Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-19-2019 8-d - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) – Receipt and Transmittal of 2019 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 19, 2019 Action Agenda Item No. 8-d SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Receipt and Transmittal of 2019 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. SAPFO Partners Transmittal Letter Ashley Moncado, Planner II, 919-245-2589 2. Draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and Craig Benedict, Director, 919-245-2575 Larger Scale Projection Worksheets PURPOSE: To receive the 2019 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and transmit it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in May. NOTE: The School Capacity Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Needs Analysis projects no new school capacity needs in the next 10 years for elementary, middle and high school levels for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). ADDITIONAL NOTE: In 2018, the North Carolina General Assembly unveiled House Bill 90 which allows for a phasing-in process to address the decrease in class size averages over the next three school years. Based on House Bill 90, average class sizes for kindergarten to third grade will be phased-in as provided below: 2019 — 2020 1:19 2020 — 2021 1:18 2021 — 2022 1:17 Reductions in class size averages are expected to create elementary school capacity issues for the 2021-2022 school year. In order to address these impacts in time, the Schools Joint Action Committee (SJAC) continues to meet order to review impacts to both school districts, discuss options, and determine how to implement the school capacity changes into the SAPFO annual report and 10-year student membership and building capacity projections sheets. ADDITIONAL NOTE: Charter and private schools are not included as part of the SAPFO Annual Report and, as a result, their membership and capacity numbers are not monitored or included in future projections. SAPFO projections are used for projecting only public school capacity needs. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter and private schools and their effect on student enrollment in both school districts. Charter and private schools numbers are not collected for SAPFO purposes; however, impacts due to enrollment at these schools are accounted for in SAPFO process with the annual reporting of student membership and growth rates contained in the 10-year student projections. 2 BACKGROUND: 1. Annual Report Each year, since 2004, the SAPFOTAC Report is updated to reflect actual changing conditions of student membership and school capacity. This information is analyzed and used to project future school construction needs based on adopted level of service standards. There are two steps to the full report. The first part (Student Membership and Capacity) is certified in the fall and then this full report, in the following spring, is to keep the SAPFO system calibrated. At the December 11, 2018 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board approved the November 15, 2018 actual membership and capacity numbers (i.e. first part) for both Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). A draft of the full annual SAPFOTAC Report is complete and has been reviewed by the SAPFOTAC members. 2. SAPFOTAC The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems, the Planning Directors of the County and Towns, and County Finance staff, is tasked to produce an annual report for the governing boards of each SAPFO partner outlining changes in actual membership, capacity, student projections, and their collective impacts on the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and the future issuance of Certificates of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS). Orange County's Planning Staff compiles the report, holds a meeting discussing the various aspects, and then prepares a draft report, which is reviewed by the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee. 3. Membership Data CHCCS total increased from the previous year: 54 students (51) Elementary School 100 Middle School 5 High School OCS total decreased from the previous year: 25 students 22 Elementary School 49 Middle School (96) High School ( )denotes decrease 4. Capacity Data There were no changes to school capacities this year in either school district. Mandated class size changes, discussed in a "Note" on the previous page, are expected to create capacity issues in the 2021-22 school year. Orange County Schools began a capacity reduction process last year in advance. It is suggested that both school districts implement in step to create consistency and timing protocol. 5. Capacity Information SAPFO vs. DPI The SAPFO is a local ordinance, independent of State Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projections and rules regarding class size. The SAPFO, for instance, does not count temporary modular classrooms as fulfilling the capacity level of service outlined in the SAPFO interlocal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU requires `bricks and mortar' instead of temporary facilities and also requires its own set of future student projections to identify long-term capital school construction needs. However, the County did phase in the smaller class size mandates in previous years that decreased capacity. 3 Decisions will have to be made if new discussions at the state level create any class size changes that should or should not be reflected in the County's SAPFO. Future decisions would reflect the timing and impact of new state legislation. This year, CHCCS and OCS did not exceed the adopted level of service standards established in the SAPFO, nor do projections show a potential need for additional capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school levels within the 10-year planning period. 6. Student Projection Analysis CHCCS Student membership projections show a mix of increases and decreases at all levels within the 10-year planning period. Projections are shown on page 37 of the report. OCS Student membership projections show a mix of increases and decreases at all levels within the 10-year planning period. Projections are shown on page 36 of the report. The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange County portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO agreement and does not require that CAPS be issued prior to development approvals. Although the SAPFO system is not formally regulated in Mebane, students residing within the Orange County portion of Mebane are accounted for in the SAPFO process with the annual reporting of actual student membership and ensuing growth rates contained in the 10-year student projections. 7. School Capacity CIP Needs Analysis CHCCS Projected needs: Elementary School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years Middle School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years OCS Projected needs: Elementary School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years Middle School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years High School Projections show no needs in the next 10 years NOTE: School capacity changes as part of a school renovation/upgrade project will be reviewed as necessary by the BOCC and school districts. 8. Student Generation Rates The updated student generation rates were approved on May 19, 2015 and are shown in Attachment II.E.1 on page 43 of the report. Updated rates began to be used for CAPS issuances in the fall of 2015 and are based on an inventory of recently built units from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013. 