14 , 2006
Capacity and Membership Submittal Dates November 15 , 2005
OF
Fit
II 004 2004mi 2005111111 II ! I
Fii.; Elenientar� Square ( l 11
RequestedRequested Requested r r
rrFill
Footnote
Capac
ty ce
44
5 8 ty I
598 3
0 2 = �'59 8 98 � -5
Cameron=P ark ` 7 81 9
Central 52,492 �t83 483 483 483 ; 288
Efland Cheels 64 ,316 52� 529 529 529 424
Grady Brown 74 ,015 575 575 575 575O
F . Z .
492
Hillsborough 51 , 106 414 414 . : . 414 514 : : . . I . 377OFF
New Hope 100,164 621 621 621. G21 F. 472
7 .
PathOF ways 85,282 600 G00 600 600 :519
OF
d.
Total 498 , 188 ; 3;820 : ; 3820 SZO
. .. . . .
OFF0 3 0006
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as purl of the School Facilities 'Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CIP or (2 ) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC
Justification:
An increase in Hillsborough Elementary capacity of 100 was completed prior to the start of the 2003-04
school year in accordance with the CIP . However, due to continuing renovations within the school ,
the full capacity of 514 student seats was not achieved until the 2005-2006 school year .
The above numbers reflect school capacity without consideration of State- directed class size reductions in
grades li
Representatives of County and both school governing boards have recommended that the lower State -directed
class size reductions at the elementary level be implemented with the opening of the next new elementary
school in Orange County, anticipated now to be CHCCS Elementary # 10 in 2008011
Capacity Certifications
xm=�
Superin ndent Date BOC hai Date
I
Membership Certifications
S Date BOC al Date
upe intendant
5
. Section I
Attachment I . B . I
(page 2 of 3 )
School APF0 Capacity Change Request Form and Current Membership
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15 , 2005 - November 14, 2006
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15 , 2005
L 5t nhack ` IF
1369000 " :140, 740 " 740 740 708
I IF
GPw. Stanford' 1079620 Io 2G' 726 ' 726. 726 881
IF -
IF
I IF
c.
243,620 1466 1466 " 1 ,466 , 1 ,466 0 1 ,589
IF I
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2Q02 base year the board accepted the superintendent -certified capacities as pan of the School Facilities Task
Justification: No change in capacity.
C pacify Certification :
FIFIFFS
Sup intendent Date O CC air Date
Membership Certification:
r
l -tp - oS k 2 - D �
Supe ' endent Date BO , Ch it Date
6
Section I
Attachment I . B . 1
(page 3 of 3 )
School APFO Capacity Change Request Form and Current � Members 1p -.
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15 , 2005 - November 14 , 2006
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15 , 2005
Capacity . Capacity Cap, cIky - Capacity
Orange 2139509 1 ,518 1 , 518 '' 1 , 518 11518 - 999
Cedar Ridge 206,900 : 1 ,000' 11000 . 1 ,000 1 ,000 1 , 122
Total ; 4209409 2,518 ', 2,518 : 2, 518 2,5 > 8 F 0 ' 2, 121
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School facilities Task
Justification ; No change in capacity.
Ca acity Certification :
_ 24 - O(o
Superifbtendent Date BO r Date
Membership Certification : 1 ,144 (0
-.
to - as
Sup ' tendent Date BOCC -h r Date
7
Section I
Attachment I .B . 2
(page I of 3 )
F
chool District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
chool Year; November 15, 2004 - November 14, 2005
11 It II 11 II I I 11 .
Im
t
.:;.
582
;`56 " 563
5 3
60 8. 2 ; 563 63 = -
3
Caiiboro :- ,.: : - ...::�: � -
Ephesus 66,95Z 472 47Z 472 472 : 43
Estes Hills _ ` 569299 ":::.`':549 549 5%19 549 502
Glenwood• 5o,7G4 ': 945 445 tp
A45 445 458
PP 'Grahizin 63,541 57.0 570 570 570 : ' :587
iylcbou_g 98,o0 59G 596 596 59G : :'S57
Rasiilus 942234 A 619 619 619 tT
538
Scrods 90,980 609 609 609 Go9 G70
Se � tiyell ' :•';' ° 52,896 498 498 498 498 551
Tcital 6341498 ; `: ,°4 :302 ; ; ' : 4 ;921 :: :'..' . . ° `s4921 5 : 9 ,921 .: :. :.� : '4 ;879
Special Note : For the November 15, 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part or the School facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report These capacities %%IIt remain efrective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certired by the BOCC
Justification .
An increase in capacity of 619 at Rashkis Elementary was completed prior to the start of the 2003 04
school year in accordance with the CIP .
The above numbers reflect school capacity without consideration of State-directed class size reductions in
grades K-3 .
Representatives of County and both school governing boards have recommended that the lower State-directed
class size reductions at the elementary level be implemented with the opening of the next new elementary
school In Orange County, anticipated now to be CHCCS Elementary # 10 in 2008 =09 _
Capacity Certif ation :
Cf
Superintendent Date OCC a Date
Membership Certification: l
40
Superintendent Date BOCC C it Date
8
Section I
Attachment I . B . 2
(page 2 of 3 )
E
l District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
l Year: November 15 , 2004 - November 14, 2005
Middle
Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school
Cul�ireth . 104,798 `670 670 670 670 587
McDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 638
Phillips 109,498 ` 706 706 746 706 648
Smith . 128,764 . _. 732 732 732 732 699
Total 479,281 2, 840 2;840 . 2,840 2;840 : 0 25:72
Special Note : For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( I ) the School CIP or ( 2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification : No change in capacity requested
Capacity Certification :
Superintendent Date B air Date
Membership Certification :
4u&perintendent Date B C it Date
9
Section I
Attachment I . B . 2
(page 3 of 3 )
E
hool District : Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
hool Year: November 15 , 2004 " November 14 , 2005
ISquare I 1005 II 1 � 2006m Membership
RequestedHigh School Requested Requested
Feet Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Footnote #
school
ChapeI , Hill " ` 241I IF , 111 1IF
,520 1F . 11 ,520 1,520 1 ,520 19810
East Chapel Hill 2587985 1 ,515 1 ,515 . 1,515 1 ,515 1_,704
Ttitail " 500,096 3;035 3;035 i ' ` . 3,035 ; 3;035 0 3;514
Special Note: For the November I5 .. 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CIP or (2 ) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification : No change in capacity requested
Capacity Certification :
Superintendent Date BPeC Ch Date
Membership Certification :
01
Superinteildent Date BO air Date
10
Attachment I . B . 3
(page 1 of 3 )
ILI
School District: Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15 , 2006 - November 14. 2007
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15 , 2006
I 11607
y es Re es L1 r
Aole
Ica i0a
Cameron Park 70,812 598 598 598 598 598 498
Central 52,492 483 483 483 483 483 297
Efland Cheeks 64,316 529 529 529 529 529 440
Grady Brown 74 ,016 575 575 575 575 575 503
Hillsborough 519106 414 414 414 514 514 385
New Hope 100, 164 621 621 621 621 621 527
Pathways 855282 600 600 600 600 600 422
Total 1 49891881 31820 3,8201 , 39820 35920 3,9201 1 39072
Special Note: For the November Ii . 2002 base year the hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee; Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CTP or (2 ) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification : No change in capacity. The above numbers reflect school capacity without
consideration of state class size reductions in grades K- 3 .
Capacity Certification :
ILL61
Supe intendent (j Date BOCC Chair Date
Membership Certification:
Supe tendent Date BOCC Cha ' Date
/ 1 lee�V0
it
Attachment I . R . 3
(page 2of 3 )
School APFO Capacity Change Request Form and Current Membership
School District : Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15 , 2006 - .November 14, 2007
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15 , 2006
1 11 1 1
RequestedMiddle Square juslification
Requested Requested Requested Membership
Footnote #
sellool Feet Capacity - (.'apacity
A4. L . Stanback 1361000 740 740 740 740 Capacity 740 633
C.W . Stanford 107 ,620 726 726 726 726 726 679
Gravelly Hill 123 ,000 0 0 0 0 700 264
Ti) Ud _ 366,620 ^1;466 I ,466 1;466 I,46 21661 - - - 1 ,576
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part o.f the School Pacilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School C11? or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification : An incease in capacity has been generated as a result of the completion of
Gravelly Hill Middle School . This school has added an additional 700 middle school student seats .
j1
Ca city Certification :
zz/
L/I
Su rintendent Date BOCC hair ate
Membership Certification: { , /
dddd
Sup intendent Date BOCC Chair, Date
I �
Attachment I . B . 3
(page 3of 3 )
Schools est Form and , Current -
School District : Orange County Schools
SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15 , 2006 - November 14, 2007
Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15 , 2006
i 1
CCU CAPacit) Footnote #
1
Orange 213,509 1,518 1 ,518 11518 15518 1518 1 , 147
Cedar. Ridge 2063900 11000 11000 11000 1 ,000 11000 1 ,022
Partnership 29249 0 0 0 0 1 15 15
Total 1 422,6581 215181 2,5181 2,5181 , 2,5181 2,5331 2, 184
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee: Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CIP or (2 ) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification : Partnership Academy Alternative School ( P . A . A . S . ) is temporarily located at
Fairview Baptist Church which allows limited capacity for alternative school students . Upon completion
of the permanent site for P . A . A . S . we anticipate approximately 40 student seats added to the high school
capacity.
Ca acity Certification :
121
I)Zlei 4,
Su rintendent Date BOCC Chair Date
Membership Certification :
Supe in ndent Date OCC hai Date
i3
Attachment I . B . 4
(page 1 of 3 )
School APFO Capacity Calculation and Change Request Form
School District: Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools
School Year: November 15 , 2006 - November 14, 2007
Carrboro 60,832 , " `�� =563 563 563 x; Y�'f 533
Ephesus . , 66,952 47 472 - 472 472 437
Fstes.l. s 56,299 $4 549 '5 1 .
49 549 549 512
Glenwood 50,764 4A5 445 445 445 445 454
>~`P Grraham 4 Nil .
63, 541 570 570 Z57 570 570 562
McDougle 989000 d 596 596 596 596 596 581
Rashkis 94,234 0 619 . .619 619 619 636
Scro99S 90, 980 1609 609 609 609 609 706
Seawell 52,896 498 498 498 498 498 ` 4 5 9
' l
Total 634,498 , . 74 . , >�130 f . 4,921 4921 4,921 4,921 4' 80
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification :
An increase in capacity of 619 at Rashkis Elementary was completed prior to the start of the 2003- 04
school year in accordance with the CIP .
The above numbers reflect school capacity without consideration of state class size reductions in ' grades K- 3 .
Capacity Certification :8;900 � J§00�&4
,
Superintendent Date BOCC Chair D t
Membership ertification :
Superintendent Date BOCC Chair pate
E �
Attachment LBA
(page 2 of 3 )
School APF0 Capacity Calculation and Change Request Form :
mmi
School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
UNION
School Year: November 15 , 2006 - November 14, 2007
2007 Membership
Middle School 9 Requested Requested Requested Reque.*ited ( referenced
Culbrett> 104,798 IriFm-
mA
%` 6�74 670 67Q 670 670 628
�� � a
EOrM
McDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 645
Phillips 109,498 ��s f � 706 706 706 706 646
Smith ': 128,764 ;:IF, �7Z 732 . 73 732 732 673
i ! _
I
OHr
l IF/5
/ ,
4 IF Vim I
OF
Or
TaIt � 479 ,2811 2 840 = `; 2,840 2,$r��l : 2,840 2 840 2;592
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report . These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC .
Justification : No change in capacity requested
Capacity Certification :
Superintendent Date BOCC Chair �v�' Date
Membership Certification :
Leo Ize,,f'' &Z9 2' G SEEK
Superintendent Date BOCC hair 'Da e
Attachment I RA
(page 3of 3 )
School APFO Capacity Calculation and Change Re q* uest Form
School District : Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
School Year: November 15 , 2006 - November 14, 2007
Far
Chapel Hill 2419111 151 IF r 52 11520 L 1 ,520 1 ,520 1,778
East Chapel Hill 258,985 1,515 1 , 515 ' `r,515 19515 1 ,515 1,742
I IF
;
I � ;
!rt . t
IF
to xt� E ' OF c ', l i t ..; s
pp r
�(.!f Y
Z FlI Fe
§ dd
IF
s
IF
J �
% 4Uni
IF
I IF -
, Ad
r rIF
Total 5009096 3,035 <:3,0�5 } �jiffl i`F ea _ 3,035 ' ._._ . .;`3,035 ,3,520
Special Note: For the November 15 , 2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task
Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed
by ( 1 ) the School CIP or (2) an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.
Justification : No change in capacity requested
Capacity Certification :
0000
uperintendent Date BOCC Chair Date
y. ,
Membership Certification :
IAL /4
Superintendent Date BOCC Chair at �f
V
1 P„
Section I
C . Membership Date
1 . Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — Change can be effectuated only by
amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all School APFO partners .
The Planning Directors, School Representatives , Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC) may advise if a change in date would improve the reporting or timeliness
of the report .
2 . Definition - The date at which student membership is calculated . This date is updated
each year and also serves as the basis for projections along with the history from previous
years . "For purposes of this Memorandum, the term " school membership " means the
actual number of students attending school as of November 15 of each year. The figure
is determined by considering the number of students enrolled (i . e . registered, regardless
of whether a student is no longer attending school) and making adjustments for
withdrawals , dropouts , deaths , retentions and promotions . Students who are merely
absent from class on the date membership is determined as a result of sickness or some
other temporary reason are included in school membership figures . Each year the School
District shall transmit its school membership to the parties to this agreement no later than
five (5 ) school days after November 15 .
3 . Standard for : Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
November 15 November 15
of each year of each year
4 . Analysis of Existing Conditions
This will be analyzed in the future years to determine if it is an exemplary date .
This date may sometimes occur on a weekend (as it did in 2003) and
is not a typical date for membership census and recordation . An
earlier date such as the "40th day " membership may be suggested in
future years so data can be analyzed earlier to assist in school CIP
needs assessment.
S. Recommendation - No change at this Recommendation - No change at this
time time
17
Section II
II . ANNUAL UPDATE TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ORDINANCE SYSTEM
A. Capital Investment Plan ( CIP)
.1 . Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) after review of the CIP
requests from the School Districts . Action regarding CIP programs usually occurs during
the BOCC budget Public Hearing process in the 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
proj ections .
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. The plan includes funding for Carrboro High School (2007) and CHCCS
Elementary School # 10 (2008) . Anew Capital Investment Plan is currently under
development for approval prior to June 30 , 2007 .
5 . Recommendation Not subject to staff review
18
Section II
Be Student Projection Methodology
1 . Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — This section is reviewed and recommended
by the Planning Directors , School Representatives , 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 are 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 . 3 shows the performance of the models for the 2006 . 7 school
year from the prior year projection . After which, a summary of each model is provided .
5 . Recommendation -
Five (5 ) years of projection results are now available . Analysis on the accuracy of the results is
showing the some models have better results in one district while others have better results in
the other district . The historic growth rate is easily captured by the models but projected future
growth is more difficult to accurately quantify. This is especially true in the Orange County
School District which serves students living within the Orange County portion of the City of
Mebane . Because the City of Mebane is not a signatory party to the SAPFO , the. models have
not adequately taken into account the significant residential growth occurring within Mebane ' s
jurisdiction . The SAPFOTAC proposes to meet during 2007 to analyze the data and formulate
19
Section II
a recommendation on future projection methodology since it appears that using the same
projection methodology for both school districts may not result in the optimal projection
accuracy. The BOCC would need to approve any changes in projection methodology prior to
any change in the methodology.
20
Section II
Attachment 11 . B . 1
(page 1 of I C
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District : Orange County
Year/Date Issued : 12/07/2005
Year/Date Based : November 15 , 2005 ~2006
Years Projected : 2007 -2016
A. Projection Type : Tischler Linear
1 . Projection Mathematical formula
Description/ Straight line projection
Characteristics :
2 . Projection Formula : y = ((c *b ) * x)+b
(y = Projected Population; c = Ifistorical Annual Change; b = Base Yeai; x =
Projection Years)
3 . Projection Historical growth is reflected in projected growth
Assumptions : % Elementary, Middle, and High taken from SYE 2006 and held
constant throughout projection .
4 . Annual Growth Rate • 1 . 77 % Note : this is an average annual growth rate over ten years
5 . Attachments : a) Projections (includes : Total, Elementary, Middle , and High)
6. Projection Performed : By : Brian Carson Date : 12/07/2005
7. Projection Reviewed : By : Date .
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
21
Section II
Attachment H. li . 1
(page 4 of 10)
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District: Orange County
Year/Date Issued : 12/07/05
Year/Date Based : November 15 , 2005 - 2006
Years Projected : 2007-2016
A. Projection Type : 5 Year Cohort
1 . Projection Mathematical formula that computes the average advancement rate over
the previous 5 years for each grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
Bosoms
Description/
Characteristics : projected membership by school level . An assumed kindergarten membership
is based on birth records and/or historical growth rates .
n=l
2 . Projection Formula : �/ p
J Kn = K,�-1 + �K,t-► * 0 . 01) a G= ( � n / b n - � ) / 5 b = gn-t (a )
n=5
K=Kindergarten membership, n = Given school year, G= Given grade 's ►membership
(other than Kindergarten) g=Previous grade 's membership, a =Average advancement
rate, b =Projected membership
3 . Projection Assumes a M annual growth rate for the kindergarten grade level .
Assumptions : Assumes the same percentage of students in each grade level graduate
to the next level each year.
4 . Average Annual 0 . 76 % Note: This is an average annual rate over all school levels over ten years.
Growth Rate :
5. Attachments :
6 . Projection Performed : By : Scroggs, Benedict , Dean Date : 12/07/2005
7 . Projection Reviewed : By : Date :
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
24
Section II
Attachment ILB . I
(page 5 of 10)
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District : Orange County
Year/Date Issued : 12/07/05
Year/Date Based : November 15 , 2005 -2006
Years Projected : 2007-2016
A. Projection Type : 10 Year Cohort
1 . Projection Mathematical formula that computes the average advancement rate over
Description/ the previous 10 years for each grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
Characteristics : projected membership by school level . An assumed kindergarten membership
is based on birth records and/or historical growth rates .
2 . Projection Formula :
J K„ = K„-, + (K,I -, * 0 . 01) a = ( J G„ l g„-, ) / 10 b = g„ -, (a )
=10
K=Kindergarten membership, n = Given school year, G= Given grade 's membership
(other than Kindergarten) g=Previous grade 's membership, a =Average advancement
rate, b =Projected membership
3 . Projection Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the kindergarten grade level.
Assumptions : Assumes the same percentage of students in each grade level graduate
to the next level each year.
4 . Average Annual 0 . 68 % Note: This is an average annual rate over all school levels over ten years.
Growth Rate .
5 . Attachments :
6 . Projection Performed : By : Scroggs , Benedict, Dean Date : 12/07/05
7 . Projection Reviewed : By : Date :
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
25
Section II
=of
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District : Chapel Hill — Carrboro
Year/Date Issued : WOM 12/07/2005
Year/Date Based : November . 15 , 2005 - 2006
Years Projected : 2007 -2016
A. Projection Type : Tischler Linear
1 . Projection Mathematical formula
Description/ Straight line projection
Characteristics :
2 . Projection Formula : y _ ((c *b ) * x)+b
(y = Projected Population ; c = Historical Annual Change; b = Base Year; x =
Projection Years)
3 . Projection Historical growth is reflected in projected growth
Assumptions : % Elementary, Middle, and High taken from SYE 2006 and held
constant throughout projection .