9. Access to Full Report The draft SAPFOTAC report will be posted on the Orange County Planning Department's web site. A letter and the Executive Summary of the report will be sent to all SAPFO partners after this BOCC meeting advising them of the availability of the draft report and inviting comment. It is anticipated the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC report will be brought back to the BOCC for certification at the May 21, 2019 regular meeting. 4 10. Additional Information There are two primary parts to the SAPFO system. The first part, Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS), is the testing of the student generation rate (SGR) from development projects against available capacity within the schools. The second part, student projections and capacity needs assessment, is the tracking of historical enrollment and the projection of future student enrollment against existing capacity at a certain school level. This part is not directly related to a development project, but a current year outcome of how many children actually `show up' in a school year. This includes new students that also come from existing housing stock. The purpose of explaining these two parts of the SAPFO system is to illustrate how projects can be approved as part of the CAPS system when capacity is available yet aberration in actual enrollment can cause future year projections to accelerate capital needs dramatically. The 10-year student projections developed for the SAPFO Annual Report forecast future school needs based on current student membership numbers and historic growth rates derived by the five projection models. The process accounting for students once they are actually enrolled in the school system emphasizes a delay that exists from the time a residential development is approved and developed to when students begin to enter the system. For example, the proposed residential growth that has occurred in the recent past within Mebane's jurisdiction has yet to be seen with OCS student membership numbers and fully entered into the historically based projection methods. Orange County staff will continue to work with the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and our planning partners to monitor future residential development throughout Orange County. In summary, although the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee report does not show immediate capital needs, the development approvals in both school districts will, after a normal lag, accelerate capital school needs and renovations based on localized student increases at specific schools. These local impacts will have to be analyzed by the school district to determine the best method to resolve new demands (i.e. redistricting, renovation, new school construction, etc.). FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current student growth projections do not show capacity needs for additional schools in either the CHCCS District or OCS District during the 10-year projection period. The outcome of the School Joint Action Committee related to state legislation may project more immediate capital needs. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this item: • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the 2019 SAPFOTAC Annual Report; and 2. Authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained in Attachment 1. Attachment 1 5 BOCC Letterhead March 20, 2019 Pam Hemminger, Mayor Brenda Stephens, Chair Town of Chapel Hill Orange County Board of Education 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 200 E. King Street Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Lydia Lavelle, Mayor Joal Broun, Vice Chair Town of Carrboro Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education 301 W. Main Street 750 Merritt Mill Road Carrboro,NC 27510 Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Tom Stevens, Mayor Town of Hillsborough P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Subject: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Annual Report Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to update you on the status of the 2019 Annual SAPFOTAC Report. In accordance with the SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding(MOU), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the November 15, 2018 actual membership and capacity numbers for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill— Carrboro City Schools at its meeting on December 11, 2018. The SAPFOTAC, comprised of representatives of both school systems and the Planning Directors of the County and Towns has produced the 2019 Annual Report. As per the SAPFO MOU, the annual technical report contains information on Level of Service, Building Capacity, Membership Date, Capital Investment Plan, Student Membership Projection Methodology, Student Membership Projections, Student Membership Growth Rate, Student/Housing Generation Rate, and the SAPFO Process. Enclosed for your use are copies of the 2019 Executive Summary and the March 19, 2019 BOCC meeting agenda item abstract when the BOCC received the draft report. The full draft SAPFOTAC report is available on the Orange County Planning Department website in the Current Interest Projects section at the following link: hgps://www.oran eg countync.gov/1722/Current-Interest- Proj ects. The 2019 Annual SAPFOTAC Report is scheduled to be certified by the BOCC at a regular meeting in May 2019. Therefore, if you have any comments pertaining to the report,please forward them to Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director, no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 2019. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at(919) 6 245-2592 or by e-mail at cbenedict&oran-eg countync.gov. Any comments received will be part of our agenda package in May. Please share this information and the 2019 SAPFOTAC report with your respective boards. Sincerely, Penny Rich Chair Enclosures cc: Board of County Commissioners Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy Orange County Manager Maurice Jones, Manager, Town of Chapel Hill David Andrews, Manager, Town of Carrboro Eric Peterson, Manager, Town of Hillsborough Pamela Baldwin, Superintendent, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Todd Wirt, Superintendent, Orange County Schools Patrick Abele, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools Catherine Mau, Coordinator for Student Enrollment, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Michelle Dodson, Student Assignment and Student Transfers, Orange County Schools Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Orange County Ben Hitchings, Planning and Development Services Director, Town of Chapel Hill Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, Town of Hillsborough Trish McGuire, Planning Director, Town of Carrboro 7 ORANGE COUNTY, NC SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PREPARED BY A STAFF COMMITTEE: PLANNING DIRECTORS, SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) (PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED IN 2002 & 2003) (ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN JULY 2003) Annual Report 2019 (BASED ON NOVEMBER 2018 DATA) CERTIFIED BY THE BOCC ON MAY X, 2019 8 Table of Contents 2019 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary............................................................................................................................i Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................vi Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners..............................................................................................vii Planning Directors/School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee............................................................viii I.Base Memorandum of Understanding.........................................................................................................................1 A. Level of Service.....................................................................................................................................................I B. Building Capacity and Membership...................................................................................................................2 Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2017-18)....................................................5 Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2017-18)...........................................8 Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2018-19).................................................. 