4 . Annual Growth Rate : 2 .45 % Note: this is an average annual growth rate over tell years
5 . Attachments : a) Projections (includes : Total , Elementary, Middle , and High)
6 . Projection Performed : By : Brian Carson Date : 12/07/2005
7 . Projection Reviewed : By : Date :
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
26
Section II
Attachment II . B . I
(page 7 of 10)
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District : Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Year/Date Issued : 12/07/2005
Year/Date Based : November 15 , 2005 -2006
Years Projected : 2007 -2016
A. Projection Type : OCP Linear Wave
1 . Projection Mathematical linear with percent variation among school levels .
Description/ Reflecting progressing waves of membership .
Characteristics :
2 . Projection Formula : BYM + (BYI — 5 (n)) = EYM EYM x % SL = EYM/SL
(BYM = Base year 2"d month membership; BY1 = year student membership increment
base (285) ; EYM =Ensuing year membership • n = Projection Year; % SL = % of total
membership per school level (i. e. , elementary, middle, high) ; EYM/SL = Ensuing yew
member by school level
3 . Projection Base year growth reflects 10-year average .
Assumptions : Decrease in BYI of 15 until school year 2009 - 2010 reflects decreases in
housing growth.
Reflects buildout constraints .
4 . Average Annual 2 . 0 7 %
Growth Rate : ASGR = (2015 PM — 2005 AM)/ 10 = 249 (ASGR = Annual Student Growth Rate;
PM = Projected Membership, AM = Actual Membership)
5 . Attachments : a) Projections (includes : Total , Elementary, Middle , and High)
6 . Projection Performed : By : Brian Carson Date : 12/07/2005
7 . Projection Reviewed : By : Date :
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
27
Section II
Attachment II.B . I
(page 8 of 10)
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District: Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Year/Date Issued : 12/07/05
Year/Date Based : November 15 , 2005 -2006
Years Projected : 2007 - 2016
A. Projection Type : 3 Year Cohort
1 . Projection Mathematical formula that computes the average advancement rate over
Description/ the previous 3 years for each grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
Characteristics : projected membership by school level . An assumed kindergarten membership
is based on birth records and/or historical growth rates .
2. Projection Formula : -�
K„ = Ktl-i + (Kn - i * 0 . 01) a = G„ l gn -1 ) l 3 b = gn-► ( a )
n=3
K=Kindergarten membership, n = Given school year, G= Given grade 's membership
(other than Kindergarten), g =Previous grade 's membership, a =Average advaireement
rate, b =Projected membership
3 . Projection Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the kindergarten grade level .
Assumptions : Assumes the same percentage of students in each grade level graduate
to the next level each year.
4. Average Annual 1 . 83 % Note: This is an average annual rate over all school levels over ten years.
Growth Rate :
5 . Attachments :
6. Projection Performed : Byes Scroggs , Benedict, Dean Date : 12/07/2005
7. Projection Reviewed : By : Date :
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
28
Section II
=of
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION
School District : Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Year/Date Issued : 12/07/05
Year/Date Based : November 15 , 2005 -2006
Years Projected : 2007-2016
A. Projection Type : 5 Year Cohort
1 . Projection Mathematical formula that computes the average advancement rate over
Description/ the previous 5 years for each grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
Characteristics : projected membership by school level . An assumed kindergarten membership
is based on birth records and/or historical growth rates .
2 . Projection Formula :
K„ = K„-� + (K„ -► * 0 . 01) a = �� U,, l g„ -1 ) l 5 b = �, -� (a )
=s
Mathematical formula that computes the average advancement rate over
the previous 5 years for each grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
projected membership by school level . An assumed kindergarten membership
3 . Projection Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the kindergarten grade level .
Assumptions : Assumes the same percentage of students in each grade level graduate
to the next level each year.
4 . Average Annual 1 .90 % Note: This is an average annual rate over all school levels over ten years.
Growth Rate :
5 . Attachments :
6 . Projection Performed : By : Scroggs , Benedict, Dean Date : 12/07/2005
7 . Projection Reviewed : By : Date :
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
29
Section II
Attachment ILB . I
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTION (page 10 of 10)
School District : Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Year/Date Issued : 12/07/05
Year/Date Based : November 15 , 2005 - 2006
Years Projected : 2007 -2016
A. Projection Type : 10 Year Cohort
1 . Projection Mathematical formula that computes the average advancement rate over
Description / the previous 10 years for each grade level and then uses each rate to calculate
Characteristics * projected membership by school level . An assumed kindergarten membership
• is based on birth records and/or historical growth rates .
2 . Projection Formula :
� Kp — Kn_l + (K _ * 0 . 01) a = ( � Gn l ) l 10 b = ( u)
n l gn -1 ��n-1
n=10
K =Kindergarlen membership, n = Given school year, G = Given grade 's membership
(other than Kindergarten), g=Previous grade 's membership, a =Average advancement
rate, b =Projected membership
3 . Projection Assumes a 1 % annual growth rate for the kindergarten grade level .
Assumptions : Assumes the same percentage of students in each grade level graduate
to the next level each year .
4 . Average Annual 2 . 34 % Note: This is an average annual rate over all school levels over ten years.
Growth Rate .
5 . Attachments :
6 . Projection Performed : By : Scroggs, Benedict, Dean Date : 12/07/05
7. Projection Reviewed : By : Date :
8 . Projection Certified :
9 . Comments :
30
Attachment II . B . 2
Section II (page 1 of 4 )
Orange County School District
School Membership 2005 =2006 School Year ( November 15 , 2005 )
11 / 15/04
Actual Projected 11 / 15/05 Change between actual
2004 -05 2005 = 06 Actual 2005 -06 Nov 2004 = Nov 2005
Elementary 3016 3006 = 10
Model Projection is
T 3078 H72
OCP 3081 H75
10C 3014 H8
5C 3004 L2
3C 3038 H32
AVG 3043 H37
11 / 15/2005
Middle 1593 1589 = 4
Model Projection is
T 1626 H37
OCP 1619 H30
10C 1598 H9
5C 1601 H12
3C 1624 H35
AVGJ 1614 H25
11 / 15/2005
High 2057 2121 + 64
Model Projection is
T 2099 L22
OCP 2102 L19
10C 2115 L6
5C 2129 H8
3C 2165 H44
AVG 2122 H1
%yc_ -. , • a ' .. .." ., .rr - � . UTW
t 6 .
i r. .
11 / 15/2005
Totals
Elementary 3016 3006
Middle 1593 1589
High 2057 2121
6666 6716 + 50
Model Projection is
T 6803 H87
OCP 6802 H86
10C 6727 H11
5C 6734 H18
3CI 6827 H111
AVGJ 6779 H63
H means High L means Low * includes hospital school
31
Attachment II . B . 2
Section II (page 2 of 4 )
Orange County School District
School Membership 2005 -2006 School Year ( November 15 , 2005 )
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
TISCHLER (T ) 10 -YEAR COHORT ( 10C )
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ( OCP ) 5 -YEAR COHORT ( 5C )
3 -YEAR COHORT ( 3C )
Elementary School Level
• Projections were mostly high (from 32 to 75 ) but included a low projection off by of 2
( 5C ) over the actual November 15 , 2005 membership . The average projection was 37
students higher than actual membership .
• The membership actually decreased by 10 members between November 14 , 2004 and
November 15 , 2005 .
Middle School Level
® All projections were high ranging from being high by 9 to 37 . The average projection
was 25 students higher than actual membership .
• The membership actually decreased by 4 members between November 14 , 2004 and
November 15 , 2005 .
High School Level
• Projections were mixed ( high and low ) ranging from a low of 6 to a high of 44 . The
average projection was 1 student low .
• The membership actually increased by 64 members between November 14 , 2004 and
November 15 , 2005 .
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were high by between 11 and 111 students . The
average projected was a 63 student increase .
• The membership increased in total by 50 students , which is the sum of - 10 at
Elementary , —4 at Middle and + 64 at High .
• NC Department of Public Instruction ( NCDPI ) projected 6 , 811 (an increase of 145 ) ,
which is high ( i . e . overcount ) by 95 students of the actual November 15 , 2005
membership .
32
Attachment II . B . 2
(page 3 of 4 )
Section II
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2005 =2006 School Year ( November 15 , 2005 )
11 / 15/04 11 / 15/05
Actual Projected Actual Change between actual
2004 -05 2005 - 06 2005 = 06 Nov 2004 - Nov 2005
Elementary 4695 4879 + 184
Model Projection is
T 4824 L55
OCP 4819 L60
10C 4840 L39
5C 4839 L40
3CI 4774 L105
AVG 4819 L60
11110EST r '
11 / 15/2005
Middle 2560 2572 + 12
Model Projection is
T 2630 H58
OCP 2624 H52
10C 2539 L33
5C 2540 L32
3C 2505 L67
AVG 2568 L4
11 / 15/2005
High 3422 3514 + 92
Model Projection is
T 3516 H2
OCP 3535 H21
10C 3504 L10
5C 3543 H29
3C 3553 H39
AVGI 3530 1 H16
Totals 11 / 15/2005
Elementary 4695 4879
Middle 2560 2572
High 3422 3514
10677 10965 + 288
Model Projection is
T 10970 H5
OCP 10978 H13
10C 10883 L82
5C 10922 L43
3C 10832 L133
AVG 10917 L48
H means High * excludes hospital school
L means Low
33
Attachment II . B . 2
Section II (page 4 of 4 )
Chapel Hill / Carrboro School District
School Membership 2005 -2006 School Year ( November 15 , 2005 )
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
TISCHLER ( T ) 10 -YEAR COHORT ( 10C )
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ( OCP ) 5 -YEAR COHORT ( 5C )
3 -YEAR COHORT ( 3C )
Elementary School Level
• All projections were low by between 39 and 105 students over the actual November 15 ,
2005 enrollment .
• The membership actually increased by 184 members between November 14 , 2004 and
November 15 , 2005 .
Middle School Level
• Projections were mixed ( high and low ) ranging from being low by 67 to being high by 58
students over the actual November 15 , 2005 enrollment .
• The membership actually increased by 12 members between November 14 , 2004 and
November 15 , 2005 .