11 Attachment LB.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2018-19)......................................... 14 C. Membership Date................................................................................................................................................17 II.Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System............................................................18 A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP)..........................................................................................................................18 B. Student Membership Projection Methodology................................................................................................19 Attachment II.13.1—Student Membership Projection Descriptions.............................................................................................20 Attachment II.13.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2017-18)...............................................21 Attachment II.13.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2018-19)...............................................25 C. Student Membership Projections......................................................................................................................29 Attachment II.C.1 —Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2017-18).........................................34 Attachment II.C.2—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2017-18)...............................35 Attachment II.C.3—Orange County Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2018-19).........................................36 Attachment II.C.4—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High)(2018-19)...............................37 D. Student Membership Growth Rate...................................................................................................................38 Attachment II.D.1 —Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2018-2028 based on 11/15/17 membership numbers)(2017-18)..................................................................39 Attachment II.D.2—Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2019-2029 based on 11/15/18 membership numbers)(2018-19)..................................................................40 E. Student/Housing Generation Rate..................................................................................................................41 Attachment II.E.1 —Current Student Generation Rates(2015)..................................................................................................43 III. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process............................................................44 A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP)(Process 1).......................................................................................................44 Attachment III.A.1 —Process 1 Capital Improvement Plan........................................................................................................45 B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools(CAPS) Update(Process 2)..............................................................................................................................................46 Attachment III.B.1 —Process 2 Certificate of Adequate Public Schools(CAPS)Allocation.....................................................47 9 2019 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service ....................................................................(No Change)........Pg. I Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County School District School District Elementary 105% 105% Middle 107% 107% High 110% 110% B. Building Capacity and Membership ..................................(Change)..............Pg. 2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County School District School District Capacity Membership Increase from Capacity Membership Increase from Prior Year Prior Year Elementary 5664 5471 (51) 3361 3205 22 Middle 2944 2933 100 2166 1779 49 High 3875 3932 5 2439 2349 (96) C. Membership Date—November 15.......................................(No Change)........Pg.17 II. Annual Update to SAPFO System A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) ...........................................(No Change)........Pg. 18 B. Student Membership Projection Methodology.................(No Change)........Pg. 19 The average of 3, 5,and 10 year history/cohort survival,linear and arithmetic projection models. C. Student Membership Projections.......................................(Change)..............Pg. 29 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2018-19 School Year—Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools (The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2018-19 in that given year.The second column for each year includes the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership.An"L"indicates the projection was low compared to the actual,whereas an"H"indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.) Year Projection Made for 2018-19 Membership Actual2018 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Membership Elementary 5471 6021 H550 5795 H324 5622 H151 5655 H184 5509 H38 Middle 2933 3063 H130 3009 H76 2915 L18 2898 L35 2889 L44 High 3932 4011 H79 3920 L12 3842 L90 3846 L86 3915 L17 i 10 Analysis of 5 Years of Projections for 2018-19 School Year-Orange County Schools (The first column for each year includes the student membership projection made for 2018-2019 in that given year.The second column for each year includes the number of students the projection was off compared to actual membership.An"L"indicates the projection was low compared to the actual,whereas an"H"indicates the projection was high compared to the actual.) Year Projection Made for 2018-19 Membership Actual2018 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Membership Elementary 3205 3668 H463 3226 H21 3319 H114 3235 H30 3161 L44 Middle 1779 1933 H154 1837 H58 1830 H51 1811 H32 1785 H6 High 2349 2534 H185 2547 H198 2517 H168 2439 H90 2396 H47 D. Student Membership Growth Rate....................................(Change)..............Pg. 38 Projected Average Annual Growth Rate Over Next 10 Years Chapel Hill/Carrboro Orange County School District School District Year Projection 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Made: Elementary 1.11% 0.92% 0.91% 0.36% 0.56% 0.55% 0.80% 0.51% 0.58% 0.91% Middle 1.15% 0.82% 0.95% 0.21% 0.19% 0.09% 0.67% 0.36% 0.13% 0.28% High 1.22% 0.93% 0.72% 0% 0.16% 0.39% 0.56% 0.22% -0.10% 0.21% E. Student/Housing Generation Rate ..................................(No Change)........Pg. 41 SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE STATUS (based on future year Student Membership Projections) CHAPEL HILLICARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School Level A. Does not currently exceed 105% LOS standard(current LOS is 96.6%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years, but remain positive (average-0.56%per year compared to 0.67% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year, projections are not showing a need for an additional Elementary School in the 10-year projection period. Middle School Level A. Does not currently exceed 107%LOS standard(current LOS is 99.6%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years, but remain positive (average -0.19% compared to an average of 0.78% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year, projections are not showing a need for an additional Middle School in the 10-year projection period. High School Level A. Does not currently exceed the 110% LOS standard(current LOS is 101.5%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease over the next 10 years (average-0.16% compared to 0.79% over the past 10 years). ii 11 C. Similar to last year, projections are not showing a need to expand Carrboro High School from the initial capacity of 800 students to the ultimate capacity of 1,200 students in the 10-year projection period. ORANGE COUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary School Level A. Does not currently exceed 105%LOS standard(current LOS is 95.4%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to increase and remain positive over the next 10 years (average —0.91% compared to 0.11% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year, projections are not showing a need for an additional Elementary School in the 10-year projection period. Middle School Level A. Does not currently exceed 107% LOS standard(current LOS is 82.1%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average—0.28% compared to 0.57% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year, projections are not showing a need for an additional Middle School in the 10-year projection period. High School Level A. Does not currently exceed 110%LOS standard (current LOS is 96.3%). B. The projected growth rate at this level is expected to decrease, but remain positive over the next 10 years (average—0.21% compared to 1.08% over the past 10 years). C. Similar to last year, projections are not showing a need to expand Cedar Ridge High School from the initial capacity of 1,000 students to 1,500 students in the 10-year projection period. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) student projections illustrate when the adopted level of service capacities are forecasted to be met and/or exceeded in anticipation of CIP planning and the construction of a new school. Both school districts continue planning efforts to renovate and expand existing facilities to address school capacity needs in a more feasible way. Additional capacity resulting from school renovations and expansions will be added to the projection models in stages, once funding is approved, versus the addition of greater capacity when a new school is constructed and completed. The renovation and expansion to existing facilities may delay construction of new schools further into the future. This process will pose some challenges to SAPFO compared to the existing process which indicates in advance when a completely new school is needed. Decisions on the timing of reconstruction(i.e. capacity additions) funding would be directly linked to the SAPFO model at the appropriate time. SAPFO student projections for this year are not showing a need for new school construction or expansion in the 10-year projection period for both school districts due to slowing student growth rates. However, planned residential development in the near future may increase student membership and accelerate school construction and expansion needs into the 10-year projection period. Although capacity and construction needs are not identified this year,both school districts face a large backlog of school capital maintenance and renovation projects that need to iii 12 be addressed. Given that student projections are not showing an immediate need for school construction in the 10-year period, this may provide the time for both school districts to commence and/or complete these projects in order to address ongoing needs. Changes in Average Class Size In 2018, the North Carolina General Assembly unveiled House Bill 90 which allows for a phasing-in process to address the decrease in class size averages over the next three school years. Based on House Bill 90, average class sizes for kindergarten to third grade will face a decrease from 1:20 to 1:19 for the 2019-2020 school year, 1:19 to 1:18 for the 2020-2021 school year, and 1:18 to 1:17 for the 2021-2022 school year. Reductions in class size averages may create elementary school capacity issues for the 2021-2022 school year. In order to address these impacts in time, the Schools Joint Action Committee (SJAC) continues to meet order to review impacts to both school districts, discuss options, and determine how to implement the school capacity changes into the SAPFO annual report and 10-year student membership and building capacity projections sheets. Charter and Private Schools Currently, there are two Charter Schools located in the Town of Hillsborough. Charter student membership for these two schools is as follows: AcademyEno River p•dSchool School Year Number of Students Number of Students 2017-18 542 326 2018-19 655 (+113) 355 (+29) Charter and private schools are not included as part of the SAPFO Annual Report and, as a result, their membership and capacity numbers are not monitored or included in future projections. SAPFO projections are used for projecting only public school construction needs. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter and private schools and their effect on student enrollment in both school districts. If a charter or private school were to close and a spike were to be realized in school enrollment, the student projections would likely accelerate the need for additional capacity in future years, but likely still within an appropriate time for CIP planning. Charter Schools are also monitored by the Department of Public Institution(DPI)which provides pupil information,based on data received from Charter Schools located in Orange County, to the County for funding purposes. The County budgeted for charter schools as follows: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Orange County City Schools Schools Fiscal Year Number of Students Number of Students 2017-18 162 617 2018-19 155 (-7) 769 (+152) Although charter and private schools numbers are not collected for SAPFO purposes, impacts due to enrollment at these schools are accounted for in SAPFO process with the annual reporting of student membership and growth rates contained in the 10-year student projections. iv 13 Future Residential Development Following the economic downturn, there has been an increase in approved and undeveloped residential projects in Orange County. Currently, there are over four thousand proposed single family and multifamily housing units approved, but undeveloped in the CHCCS district. In addition, there are over a thousand proposed residential units approved,but undeveloped in the OCS district. Proposed growth is not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment. The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) test is conducted during the approval process at a certain stage. Once students are enrolled in a school year, through annual reporting of student membership numbers, 10-year student projections can be updated to display future capacity needs in time to efficiently plan for future school construction requests. Staff and the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee continue to monitor and evaluate the demand and growth of residential development throughout Orange County as well as its effect on student membership rates. Below is a list of larger residential projects and the potential number of students from these projects which may have impact to the schools in