High School Level
• Projections were mostly high (from 2 to 39 ) but included a projection that was low by 10
students . The average projection was 16 students high .
• The total membership actually increased by 92 members between November 14 , 2004
and November 15 , 2005 .
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were mixed ranging from being low by 133 to
being high by 13 students . The average projection was low by 48 students .
• The membership increased in total by 288 students , which is the sum of + 184 at
Elementary , + 12 at Middle , and + 92 at High .
• NC Department of Public Instruction ( NCDPI ) projected 10 , 824 ( an increase of 147 ) ,
which is low ( i . e . undercount ) by 141 students of the actual November 15 , 2005
membership .
34
Attachment II . B . 3
(page 1 of 4 )
Section II
Orange County School District
School Membership 2006 =2007 School Year ( November 15 , 2006)
11 / 15/05
Actual Projected 11 / 15/06 Change between actual
2005 = 06 2006 = 07 Actual 2006 - 07 Nov 2005 - Nov 2006
Elementary 3006 3072 + 66
Model Pro ' ection is
T 3064 L8
OCP 3085 H13
10C 3063 L9
5C 3054 L18
3C 3065 L7
AVGI 1 1 3066 L6
11 / 15/2006
Middle 1589 1576 - 13
Model Pro ' ection is
T 1620 H44
OCP 1611 H35
10C 1561 L15
5C 1572 L4
3C 1581 H5
AVGJ 1589 1 H13
11 / 15/2006
High 2121 2184 + 63
Model Pro ' ection is
T 2162 L22
OCP 2160 L24
10C 2138 L46
5C 2170 L14
3C 2147 L37
AVG 2155 L29
jI `
11 / 15/2006
Totals
Elementary 3006 3072
Middle 1589 1576
High 2121 2184
6716 6832 + 116
Model Pro ' ection is
T 6846 H14
OCP 6856 H24
10C 6762 L70
5C 6796 L36
3C 6793 L39
AVG 6810 L22
H means High L means Low * includes hospital school
35
Attachment II . B . 3
Section II (page 2 of 4)
Orange County School District
School Membership 2006 =2007 School Year ( November 15 , 2006 )
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
` TISCHLER ' LINEAR (T ) 10 -YEAR COHORT ( 10C )
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ( OCP ) 5 -YEAR COHORT ( 5C )
3 -YEAR COHORT 3C
Elementary School Level
• Projections were mostly low ( from 6 to 18 ) but included a high projection off by of 13
over the actual November 15 , 2006 membership . The average projection was 6
students lower than actual membership .
• The membership actually increased by 66 members between November 15 , 2005 and
November 15 , 2006 .
Middle School Level
• Projections were mixed ( high and low) ranging from a low of 15 to a high of 44 . The
average projection was 13 students high .
• The membership actually decreased by 13 members between November 15 , 2005 and
November 15 , 2006 .
High School Level
• Projections were all low by between 14 and 46 students . The average projection was 29
students low .
• The membership actually increased by 63 members between November 15 , 2005 and
November 15 , 2006 .
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were mixed ( high and low) ranging from a low of
70 to a high of 24 . The average projection was 22 students low .
• The membership increased in total by 116 students , which is the sum of + 66 at
Elementary , — 13 at Middle and + 63 at High .
36
Attachment II . B . 3
(page 3 of 4 )
Section II
Chapel Hill /Carrboro School District
School Membership 2006 =2007 School Year ( November 15 , 2006)
11 / 15/05 11 / 15/06
Actual Projected Actual Change between actual
2005 = 06 2006 - 07 2006 - 07 Nov 2005 = Nov 2006
Elementary 4879 4980 + 101
Model Projection is
T 5012 H32
OCP 4995 H15
10C 5054 H74
5C 4998 H18
3C 4999 H19
AVG 5012 H32
11 / 15/2006
M iddle 2572 2592 +20
Model Projection is
T 2642 H50
OCP 2655 H63
10C 2660 H68
5C 2660 H68
3C 2650 H58
yy AVGJ 2653 1 H61
11 / 15/2006
High 3514 3520 + 6
Model Projection is
T 3610 H90
OCP 3600 H80
10C 3506 L14
5C 3536 H16
3C 3513 L7
AVG 3553 H22
Totals 11 / 15/2006
Elementary 4879 4980
Middle 2572 2592
High 3514 3520
10965 11092 + 127
Model Projection is
T 11264 H172
OCP 11250 H158
10C 11220 H128
5C 11194 H102
3C 11162 H70
AVG 11218 H126
H means High * excludes hospital school
L means Low
37
Attachment II . B . 3
Section II (page 4 of 4)
Chapel Hill / Carrboro School District
School Membership 2006 =2007 School Year ( November 15 , 2006 )
Statistical Findings
PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS
` TISCHLER ' LINEAR (T ) 10-YEAR COHORT ( 10C )
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ( OCP ) 5 -YEAR COHORT ( 5C )
3 - YEAR COHORT ( 3C )
Elementary School Level
• All projections were high by between 15 and 74 students over the actual November 15 ,
2006 enrollment . The average projection was 32 students higher than the actual
membership .
• The membership actually increased by 101 members between November 15 , 2005 and
November 15 , 2006 .
Middle School Level
• All projections were high by between 50 and 68 students over the actual November 15 ,
2006 enrollment . The average projection was 61 students higher than the actual
membership .
• The membership actually increased by 20 members between November 15 , 2005 and
November 15 , 2006 .
High School Level
• Projections were mixed ( high and low ) ranging from a low of 14 to a high of 90 . The
average projection was 33 students high .
• The total membership actually increased by 6 members between November 15 , 2005
and November 15 , 2006 .
TOTAL
• The total of all school level projections were all high by between 70 and 172 students .
The average projection was high by 126 students .
• The membership increased in total by 116 students , which is the sum of + 101 at
Elementary , + 20 at Middle , and + 6 at High .
38
Section II
C . Student Projections
1 . Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by the Planning Directors , School Representatives , Technical Advisory
Committee ( SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for annual report certifications .
Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC
prior to certification.
2 . Definition — The result of the average of the five student projection models represented
by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level (Elementary, Middle , and
High) for each school district (Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District and Orange County
School District) .
3 . Standard for: Standard for:
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District
The 5 model average discussed in Section II . B The 5 model average discussed in Section II . B
( Student Projection Methodology) ( Student Projection Methodology)
See Attachment II . C . 4 See Attachment II . C . 3
(Note : A change in Methodology is proposed (Note : A change in Methodology is proposed
— see Section II . B) — see Section II . B )
4 . Analysis of Existing Conditions
The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued
growth in both systems . Variability by school level and between the School Districts is
also noted . Year-by- year percent growth is shown on the attached table as well as the
projected LOS . The projections models were updated using current (November 15 )
memberships . Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter .
39
Section II
Please note that the information contained in this report relates to existing school certified
capacities . Capacity changes related to DPI (Department of Public Instruction)
legislation affecting elementary school class sizes have been proposed for
implementation in both school districts the year after the next elementary school opens
which is anticipated to be CHCCS Elementary School # 10 in 2008 - 09 . When the
reduced class size capacities go into effect, the result is 262 fewer seats available in
CHCCS and 228 fewer seats available in OCS . Attachments 111 . C . 3 and H . C . 4
implement the reduced class sizes in grades K through 3 in 2009 - 10 .
The SAPFO MOUs require that if overcapacity is reached at one or more levels within a
school district, residential development approvals within that school district must be
deferred until such time that student membership does not exceed capacities .
Chapel Hill Carrboro School District
Elementary
The previous year (2005 ) projection for November 2006 at this level was overestimated by 32
students . The actual growth was + 101 . Over the previous six (6) years , this level has shown
varying increases in growth . From 2001 until 2003 , growth steadily increased ; however, in
20049 the increase suddenly fell to an increase of only 3 additional students . The following year
(2005 ) , student membership increased by 184 students . Projections done this year assume the
opening of Elementary School # 10 in 2008 - 09 and show the need for Elementary School # 11 in
201041 . The need for Elementary School # 11 was moved up 1 year from 2011 - 12 due partially
to the implementation of reduced class sizes in grades K through 3 and to the large increase in
student membership that past two years , which factors into future projections that are based on
historical growth .
Although the projections assume an opening date for Elementary School # 10 in 2008 - 09 , an
opening date of 2009 - 10 may be more realistic due to approvals that need to occur and
construction time . If Elementary School # 10 does not open until 2009 - 10 , the result could be an
40
Section II
overcapacity situation at this level during the 2008 - 09 school year . In accordance with the MOU
and implementing regulations , CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) would not be
issued during a period of overcapacity. This means that development approvals for new
residential structures could not be made for projects expected to generate students during periods
of overcapacity.
Middle
The previous year (2005 ) projection for November 2006 for this level was overestimated by 61
students . The actual membership increased by 20 . Over the previous six (6) years , growth
decreased precipitously from 214 to 68 to 4 , to —52 and then saw modest increases on + 12 and
+20 . The projection models at this level were all high due to the precipitous decrease in actual
student numbers for four years followed by modest increases . This year ' s continued modest
increase has pushed back the projected need for Middle School #5 by one ( 1 ) year to 201344 ,
last year ' s projections predicted the need for Middle School # 5 in 2012 - 13 .
High School
The previous year (2005 ) projection for November 2006 for this level was overestimated by 22
students . The actual membership increased by + 6 . Over the previous six (6) years , growth has
varied from a high of 199 students to this years low of 6 students . Actual real estate market
conditions can suppress historical and mathematical trends , which is likely the case in all three
school levels within the school system . Carrboro High School is expected to open in 2007 - 08
and the projections show a need for additional High School capacity in 201647 . This new
projection pushes back the need for additional capacity by two school years ; last year ' s
projection showed additional capacity at this level would be needed in 201445 . Additional High
School capacity is expected to be achieved by expanding Carrboro High School from 800
students to 1 , 200 students , as was included in the construction plans for the high school .
41
Section II
Orange County School District
Elementary
The previous year (2005 ) projection for November 2006 at this level was underestimated by 6
students . The actual membership increased by 66 students . Over the previous six(6) years , this
level has experienced erratic enrollment which changed from - 185 to + 8 to +44 to +71 to — 10 to
+ 66 students a year . This created a historical base of negative growth which was captured by the
various mathematical models to produce moderate growth projections . In the Orange County
school system, historic growth is more closely related to development than in the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro School District, which has a sizeable number of new families in older, regentrified
housing stock. Therefore , development activity should be monitored off- line as a harbinger to
student growth on a more equal level to historically based mathematical models . The need for an
additional Elementary School is not anticipated in the 10 -year projection period . However, staff
is closely monitoring new sizeable residential projects in the Orange County portion of Mebane
and Hillsborough .
Middle
The previous year (2005 ) projection for November 2006 for this level was overestimated by 13
students . The actual membership decreased by 13 . Over the previous six (6) years , growth has
varied widely and included an unexpected decrease of 78 students in 2004 - 05 with smaller
decreases each year since ' 04 - ' 05 . However, certain models did reflect the negative growth (-
185 ) at the elementary school level in 2001 - 2002 as they progress into the middle school cohorts .
Accordingly, the previously noted elementary growth (positive and negative) matriculated into
slow continued growth at the middle school level . 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 .
42
Section II
High School
The previous year (2005 ) projections for November 2006 for this level underestimated by 29
students . The actual membership increased by 63 . Over the previous six ( 6) years , growth was
relatively constant Even though 4 - year historic growth at the high school level is moderate and
recognizable , future projections are more moderate because of the slowing of growth at the
elementary and middle school levels . The need for an additional High School is not anticipated
in the 10 -year projection period .
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 issue CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public
Schools) . In previous years , development activity within the Orange County portion of Mebane
was minimal . However, development activity and platting of new subdivisions has been steadily
increasing over the past two years . At this time , there are approximately 1 , 450 undeveloped but
expected residential dwellings within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane .
Development of these dwellings is expected to generate approximately 365 additional students
(over the three school levels) at current student generation rates . Studies need to be completed to
determine if development with Mebane generates students at the same rate as other development
within Orange County. There are some reasons to believe that development within Mebane
actually generates students at a greater rate . However, without completion of a study, this is only
speculation . Orange County expects to contract with a consultant to update student generation
rates and school impact fees in mid 2007 .
Increased coordination with the City of Mebane regarding development issues may be necessary
in the future . OCS currently has capacity to serve additional growth, but it is possible that
rampant development in the Orange County portion of Mebane could quickly encumber
available capacity.
43
Section II
5 . Recommendation -
Use statistics as noted in 3 above
44
CWPINe oy : Ounces County Budget Olffte
OCS Student Projections (' ] (4) 113470A0
Bennentary
School Year 2000.01 2001 -02 1 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 200647 2007-08 2006-09 200940 2010-11 2011-12 201243 201114 20144S 2015.16
Actual 3 078 2.893 2 901 2 945 3,016 3,006
Tiscttler r' 3 064 3, 122 3 179 3 237 3,295 3 353 3 410 3 468 3 .526 3 5B4
OC Planning 3 085 3 164 3 247 3 332 3 419 3 510 3 ,604 3 701 3 801 3 904
10 Vear Growth 3 063 3 135 3 176 3 231 3 238 3 270 3 303 3,336 3 ,369 3 403
5 Year Growth 3 054 3 115 3 142 3 , 187 1 3 181 3 213 3 245 3 27A 3 310 3 344
3 Year Growth 3 ,0665 3 ,135 3 166 1 3 217 3 213 3 245 1 3 278 3 311 1 3 344 3 377
Average 3100 3,134 3 182 3,241 3 269 3 318 32368 9 419 3,470 9 522
Annual Change - Increase Decrease in Actual 8 Projected Membership) 6 44 71 60 68 48 59 28 49 5o 51 51 52
G - 100% Level of Service 3 820 3,820 3 820 3 820 3 820 3,11)20 3 920 3 920 ] 637 3 637 3 617 3 677 3 637 3 637 3 637 31637
Number of Students Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS 421 (9271 ISIS) 67 804 914 88 396 '319 2M ' 16
105% Level of Service - 4011 4AII 4011 4a§l1 4011 41,1114 4116 116 1 3 19 3819 1 3919 3819 SA19 3812 3819 3919
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 105% LOS 933 ( 1 .1161 . 110 (1 99 (1 ,110) 1 982 6371 578 i5.`; :;. ' Sol ) 431 . 49 '2961
Actual - % Level of Service 80.6% 75.7% 75.9% T7A % I 79.0% 76.7%
Average - % Level of Service 78.2% 80.o% 87.5°/a 89. 1 % 89.9% 91 .2% 92.6% 94 .0% 95,4a/o 96.80h
Annual Student Growth Rats (7 .6.01% 028% 1,�Ya 2.41% a&33% 2.00% 2M% 1 .53% 0.80% 1 .50X 1 .50% 1 .51% 1 .50% law
add0onal I:A new scars 3, Hill;ppouah Elemmrary
OCS Student Projections(' )
Middle
School Year 2000-01 1 2001 -02 2002-03 2003-04 1 200405 1 2005-06 1 200&07 200748 116
20MIO 2010.11 2011-12 2012.13 2013.14 2014.15 201546
Actual 1 504 1 ,527 1 .631 1 ,671 1 .593 1 .590
Taschler 12' L620 1 650 11711 1 .742 11772 1 803 1 833 1 8&t 1 894
OC Planning1 611 1 638 1 695 1 725 1 755 1 786 1 819 1111511
1 BBS
10 Year Growth 1 561 1 547 1538 1 821 1 648168ti 1 678 1 895 1712
5 Year Growth 1 572 1563 1 556 1 640 1 653 1 683 1 661 1677 1694
3 Year Growth 1581 1579 1 588 1 ,682 1 .6981 1 736 1 715 1 .7321 1 749
Average 1 569 1 595 1 S92 1 616 1 682 1 705 1 739 1 t741 1 764 1 787
Annual Change - Increase Decrease in Actual 8 Projected Membership) 23 104 40 6 26 64 23 34 2 23 A166
Capacity - 100% Level of Service 1 466 1 466 1 ,466 1 .466 1 466 1 466 2 166 2 166 2 lSfi 2 166 2 166 2 166 2 166 2 166 2 166
Number of Student Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS 39 61 165 205 127 124
107% Level of Service 1 569 1 ,569 1 569 1 569 1 569 1 569 2 318 a 2 318 318 2,311 1 2 318 1 2lilt 2 318 1 2 318 1 Z318 2 318
Number of Student Actin and Projected Over Under 107% LOS 62 102 24 21
Actual - 04, Level of Service 102 6% 104 .2% 111 .3X 114 . 0% 10870/ol 108.5%
Average - % Level of Service 73.4% 1 73.74'a 1 715% 1 74.7°/, 77 .7% 78.7% 80.3% 80.4% 81 .4,5 82.5%
Annual Staderd Growth Rat (3) 1 .S%% 6181%1 2.4SX -4.6ml 41.19% -0.04%1 0.40% oft3% 1 1 .62% Im% 1 0.11% 1 1 .UM
mk$dr rchool e3 opens in fvi 2006 wmi 700 aCmoonai seam
OCS Student Projections (' )
High
School Year 2000-01 2001 -02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005.06 2006-07 200748 200609 2009.10 2010=11 201142 201243 2013.14 2014.15 2015,16
Actual 1 ,672 1 .753 1 ,828 1 , 887 2,057 2. 124
Tischler izj 2, 162 2 2 2 284 2 325 2 366 2 406 2,447 2 488 2 529
OC Planning 2, 160 2 198 2 2 279 2 322 2 ,366 2 ,411 2,457 2 504 2 552
10 Year Growth 2 138 2 061 2031 1 953 1 ,913 1 940 1 916 11998 2 047 2 ,073
5 Year Growth 2 170 2 150 2 152 2 087 2 O57 2,089 2 ,061 2 150 2 190 2 206
3 Year Growth 2 147 2 130 2 145 2 094 2 074 2, 118 2, 100 2,202 2 250 2 .271
Average 2 1 SS 211 2 162 2 139 2 138 2 176 2 179 2,251 1 2 296 2 326
Annual Chanae - Increase Decrease in Actual 6 Projected Membership) 81 75 59 170 67 31 13 38 3 72 45 30
G ci - 100% l.ewlofService 1518 1518 2516 2518 2516 518 2518 2516 2518 2518 2518 2518 518 2513 2518
Number of Student, Actual and Projected Over Under 100% LOS 154 235 690 631 '356 379 30C . 339 67 (222 . �2
110% Level of Service 1 670 1 ,670 2,770 770 2 770 2394 X770 I 2 770 2 770 2.770 1 2 770 2 770 770 2770 770 2,770
Number of Student Actual and Projected Over Under 110% LOS 2 83 "942 483 43 1646 614 6J81 '63C` 432 591 '� 79' 474` '444
Actual - % Level of Service 1 110. 1 % 115.5% 1 72,6% 1 74.9% 1 81 .7% 84.4%
Average - % Level of Service85.6% 85.3% 85.9% 849% 1 86.4% 1 86.5% 89A% 91 .2% 92.4%
Annual Student Growth Rat (3) 4.94%1 4.28%1 3.23%1 9.01%1 3.26% 1 1 ,43%1 mO,32% 1 0,62%1 el,04%1 1 .76% 1 0,14%1 3.30% 200%1 1 .32% Q
cedar Moe hch opens with 1,000 seas in fan 2002 Q
Indicates fast year that district surpasses $Ch0015 APFO recommended Level of Service Vt
11u 0 is important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2005 date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. It does not include CHCCS students attending the HOspital School.