the short term. Please note, a CAPS has not been issued for The Meadows or Villas at Havenstone due to their location in the City of Mebane. The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not require that CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools)be issued prior to development approvals. As a result, the potential number of students is based on unit type and bedroom count estimates. Residential Project Jurisdiction Proposed T Students Elementary: 84 Collins Ridge Phase 1 Hillsborough 672 Middle: 45 High: 57 Elementary: 28 Carraway Village Chapel Hill 400 Middle: 10 High: 14 Elementary: 67 The Meadows Mebane 279 Middle: 35 High: 37 Elementary: 4 Villas at Havenstone Mebane 68 Middle: 3 High: 4 v 14 Orange County,NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Introduction The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) and its Memorandum of Understanding are ordinances and agreements, respectively. Supporting documents are anticipated to be dynamic to incorporate the annual changing conditions of membership, capacity and student projections that may affect School Capital Investment Plan(CIP)timing. This formal annual report will be forthcoming to all of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners each year as new information is available. This updated information is used in the schools capital needs process of the Capital Investment Plan(Process 1) and within elements of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) spreadsheet system (Process 2). This report and any comments from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance partners will be considered in the first half of each year by the Board of County Commissioners at a regular or special meeting. The various elements of the report are then"certified" and formally considered in the process of the upcoming Capital Investment Plan. The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools system is updated after November 15 when data is received from the school districts with actual membership and pre-certified capacity(i.e. CIP capacity or prior "joint action" capacity changes). The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Memorandum of Understanding have dynamic aspects. The derivation of the baseline and update to the variables will continue in the future as a variety of school related issues are fine-tuned by technical and policy groups. The primary facet of this report includes the creation of mathematical projections for student memberships by school levels (Elementary, Middle and High) and by School Districts (Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County). This information is found in Section II, Subsections B, C, D, and E. In summary, this report serves as an update to the dynamic conditions of student membership and school capacity which affect future projected needs considered in Capital Investment Planning. Interested parties may make their comments known to the Board of County Commissioners prior to their review of the report and school CIP completion or ask questions of the SAPFOTAC members. vi 15 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Partners ANNUAL REPORT AS OUTLINED IN Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding (SAPFO MOU) SECTION ld RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE PARTNERS Chapel HiWCarrboro School District Orange County School District SAPFO SAPFO AM Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Carrboro Board of Aldermen Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Chapel Hill Town Council Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board Orange County School Board vii 16 Planning Directors/School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee (aka SAPFOTAC) Town of Carrboro Trish McGuire, Planning Director 301 West Main Street Carrboro,NC 27510 Town of Chapel Hill Ben Hitchings, Planning and Development Services Director 405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Town of Hillsborough Margaret Hauth, Planning Director P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Orange County Planning Department Craig Benedict, Planning Director Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner Gary Donaldson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services 131 W. Margaret Lane P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Orange County School District Todd Wirt, Superintendent 200 E. King Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District Patrick Abele,Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Catherine Mau, Coordinator of Student Enrollment 750 Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 2751 viii 17 I. Base Memorandum of Understanding A. Level of Service 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—Change can only be effectuated by amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all SAPFO partners. 2. Definition —Level of Service (LOS) means the amount(level) of students that can be accommodated (serviced) at a certain school system grade group [i.e., Elementary level(K-5), Middle Level (6-8), High School Level (9-12)]. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Elementary Middle High School Elementary Middle High School 105% 107% 110% 105% 107% 110% 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District These standards are acceptable at this time. These standards are acceptable at this time. 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District No change from above standard. No change from above standard. 1 18 Section I B. Building Capacity and Membership 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC)will receive requested changes that are CIP related and adopted in the prior year. CIP capacity changes will be updated along with actual membership received in November of each year. Other changes will be sent to a `Joint Action Committee' of the BOCC and Board of Education, as noted in the MOU, who will make recommendations and forward changes (on the specific forms with justification) to the full Board of County Commissioners for review and action. These non- CIP changes would be updated in the upcoming November CAPS system recalibration and included in the SAPFOTAC report. 2. Definition — "For purposes of this Memorandum, "building capacity" will be determined by reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines (consistent with CIP School Construction Guidelines/policies developed by the School District and the Board of County Commissioners) and will be determined by a joint action of the School Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. As used herein the term "building capacity" refers to permanent buildings. Mobile classrooms and other temporary student accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent buildings and may not be counted in determining the school districts building capacity." 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The original certified capacity for each of the The original certified capacity for each of the schools was certified by the respective schools was certified by the respective superintendent and incorporated in the superintendent and incorporated in the initialization of the CAPS system (Chapel Hill initialization of the CAPS system(Orange County Carrboro School District April 29, 2002 - Base) School District April 30, 2002 - Base) Capacity changes were made each year as follows: Capacity changes were made each year as follows: 2003: Increase of 619 at Rashkis Elementary. 2003: No net increase in capacity at Elementary 2004: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High level. No changes at Middle School level. School levels. Increase of 1,000 at Cedar Ridge High School. 2005: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2004: No net increase in capacity at Elementary 2 19 Section I School levels. level. No changes at Middle or High School 2006: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High levels. School levels. 2005: An increase incapacity of 100 at 2007: An increase of 800 at the High School level Hillsborough Elementary with the completion of with the opening of Carrboro High School. renovations. 2008: An increase of 323 at the Elementary 2006: An increase in capacity of 700 at the School level due to the opening of Morris Grove Middle School level with the completion of Elementary School and the implementation of the Gravelly Hill Middle School and an increase of 15 1:21 class size ratio in grades K-3 at the High School level with the temporary 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High location of Partnership Academy Alternative School levels. School. An increase of 2 at the Elementary level 2010: An increase in capacity of 40 students at the due to a change in the capacity calculation for each High School level with Phoenix Academy High grade at each school. School becoming official high school within the 2007: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High district School levels. 2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2008: A decrease of 228 at the Elementary School School levels. level due to the implementation of the 1:21 class 2012: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High size ratio in grades K-3 and an increase of 25 at the School levels. High School level with the completion of the new 2013: An increase in capacity of 585 students due Partnership Academy Alternative School. to the opening of Northside Elementary School. 2009: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2014: An increase in capacity of 104 students due School levels. to the opening of the Culbreth Middle School 2010: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High addition. School levels. 2015: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2011: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. School levels. 2016: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 2012: No changes at Elementary or Middle School School levels. levels. A decrease of 119 at High School level as a 2017: A decrease in capacity of 165 students due result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction to the implementation of the 1:20 class size ratio in (DPI) study. grades K-3. 2013: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High 3 20 Section I 2018: No changes at Elementary, Middle or High School levels. School levels. 2014: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2015: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2016: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School levels. 2017: A decrease in capacity of 333 students due to the implementation of the 1:20 class size ratio in grades K-3. 2018: No changes at Elementary, Middle, or High School Level. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a The Schools Facilities Task Force developed a system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to system to calculate capacity. Any changes year to year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by year will be monitored, reviewed, and recorded by the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to the SAPFOTAC on approved forms distributed to SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by SAPFO partners and certified upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners each year. the Board of County Commissioners each year. The requested 2018-19 capacity is noted on The requested 2018-19 capacity is noted on Attachment I.B.4 Attachment I.B.3 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported Accept school capacities at all levels, as reported by CHCCS and shown in Attachment LB.4. by OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3. 4 21 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,& High) (2017-18) (Page 1 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year. November 15,2017-November 14,2018 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2017 School T'evt Requested Requesled Requested Requested Requested Foolnotv 4 Membership Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Cameron Park 70,812 565 565 565 565 502 617 Central 52,492 455 455 455 455 428 268 Efland Cheeks 64,316 497 497 497 497 455 411 Grady Brown 74,016 544 544 544 544 490 463 Hillsborough 51,106 471 471 471 471 420 451 New Hope 100,164 586 586 586 586 526 594 Pathways 85,282 576 576 576 576 540 379 Total 498,188 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,361 ,183 Special Note(s): 1.For the November 15,2002 bast 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 CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification.- Reduction in class sizes in grades K-3 due to Legislative requirements under Mouse Bill 13. Capacity Certification: Superintendent Date BC Chair Date Membership Certification: Vt 3 V i ] ---- Sup rintendent Date BOCC Chai Date 5 22 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2017-18) (Page 2 of 3) Schoolr Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year:November 15,2017-November 14,2018 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date; November 15,2017 I School Feet Req U ested Requested Requested Requested Requested Foubiote 0 Membership Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity A.L.Stanback 136,000 740 740 740 740 740 638 C.W.Stanford 107,620 726 726 726 726 726 630 Gravelly Hill 123,000 700 700 700 700 700 462 Total 1 366,6201 2,1661 2,1661 2,166 '2,1661 2,166 1,730 Special Note(s): 1,For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Represcntalive 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 SOCC, Justification: Capacity Certl ication: 1A III ' Su erintendent mate jB'0CIChair Date Membership Certification; Supillbrintendent Date BOCC Ch ' Date 6 23 Section I Attachment I.B.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2017-18) (Page 3 of 3) Schoolr Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2017-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: Noveirthcr 15,2017 I High aRequested Feet Capacity Capacity Capacity calpacily Capacity Orange 213,509 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,286 Cedar Ridge 206,900 1,000 1,001) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,116 Partnership 6,600 40 40 40 40 40 43 Total 1 427,009 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 12,445 Special Note(s): I.For the November 15,2002 hasc}ear the hoard accepted the superinlendem-certified capacities as part of the School facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.2.The 2012-2013 capacity numhers for Orange High School(1,399)is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012, Justification: Capacity Certification: S peril n� Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Ce ification: t, I't S erintendent Date BOCC Chair YDate 7 24 Section I Attachment LB.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2017-18) (Page 1 of 3) School • Capacity, School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2017-November 14,2018 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2017 Elementary Square 1 , 2017-2018 justification Membership School Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school Carrboro 60,832 533 533 533 533 51.8 1 490 Ephesus 66,952 448 448 448 448 436 396 Estes Hills 56,299 527 527 527 527 516 490 Glenwood 50,764 423 538 423 423 412 507 FP Graham 66,689 538 423. 