rzu The Tischer Model provides for the "Linear Method" of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection models included the linear Extrapolation Method' for CHCCS. CD
real Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000-01 through 2005-06 and average membership for years 2006-07 through 2015-16. ZS
c° Class saes for grades K-3 = 123 for school years 2006-07 and 2007.08. In accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction, wrth planned opening of CHCCS Elementary #10 in school year 2008-09. K-3 class sizes for school years 2008-09 through 2015-16 reflect 1 :21 as directed by past State legislative action. This results in OCS 1--I
elementary capacity reduction (district wide) of 297 seats (decreasing from 4 , 116 [105% LOS Q 1 :23 Gass size] to 3,819 [105% LOS ® 1 :21 class size]). !-1
l 1
'T'
c"im by orwoo county 9u*wt Once
03/O M
CHCCS Student Projections (1 ) (4)
Elementary
School Year 2000-01 2001 -02 2002-03 200344 2004-05 2005-06 i4'999
2007-09 2006-06 20M-90 2010.11 2011.12 201243 2015.14 201416 2015.16
Actual 4,444 4 ,474 4 ,551 4,692 4 fi95 4 ,878
Tdchler (2i 5 , 146 5 279 6 413 5 5" 6 679 5 813 5 946 6 090 fi 213
OC Planning 5 115 5 205 5 287 5 380 5 460 6 540 5 6" 5 749 5 853
10 Year Growth 5 275 5 425 5 524 5,688 5 745 5 802 5 8W 5 919 5 B78
5 Year Growtn 5 172 5 280 5 342 5 476 5 531 5 586 5 642 5 698 5 755
3 Year Growth 5, 178 5 ,292 5,361 5 499 6,654 5.610 5 ,666 5.722 5.7110
kiperatio 40il9177 SM BASS S 619 6 U4 50670 S 752 S 934 6914
Annual Change • Increaea Decrease In Actual i Pro ectad Membership) 30 77 141 3 194 133 1 " lit 99 132 76 76 at 82 92
CaLmckly - 100% Level of Senrke LOS 4 302 4 302 4.302 4je 4 921 4 921 4 921 4 921 5 59 5 259 5 259 3 259 6 256 51259 Sx2511 S 216
Number ofS Ached and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS 142 172 246 229 2:. .>) ( 1 99 256 37 129 25e 915 411 N3 575 95!
Capacity • 109% Level of Service LOS 4 517 4 617 4,517 5197 5167 5 167 5 167 5 167 5,522 51522 6 522 5 522 5 922 5 522 3 322 5 522
Number of Students Actual and Pro d Over Under tOSX Los (sir ) 475) _ - - 10 , �71 ! ! 72 1M 230 312 354
Actual - % Level of Service 103 3% 104-0% 105.8% 95.3% 95 4% 99. 1 % - _
Aver e - % Level of Service _ 101 .8X 105.2°/ 100.76h 1 .4% 104.94'° 106.4°� 107 .8% 109.4% 110.9% 112.5%
AIV" Stadwd Growth Rob 3) 1 .72% itY% 3.62% L70% 1 2,49% 1.79% 1 .3TA 1 .M% 1471E 1A1%
Elmnebry 09 ope-e h W 2003 weh addennal 619leans For No ben 150 2➢05 Certdred U
Wary 6kdatora, 0406 proles Etrmenrry e10 opening for
school year 200a-09. In acco dancs with B= adopted Schod Corutrumon Standards, elementary
school capanry totals 600 sa°darrta.
iasperdet Nebo: par 2005 aareewnt of Sraool Coltaberad" Wort Groep, Grades K-3
close sin replaced &am 1:23 to 3:21 with opening of Vellum" $10 (to allow for prior
CHCCS Student Projections 11 ) lyialaWe Adel ra: noloced ctaes erne)
Middle
School Year 1 2000-01 1 2001 -02 1 2002-03 1 2003-04 1 2004-05Jr21653
2007-09 2006-09 2009=10 2010.11 2011A2 2012.13 2093-14 201415 201576
Actual 2.326 2 540 2,608 2 ,612 2,560Tuchier (2) 2713 2,783 2 853 2924 2994 3064 3 135 3205 3 .275
OC Plato 2730 2802 2872 2 .929 2 999 3069 3 , 114 3 158 3,202
10YearGrovrth 2660 2747 2872 2 , 983 3122 3204 3356 3390 3 ,424
5 Vear Growth 2645 2 720 2,817 2900 2993 3031 3152 3183 3215
3 Year Growth 2 633 2694 2784 2869 2,966 3 014 3136 3 167 3199
Awra 2,676 2 749 2 640 2 921 3 015 3 076 3179 39221 3v263
Annuol Chan as Increase Decrease in Actwl B Projected Membership) 214 N 4 12. 61 21 73_ 90 6 94_ 62 102 42 42
Capacity - 100% Lewl of Service [ 2 106 94 2 0 940 2 U0 2111140_ - 2 940 NO 2 640 2 MO 2 640 2 640 2 NO 2 "0 2 B"
Number of Studearday Actual and Projected, Over Under 100% LOS 218 (300) (232) (228) (280 268 18 164 m (G 91 17S 236 339 341 423
107% Laval of service 2,256 ] 039 ! M ] 039 34039 3 030 3 039 soon 3 M 3 039 ] oL = 3 039 3 039 ] 039 3 039
Number at Students, Actual and Projected, Over Under 107% LOS 70 - _ ) 431 ) (327) di75 ', "71 {.' ;S (:. {� 24i 39 140 1@ 224
Actual - % Level of Service 110.3% 89.4% 91 .8% 92.0% 90. 1 % 90.6%
Ave e - % Level of Service 3.4% 1 94.2% 1 96.8X 100.0% 102.9% 106.2% 108.3% 111 .9% 113 .4% 114 .9%
� 939% 92. 91E 0.191E - d - l.1 . . . .. - . . - . _ - - -. - 4 . 1 IJI
CHCCS Student Projections [1 )
High
School Year 2000-01 1 2001 -02 1 2002-03 1 2003-04 2004-05 1 200S-06 200947 2007-05 2006-06 2009.lO 201041 2011 .12 2012.13 2013•'14 2014=15 2095.16
Actual 2,815 2 963 3 , 162 3330 3.422 3,514
Tischler '31 3,610 3 706 3 B02 3 898 3 ,994 4 091 4 187 4 283 4 ,379 4 ,475
OC Planning3 600 3 ,675 3 ,768 3 857 3 946 4 036 4,126 4 ,217 4 308 4 ,400
10 Year Growth 3 506 3 573 3 608 3 616 3 665 3 768 3 939 4 ,011 4 254 4 411
5 Year Growth 3 536 3 619 3 656 3 676 3 ,708 3 788 3 941 3 969 4 155 4.264
3 Year Growth 3 513 3,568 3 601 3 615 3 632 3,706 3 843 3 ,870 4 057 41170
Average 3 553 3 628 1687 ] 732 3 789 1 1978 4 007 4,070 4r231 4 344
Annual Change - Increase Decrease In Actual i1 Prollacted Membsrshl 149 1 " 1 " 92 92 39 75 59 45 57 69 129 63 161 113
Capacity - 100% Level of Service 31035 3035 3 0]5 11035 ] 035 31035 ] 015 ] ig35 ] itf6 J 9J5 3935 ! 93b ] 9]615 ] 9]5 9 9J5 3 6
Number of Stuclennta Actual and Projected Over Under 100% LOs 220 127 295 397 479 519 D 48 103 46 43 172 235 396 509
110% Level of Service 3r= 3JM ] 339 34339 3 339 9 339 J 339 41219 4 4 9 4 19 4 219 4 219 4 191 41219 42219
lhlumbsrofStudonts Actual and Proischadp Over Under 110% LOS 324 378) (ITn L I 63 176 215 500 532 G 430 12 1 126
Actual - % Level of Service 1 92.8% 97.6% 1042% 109.7% 1126% 1 115 .E
Aver e - % Level of Service 117. 1 % 94,9% 96.1% 97.3 98.8% 1 161 .1 % 1 104.5% 1D& 1 % I 110,3% 1 113 .3%
: Ylr�ei 6rwr Rags p) S ]1% Z 2 w u 12J% 1 .52% Uu%i &34% 1 smi 3 "llil 2AK n
high school e3 opens in NY 20117 we a00 addoorW .-.-
indicates first year that district surpasses Schools APFO recommended Level of Service ON
1r ' It is important to note that this reflects the November 15, 2005 date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. it does rot include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
The Tuctuler Model provides for the "Linear Method' of projections for lath CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection modes included the -Linear Extrapolation Method' for CHCCS .
Annual growth rate calculated using actual membership for years 2000-01 through 2005-06 and average membership for years 2006.07 through 2015-16.