538 538 522 597 McDougle 98,000 564 564 564 564 548 531 Rashkis 95,729 585 585 585 585 568 473 Srroggs 90,980 575 585 575 $75 $58 501 Senwell 52,896 466 585 466 466 450 541 Morris Grove 90,221 585 575 585 585 568 542 Northside 99,500 585 466 585 585 568 454 Total 828,862 5,829 .5,8291 5,829 5,8291 5,664 5,522 Special Note(s):1.For the November 15,2002 base year the Hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities 'Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CT or(2)an amended version of this form that is ecrtificd by the BOCC. Justification: 1 New class sizes mandated by HB 13 result in a loss of 165 elementary seats. Capacity Certification: Superintendent Date B CC Ch ' Date Membership Certification: Ir/z7/t-7 C Superintendent Date Chair Date 8 25 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2017-18) (Page 2 of 3) School • Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2017-November 14,2018 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2017 Middle SchoGI Feet Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested (referenced Capacity Capacity enpacity Capacity Capacity school 1en I-) Culbreth 122,467 670 774 774 774 774 G89 MO'Dougie 136,221 732 732 732 732 732 654 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 706 670 Smith 128,764 732 732 732 732 732 820 Total 1 496,9501 2,8401 2,9441 2,9441 2,9441 2,9441 f2,833 Special Note(s): 1, 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 roan that is certified by the BOCC, Justification: Capacity Certification: Superintendent Date BOCC Char Date Membership Certification: 1_O --- 1112--7)t L Superintendent Date BOCC chatv Date 9 26 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2017-18) (Page 3 of 3) School • Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2017-November l4,2018 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2017 Iligh School Feet ReqUestetl Requested Requested Ruquested Requested I�Ijotnflie 0 (referenced calincity Capacity Cripacity Capacity Capacity school yeal). Chapel Hill 241,111 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,563 Fast Chapel Hill 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,464 Carrboro 148,023 800 800 800 800 800 861 Phoenix Aead. 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 39 Total 1 654,210 3,8751 3,8751 3,8751 3,8751 3,8751 1 3,927 Special Note(s): I. For the November 15,2002 base year the Hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification, Capacity Certification: 112 Superintendent Date BOCC Ch r Date Membership Certification: t � llfz7�j7 � Superintendent Date BOCC Cf lr Date 10 27 Section I Attachment LB.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2018-19) (Page 1 of 3) School • Capacity, School District: orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2018 1 l i 1 I I I or Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Membership Schl Feet Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Footnote Cameron Park 70,812 565 565 565 502 502 597 Central 52,492 455 455 455 428 428 267 Eland Cheeks 64,316 497 497 497 455 455 467 Grady Brown 74,016 544 544 544 490 490 462 Hillsborough 51,106 471 471 471 420 420 435 New Hope 100,164 586 586 586 526 526 589 Pathways 85,282 576 576 576 540 5411 388 Total 498,188 3,6941 3,694 3,694 3,361 3,361 3,205 Special Note(s): 1,For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: 1R-lb-l8' r S perintendent Date . CCC Chair Date Members``h��i��Certif!cation: Q�'aU��' . D 1 Su ermtendent ate OCC Ch I Date 11 28 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2018-19) (Page 2 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPPO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date, November 15,2018 Middle Square I i I I i I I2018-2019 Justification RequestedSchool Feet Requested Requested Requested Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity A1,Stanback 136,000 740 740 740 740 740 649 C.W.Stanford 107,620 726 726 726 726 726 649 Gravelly Hill 123,000 700 700 700 700 700 481 Total 1 366,6201 2,1661 2,166 2,166 2,1661 2,1661 1 1,779 Special Note($): 1.For the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report, These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CEP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC, Justification: Capacity Certification: 1--1G4 Sup rintendent Date BCtCC Chair hate Membership Certification: f�- IL_,� L[ty its Su erintendent Date q0CC Chair Date 12 29 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2018-19) (Page 3 of 3) School r •- Capacity, 1 fandChangeRequestForm School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2018 (I U'l re 2014-2015 I I2018-2019 RequestedHigh School 1"cul Requested Requested Requested Requested I'VICIIII)tt-shill calwity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Orange 213,509 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,290 Cedar Ridge 206,900 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,018 Partnership 6,600 40 40 40 40 40 41 Total 1 427,0091 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 2,349 Special Note(s):1.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 CTP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the EOCC.2.The 2012-2013 capacity numbers for Orange High School(1,399)is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012. Justification: Capacity Certification: —d, _ t1 116 lI / SupAbrintendert Date B C hair I Date Membership Certification- * (6 IL �N 1 0 q ndent Date B CC Chair I Date 13 30 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2018-19) (Page 1 of 3) School i Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFQ CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2019 SchoolSchool Feet RequeNted RecIoested Requested Requested Requested FOONOO 0 (1-cferetwed Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Carrboro 60,832 533 533 533 518 51$ 487 Ephesus 66,952 448 448 448 436. 436 440 Estes Hills 56,299 527 527 527 516 516 473 Glenwood 90,764 423 $38 423 412 412 484 FP Graham 66,689 538 423 538 522 522 615 McDougle 98,000 564 564 564 548 548 540 Rashids 95,729 585 585 585 568 568 454 Scroggs 90,980 575 585 575 558 558 470 $eawell 52,896 466 585 466 450 450 563 Morris Grove 90,221 585 575 . 585 568 568 355 Northsirle 99,500 585 466 585 568 568 450 Total 1 828,862 .5,829 .5,8291 s,8291 5,6641 5,6641 5,471 Special Note(a).I.For the November 15,2002 base year the Board accepted the superimcndent•certiried capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changcd by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that Is certified by the BOCC. Justification- Capacity Certification: r i asp, �$ Superintendent ate B C hair Date Membership Certification: Superintendent Date BOCC.Chair at 14 31 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2018-19) (Page 2 of 3) School • Capacity, Membership School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAiPFO CAiPS Year: November 15,2019-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2018 Square I I I I Middle Sellool Feet Requested Req uested Requested Requested Requested (referen Ceti— Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity schouilyear) Culbreth. 122,467 670 774 774 774 774 736 McDougle 136,221 732 732 732 732 732 683 Phillips 109,498 706 706 706 706 . 706 654 Smith 128,764 732 732 732 732 " 732 860 Total 446,950.: -2,840 2,944 2,9441 2,9441. 2,944 2,933 Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15,2002 base year the Board accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: POAI AA A Superintendent Date B CC Chair Date M mbership Certification: Superintendent Date Chair Date 15 32 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2018-19) (Page 3 of 3) School School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,20I8 i I E i t r . High School Feet Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Vontuote hf (refel-enced Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity capacity school year) Chapel dill . 241,111 : 1,S20 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 .1,527 East Chapel All 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,403 Carrboro 148,023 900 . 