1+1 Class sizes for grades K-3 = 1 :23 for school years 2006.07 and 2007-08. In accordance with 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction, with planned opening of CHCCS Elementary 910 in school year 2008-09, K-3 class sees for school years 200"9 through 2015. 16 reflect 1 :21 as directed by past State legislative action. This z
results in CHCCS elementary capacity reduction (district wide) of 275 seats (decreasing from 5,797 [105% LOS Q 123 class size] to 51522 [105% LOS ® 1 :21 class size)). Class see reduction results in need for CHCCS Elementary #11 to come online in school year 2011 - 12 ( 1 :21 ratio) compared to 2014-15 ( 1 :23 ratio). 1--1
1^-1
l 1
N
Compiled by Orange County Budget Office
0129l07
OCS Student P:ojaclions ' " "' Capacity Figures Rovlsod by Planning Dept . on 522r07
Elementoro
School Yoar 2000-01 2001412 200243 2003-04 2004-05it,
2006-07758
!40
2OW10 2010.1173,437'
201243 201344 201415 73,333
2016-17
Ar4uat 3.07E 29893 2.901 2,945 3,016 3,072
Trsrhl8r " 3247 3.306 3,423 3,481 3.540 3,857
OC Planm 3,240 3,334 3531 3,634 3,741 3,964
tO Year Growth 3, 181 3,165 3235 3,267 3, 300 3,386
S vearGrowfh 3.232 3.21E 3,282 3. 315 3.348 3,416
3 Yca• Growth 3,214 3,203 >,265 3. 302 3, 335 3,402
AwriDO 3,223 9,245 3,34ti 3.400 3,463 3,5f1
Annual Change • Increase (Dvcr:)ase1 in Actual 8 Projected Mornborsnip) 146 6 44 tits 53 zo 52 51 s2 53 55
Capacity - 100`/. Leval of Service L80
3,620 3120 3,820 3,820 3,920 3,920 3,920 3,920 3 ,694 3,694 3.694 3,604 30694 3,694 31694 3,694
Number of Studonls. Actual and Protected. Over (Under) 1009r LOS '92'1 819) (875 �041 f9141 \ 84u 1790+ 175d+ r39 .: nl 12841 (:di 1 - -
105% Level of Sorvlce 41011 4,W 48011 4,011 4,116 116 4*116 4,116 3,879 3,879 31gn 3,879 3,879 3179 3,879 3,879
Number of Students, Actual and Protected, Over (Under) 105% LOS (lolls '1 , 110' ( 10060 01110) 1 , toad1 (0401 e 6 16341 !.',tilt 1.37 1479 ;4261 1373) 316
Actual - °,. Lt�+^I of Service 75 7% 75 9% 77 1 % 75 0% 76 7b 78 4r,ti
Aver„ye Level 01 S«rvic .b •: BC 94: 87 2 87.8% D9 3% 90 6% B2 0% 93 5% W 9% 96.4%
nw u ni row o 80114 1. 2.41% -033% 1. 1 .26•f. ow000* 1 .BEit 0,49% 1 ,6 1. 1 .6 "l
addiUcnal ] 00 new SedLS H,"nientdry
OCS Student ProjeetionsM
Middto
School Yvar 2000-01 2001 -02 2002,0 1 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006.07 200748 200849 20D94,010 2010.11 201142 2012-13 2013.14 201445 Z01S-16 2016.17
Actual 1 „v4 15:7 1 ,WI 1671 iti93 1 ,550 1500
TtStNer " ' 1 ,606 10636 1 ,666 1 ,696 1126 1 ,756 1 ,786 11816 1 ,846 11876
OC Plann,nr, 1 ,612 1 ,653 1 697 1 ,727 1 ,757 14769 1 ,821 1 ,854 1 ,888 1 ,923
10 1'e:a Growth 1 ,Se5 1 ,553 1 ,551 10631 1,631 1 ,656 1 ,623 1 ,t46 1 ,662 14679
5 Year Giawlh 1 ,605 1 ,592 1 .620 14728 1 ,755 1 ,787 1 ,753 1 773 1 . 790 I OW8
? Yr•nr 1597 1 .5135 1605 1 .705 1 .723 1 ,750 I '2= 1 742 1 .750 10777
Avorago 10601 1 .604 1 ,629 1 ,07 lolls 1 ,748 1 , 741 10766 14789 1 ,819
Annual Change - Inava" (Dac•weo) in Actua, wv Protected Mombumhtpl 23 104 40 1 21 3 25 6b 21 29 26 23 24
Capacity - 100% Level of Somice 1 ,466 1 .466 7R66 IA66 1 a66 1 ,466 2,166 Z166 2A66 2.166 29166 2,16E 29166 20 % 66 2.186 2,166 2.166
Number of Students. Actual and Projected, Over (Undor110D% LOS 38 61 165 205 127 124 .;• 2Ll (56 ; (562) 537 '4e'9 '448) 4tdl 425 460' 1771 $3
107!6 Level of Sumco 1569 1 ,569 1 ,569 1 ,569 1 ,569 1569 2,318 318 2,31E 2,31E Z318 2.31E 2.31E 2,318 2.31E 2.31E 2,31E
Number of Students, Actual and Projected, Over (Undor) 107% LOS 65) 142) 62 102 24 2} , 7361 (714) (689 fR0 ;5991 (570) 5 ^) 5511 %5291 'SOS
Actual - ti, Level ar 1qo"L41.e 1026% 104 2% 11 t "Aro t 14 •i^, IUt+ i % I :�L� .S':, 72 S'b / -
Averape - 'M Level of Set vti_ ?? tea \ 740!v 75 ? '�, ?8.4% 793% all 7% AC4°,;, tl1 .5% 82.6% 83. 7%
nt 1.53% 6.619fi 2A5% •4.677G 0.19% -0.63N. 1 , 33% Owl'I% I5S% , d 1 1 .70% •U.38'4 7.4y1t. 1 " 1
middle school x3 oplsls in fall 2006 with 700 add,tianal scats
OCS Sludunt Projoctionc i °
High
School Yoar 1 2000-01 2001 -02 2002-03 2003*04 2004iliV
200607 2007.0E 2008.09 2OW10 2010-11 2011-12 20/b13 724
2014/5 2015016 201&16
Actual 1 ,672 1 .753 1 .828 1 ,887 2. t80
Tischiar-' ' 2,226 2267 2.309 2,351 2,392 2,434 2517 2,559 2,600
OC Planning 2.247 21309 2,345 2.381 2,419 2,456 2.537. 2,578 2620
1DYeat Growth 29138 2, 100 2.005 c .970 2,003 1 ,968 2,056 2063 2.088
5 Year Growth ^.. 167 2. I031 2 139 2 . . 27 2 192 2,194 2.359 2.387 2.414
3 Year Growth 1 .;fi 2 151 037 2 . 074 :> I23 2, 1212,259 2,281 2..303
AvvraOe2,} 85 G203 2 ,177 2, 183 ."0 ZoM , E 20346 2,374 Z405
Annual Change - Incmaso (Decruasvt in Actu,d 6 Pro{octud Memourshrpt 81 75 58 56 18 '2E) S 43 9 73 37 28 31
Capacity • 100% Leval of Service 1 ,51s 19518 2518 2.518 2 518 2,S18 2S18 2,51E 2.518 2051g24454182,518 2,516 20518 Z 78 2,S78 Mile
Number of Students, Actual and Protected, Over (Under) 100% LOS 154 235 , n00 461 �, 333 43151 341 ) 12321 25b) (172) 1" (113
110!4 Level of Serv,,:e 1 .670 1 ,670 2.T70 \ 2,770 2,770 2,770, 2,770 2,770 Z770 2,77021770 Z770 , 2,770 2,770 Z770 2,770
Number of Students, Actual and Protected, Over (Under) 110% LOS 83 (942 883 r13 W6 590 ses 566 592544; (535 462 4240 '396 365
A�ual - °» Levc-I u1 Service i ' n IS° 1 77 bgo ;26% 74,90l6 at 7"9 tot •1% 86.6%
Average - % Level of Sernre 96 8% V 5% 86 5% 884%ti 88 8% 91 1% 93 .2% N 3% 96 5%
PWI Student rows to ) 484!: 4,28% 9.01 % 3,26%1 - 0,89r% •L164: - OA14. 3.2E 1 .62% wwO
1 ,19% 1 .3
Cedar rdge high opens with I,000 Wail sit fall 2W2
vldicata8 first year that district surpasses Sctlools APFO recommended Level of Sermce
it' u ,s important to rote that this reflects Ine November 15, 2006 date of momborship as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance . It does riot Include CHCCS slucien7s attending the Hospital School
F' The Tlschler Model provides for the 'Un"r Method" of Projections for troth CHCCS and OCS Original pojecions used in prior years proloctlon models included the linear Egrapolation Meince' (or CHCCS.
" Annual growth fate calculated using actual momberstup for years 2000-01 through 2006,07 " average membership for years 2006.07 through 2016-17.
j41 Class sizes for grades K,,3 = 1 :23lor school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. In accordance will) 2005 School Collaboration Work Group direction, with panned opening of CHCCS Eldmonlary 410 In school year 2008-09, K-3 class sizes for school years 2008.09 through 2015-16 reflect 1 :21 as directed by pa54 State teg,slauw Q
apron. This rosu8s m OCS elementary wpacdy redlxtlOn (dlstncl wide) of 297 seats (decreasing from 4, 116 1105% LOS 123ssi ) l03,87910 % LOS .Fm 1 . 21 class sze)) 01
CD
i--1
l 1
W
J
2005 = 2006
Orange County Student Projections
Elementary
2005-2006 ! 2006-2007 2007-2008 200&2009 20094010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 2012=2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
School Year Actual
Membership 31006 31066 3 , 134 3 , 182 37241 3 , 269 31318 3 , 368 j 31419 3 , 470 31522
Average % Increase 2 , 00 % 2 . 22 % 1 . 53 % 1 . 85 % 0 . 88 % 1 , 50 % 1 . 50 % 1 . 51 % 1 . 50 % 1 . 51 %
Middle
2005-2006 200&2007 2007-2008 200&2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
School Year actual
Membership 11590 1 , 589 11595 11592 1 , 618 1 , 682 17705 11739 11741 13764 1 , 787
Avers e % Increase -0 . 06 % 0 .40 % - 0 . 23 % 1 . 62 % 3 , 98 % 1 , 38 % 1 . 99 % 0 . 11 % 1 , 30 % 1 . 30 %
Hi h School
School Year
2005-2006 200&2007 2007-2008 2008-2 20 009 2009-2010 2010- 11 2011 -2012 ! 2012-2013 2013 -2014 2014-2015 M15-2016
actual
Membership27124 27155 23148 2 , 162 2 , 139 2 , 138 2 , 176 21179 21251 2 , 296 21326
Average % Increase I 1 .48 % -0 . 32 % 1 0 . 62 % - 1 . 04 % - 0 . 06 % 1 . 76 % 0 . 14 % 3 . 30 % 2 . 00 % 1 . 32 %
Chapel Hill / Carrboro Student Projections
Elementary
School Year 2005-2006 2006=2007 2007-2008 200&2009 20W2010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 , 2015-2016
actual
Membership 4 , 879 51012 j 5 , 177 51296 51385 51518 51594 5 , 670 5 , 752 5 , 834 51916
Average % Increase 2 . 72 % 3 . 30 % 2 . 30 % 1 . 68 % 2 . 46 % 1 . 38 % 1 . 37 % 1 . 44 % 1 . 43 % 1 . 41 %
Middle
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 2012-2013 2013 -2014 ' 2014-2015 2015-2016
School Year (actual)
f
Membership 21572 21653 21676 21749 27840 2 , 921 3 , 015 33076 31179 3 , 221 37263
Average % Increase 3 . 16 % 0 , 86 % 2 . 73 % 329 % 2 . 87 % 3 . 21 % 2 , 04 % I 3 . 32 % 1 . 32 % 1 . 32 %
High School
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009- 2010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
School Year ( actual )
Membershi 31514 3 , 553 31628 3 , 687 3732 31789 31878 41007 41070 ! 4 , 231 41344
Average % Increase 1 . 11 % 2 , 12 % 1 . 62 % 1 .23 % 1 . 52 % 2 . 34 % 3 . 34 % 1 . 57 % 3 . 95 % 2 . 68 %
o �
o �
v, n
Source: Oran ,e County [3udget 5 Model Compilation liom PSTAC nxtnbcrs to determine average based on November 1 5, 3005 membership numbers and historical data N
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Extraction of Annual Growth Rate from Averages � (D
d
2006 - 2007
Orange County Student Projections
Elementary
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 ZOIi - 201 ? ' O1 ? -2013 3013 -2014 2014-2015 2015-20i6 ? Oib- 17 P
School Year ( actual)
Membership 31072 37130 3 , 170 31223 31245 31297 31348 31400 31453 31506 31561
Average % Increase 1 . 89 % 1 .28 % 1 . 66% 0 . 68% 1 . 61 % 1 . 55% 1 . 55% 1 . 56 % 1 . 55% 1 . 56%
Middle
2001r2007 2007? 008 2008- 2069 2009-Z010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 2012 - 2013 2013-2014 2014- 20i5 2015-2016 2015- 17
actual _
Membership 11580 15601 11604 17629 1 , 697 1 , 718 11748 11741 11766 11789 1 , 813
Averagre % Increase 1 . 33 % 0 . 17% 1 . 55% 4 . 22 % 1 .24 % 1 . 70% .0 . 38 % 1 .45% 1 .29%
High School
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 21012 -2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 201b- 17
School Year (actual )
Membership 27180 21185 21203 21177 27183 21226 21235 21308 21346 21374 21405
Average % Increase 0 .22 % 0 . 85 % - 1 . 18 % 0 .24% 1 . 98% 0 .41 % 3 .28 % 1 . 62 % 1 . 19 % 1 . 32 %
Chapel Hill / Carrboro Student Projections
Elementary
2006 2OU7 2007-2008 2008- 2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 201647
School Year actual r
Membership 41980 51142 51273 53389 51541 51654 51739 5 , 825 5 , 912 5 , 998 67086
Averse % Increase 3 .25 % 2 . 55 % 2 . 20 % 2 . 81 % 2 .04% 1 . 51 % 1 .49 % 1 .49 % 1 . 47 % 1 .46 %
Middle
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 3010-2011TDUNM12 2012-2013 2013 -2014 2014-2015 20i5-20 ! 6 2016- 17
School Year actual
Membership 2 , 592 2 , 622 21686 21772 21833 1 21902 29989 3 , 108 31185 31226 31267
Averse % Increase 1 . 17% 2 .43% 3 .20 % 2 . 22 % 2 .42 % 3 . 00 % 3 . 99 % 2 .48 % 1 . 28 % 1 .26%
High School
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008 -2009 2009-2
School Year 010 2010-2011 j 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 2013 ? 014 f 3014-2015 1 2015-2016 2016- 17
Membership
(3e520) 3 , 599 31648 3 , 659 31704 j 3 , 787 31884 31948 42068 I 41196 4 , 305 6
CD
Averse % Increase 2 . 24 % 1 . 38 % 0 . 29 % 1 . 24 % 2 . 23 % 2 . 56 % 1 . 65 % 3 .06 % 3 . 14% 2 . 59 % .��.
N
O CD
O
J �-r
Source: Orange County Budget 5 Model Compilation from PSTAC members to determine average based on November 15, 2006 membership numbers and historical data
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Extraction of Annual Growth Rate from Averages
N
E . Student / Housing Generation Rate
1 . Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change — The updating of this section will be
conducted by Plannrectors , School Representati
ing Dives , 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 - A projected number of students that are generated from two different types
of housing, " single - family" and "other" . Single - family also includes double-wide or
greater manufactured and modular homes . " Other" includes multifamily and single -
wide mobile homes . The standards were created during the Tischler and Associates
School Impact Fee Report of February 2001 .
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
Orange County expects to enter into a contract with Tischler & Associates in mid 2007 to
update the student generate rate analysis and impact fee levels .
Also , note that students are generated from new housing as well as from existing housing
where new families have moved in . The CAPS system estimates new development
impacts and associated student generation but it is important to understand that student
increases are a composite of both of these factors . This effect can be dramatic and can
vary greatly between areas and districts where either new housing is dominant or new
families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock .
Section II
5 . Recommendation — No change
Use Tischler Generation Rates (2001 ) until alternate rates are developed and endorsed .
53
con
n
O
ti
Tischler Student Generation Rates
Orange County Schools
Elementary Middle High All
Grades
Sin le4amil 0 . 150 0 . 075 0 . 084 0 . 309
Other 0 . 084 0 . 033 0 . 030 0 . 147
All Housing Types 0 . 140 0 . 068 0 . 076 0 . 284
Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools
Elementary Middle High All
Grades
Single4amily 0 . 168 0 . 095 0 . 123 0 . 386
Other 0 . 094 0 . 042 0 . 043 0 . 179
All Housing Types 0 . 134 0 . 070 0 . 086 0 . 290
Source: 2001 Student Generation Rate and
School Impact Fee Report by Tischler &
Associates
Section III
III . FLOWCHART OF SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORDINANCE PROCESS
Abstract : The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance process has two distinct
components .
A . Capital Investment Plan ( CIP ) (Process 1 )
Timeframe : In November of each year, Student Membership and Building Capacity is
transmitted from the school districts to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for
consideration and approval and used in the following years CIP (e . g . November 15 , 2004
membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June , 2005 ) .
Process Framework
1 . SAPFOTAC projects future student membership from historical data, current
membership and hypothetical growth rates from established methodologies .
2 . School Districts and BOCC compare projections to existing capacity and
proposed Capital Investment Plan .
3 . SAPFOTAC forwards data and projections to all Schools APFO partners .
4 . School Districts develop Capital Investment Plan Needs Assessment during this
process
5 . The Capital Investment Plan work sessions and Public Hearings are conducted by
the BOCC in the spring of each year.
6 . The adoption of CIP that sets forth monies and timeframe for school construction
(future capacity) by BOCC .
55
Section III
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process I - Capital Investment Planning ( CIP )
CIP CAPS
Projection Method Approval System2
(Historical Membership ' (Proposed New Construction (Certificate of
plus Hypothetical Growth Rate i . e . School Capacity Adequate Public
Added by number seats & year) Schools
T
Actual Adjustments
(Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year
Membership Proi ection)
' Historical Membership is a product of students generated from: ( 1 ) pre-existing/approved undeveloped lots where new housing is built, (2)
existing housing stock with new families/children, and (3 ) newly approved housing development (in the future this component will be known as
CAPS approved development)
CD
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 .
56
Section III
B . Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Update (Process 2 )
Timeframe : The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the
school districts report actual membership and ` pre- certified ' capacity, whether it is CIP
associated or prior `joint action ' agreement . ` Joint action ' determinations of changes in capacity
due to State rules or other non- construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the
November 15 capacity and membership reporting date . This update may reflect the Board of
County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects
capacity and addition of new actual fall membership . The Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS ) stays in effect until the following year
— (e . g . * November 15 , 2005 to November 14 , 2006) .
New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated , each
CAPS projection year is ` absorbed ' by the actual estimate of a given year . Later year CAPS
projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For
example, if a 504ot subdivision is issued a CAPS , 15 lots may be assigned to "Year l , " 10 lots to
"Year 2 , " 10 lots to "Year 3 , " 10 lots to "Year 4 , " and 5 lots to "Year 5 . " When "Year 1 " is
updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate . The
students generated in "Years 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 " are held in the CAPS system and added to the
appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated .
As was discussed in Section II . C , The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not
issue CAPS . However, residential development within the Orange County portion of Mebane
has increased dramatically in the last two years and over 1 , 000 residential lots are currently
undeveloped . 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 .
57
Section III
Please note that the two processes (CIP and CAPS ) are on separate but parallel tracks . However,
the CIP does create a crossover of capacity information between the two processes . For
example, the Schools APFO system for both school districts that will be established / initiated /
certified each year in November and is based on prior year created and / or planned CIP capacity
and current school year membership . The SAPFOTAC report including new current year
membership and projections are to be used for upcoming CIP development as noted in Process 1 .
CIP Process 1 (for CIP 2007 — 2017)
November 2006 — June 2007 (using 2006 SAPFOTAC Report)
Schools APFO CAPS Process 2 (for Schools APFO System 2006 — 2007)
November 2006 - November 2007
58
Section III
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools ( CAPS ) Allocation
2007 CAPS system is effective November 15 , 2006 through November 14 , 2007 .
The system is updated with new membership , CIP capacity changes , and any other BOCC/ School District joint
action approved capacity prior to November 15 , 2006 . 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 , 2006 .
CAPS Allocation System CAPS System
1 . Certified Capacity AC2 = Sc2 - (ADM2 +ND 12 +ND22+ . . .
2 LOS Capacity
3 . Actual Membership
4 . Year Start Available Capacity
5 . Ongoing Current Available Capacity (includes available
capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by
year) AC ! 0 - Issue CAPS
6 . CAPS approved development
a. Total units AC < 0 - Defer CAPS to later date
b . Single Family'
c . Other Housing '
' Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate . Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is
different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1 . This estimate only captures new
development impact, which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate .
2AC - Available Capacity - Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system.
SC - Certified School Level Capacity
ADM - Average Daily Membership
ND - New Development ; ND means first approved CAPS approved development
59