800 800 800 800 877 Phoenix Acad. .. 5,207 40 A -40 .40 40 35 Total 654,2101 3,87.5 3,875. 3,875 3,875 .3,8751 1 3,932 Special Note(s): 1. For the November 15,2002 base year the Hoard accepted the superintendent-certified capacities as part afthe School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Cammittee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: �L;L&S� i 1 12-,�e Superintendent Date B Chair Date Membership Certification: L ldzii'hy LA / Superintendent Date WW Chaif Date 16 33 Section II C. Membership Date 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—Change can be effectuated only by amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by all SAPFO partners. The Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) may advise if a change in date would improve the reporting or timeliness of the report. 2. Definition —The date at which student membership is calculated. This date is updated each year and also serves as the basis for projections along with the history from previous years. "For purposes of this Memorandum, the term "school membership" means the actual number of students attending school as of November 15 of each year. The figure is determined by considering the number of students enrolled(i.e. registered, regardless of whether a student is no longer attending school) and making adjustments for withdrawals, dropouts, deaths, retentions and promotions. Students who are merely absent from class on the date membership is determined as a result of sickness or some other temporary reason are included in school membership figures. Each year the School District shall transmit its school membership to the parties to this agreement no later than five (5) school days after November 15. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District November 15 of each year November 15 of each year 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: This will be analyzed in the future years to determine if it is an exemplary date. 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District No change at this time. No change at this time. 17 34 Section H II. Annual Update to Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance System A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) after review of the CIP requests from the School Districts. Action regarding CIP programs usually occurs during the BOCC budget Public Hearing process in the winter and spring of each year. The development of the CIP considers the conditions noted in the SAPFOTAC report released in the same CIP development year including LOS (level of service), capacity, and membership projections. 2. Definition —The process and resultant program to determine school needs and provide funding for new school facilities through a variety of funding mechanisms. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: The MOU outlines a system of implementing the SAPFO, including issuing Certificates of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)to new development if capacity is available. The Requests for CAPS will be evaluated using the most recently adopted Capital Investment Plan. A new Capital Investment Plan is currently under development for approval prior to June 30, 2019. 5. Recommendation: Not subject to staff review 18 35 Section H B. Student Membership Projection Methodology 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—This section is reviewed and recommended by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC)to the BOCC for change, if necessary. 2. Definition —The method(s)by which student memberships are calculated for future years to determine total membership at each combined school level (Elementary, Middle, and High School)which take into consideration historical membership totals at a specific time (November 15) in the school year. These methods are also known as `models'. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Presently, the average of five models is being used: namely 3, 5, and 10 year history/cohort survival methods, Orange County Planning Department Linear Wave, and Tischler Linear methods. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Performance of the models is monitored each year. The value of a projection model is in its prediction of school level capacities at least three years in advance of capacity shortfalls so the annual Capital Investment Plan(CIP)updates can respond proactively with siting, design, and construction. Attachment II.B.1 includes a description of each model. Attachment II.B.3 shows the performance of the models for the 2018-19 school year from the prior year projection. 5. Recommendation: More than fifteen years of projection results are now available. Analysis on the accuracy of the results is showing that some models have better results in one district while others have better results in the other district. The historic growth rate is recorded by the models, but projected future growth is more difficult to accurately quantify. In all areas of the county,proposed growth is not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment. The system is updated in November of each year, becoming part of the historical projection base. 19 36 Attachment II.B.I—Student Membership Projection Descriptions L 0 N [�.1 y 9 Ur N E G7 Gf E N w N y di O W N 41 w 61 N Er � L L C2 E L m c r& ar Z CS L 5 p 4g N 1V m 5 m Q •a Lu ti rn v rn rn m m N N 61 L v j U C W G G W 0 C (D a C y rn p c "a ID u C1 G u m '� o m m r...1 w m 02 = sQ m -q w ° m w ° d a ° cQ cn o 6r o rn 1° °' m m aui a€ c� > m > v E c �a�s ca c R R O m Ca C U N Q C CL Q C KL `� G Q tu C W [n R C 4) R p1 v { pr >CL 0 ell Q1 75 O .G W :E a !- � � c 12 c Lit c � y E Burl E �€u €"i as I�i' m c liom m ref a1 '- of m •-Ca crn ° v o E ¢ QO w a a o ° o f � CS a'a E > CL o 1€ G E uo a > ` ° ns 3 w } ,au o Y r m o Q c L L° z .Q + C 31 G 10i €� .F C W (L €� c � j m E a E to A C •- us L3. CO U L U7 .O N -0 N � .rC <L C � ..1C � It €I E H c II E E €� E -°' E ae m ac a Y` ai m e y cLc E a E '5 E E 'D �' E " u c a > .� c ;, -08 a€ -0c Iv n rn - 0 M EY EY E 'e y 10 E .E Q E .5 o c c > c c > c c > c L o w o c -n a1 o c L /M ,c Y as r m * N omd G 13 a Yy wLo� m LLJ + h r 21 . y n ` 4)0 a LU � ca- 'Dja 0 . X 9 Z 0 N 12 9 y Y N Fes- Q E m E E 0m � 1 E E E 0 0 Cam) ILUI um •ecr r �(D ti 4� R E --d�O L �'Dc CO w = m E o a .. OOID 0 N d E E Iyy P E E E2OUuM _ 0, - 0 > �c E "DO -S o f :5 1�w5 m_f ZE° ` ID In ar o m ytoUJ IDo a yR > > m v L 91,o L C1 E ° U Q h rs Ck. o Chi O } } c>rs E m m a m o > 0 a 0 r� E '} a m o Q .� c 3 c 3 W 8. m = � rn c4i ID U G] LoL rn m a. 0- rz .n .c 'c .Q .c 'c L .c ca as c a o v c a. Q O yi O 0 L O LcD C > L L _ � € € o �- y cG �' c6 0- —0 (D E A C -p N U 0 /J u A c � 4 � ° E E c E E c crs E E v E C " m E E 2 Tr f E E m La 10 6 N iO iA 'D W M U 2 U 'T 61 0 8 N « Os E m E m m 2 m a id E. E m c R t m ME -> o c 2 > M a c > zn.a c cc 0 N LU c-5 9r$ U) F... D ip W u O Z Cn 'S N to CCU.) a�iU a�tU oU 007 00 LIJ —' w —� 0 1 � C) v c0cx> 0c=i n `) N o o i a CL �; o 37 Section II Attachment II.B.2 —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2017-18) (Page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2017-2018 School Year (November 15, 2017) 11/14/16 2017 Report 11/15/17 Change between actual Actual Projection for Actual Nov 2016 - Nov 2017 2016-17 2017-18 2017-18 Elementary 3293 3183 -110 Model Proiection is T 3335 H152 OCP 3329 H146 10C 3213 H30 5C 3203 H2O 3C 3188 H5 AVG 1 1 13253 IH70 11/14/16 11/15/17 Middle 1724 1730 +6 Model Protection is T 1746 H16 OCP 1744 H14 10C 1763 H33 5C 1753 H23 3C 1750 H2O AVG 1751 H21 11/14/16 11/15/17 High 2446 2445 -1 Model Projection is T 2477 H32 OCP 2476 H31 10C 2472 H27 5C 2493 H48 3C 2482 H37 AVG 1 1 12480 IH35 Totals 11/14/16 11/15/17 Elementary 3293 3183 Middle 1724 1730 High 2446 2445 7463 7358 -105 Model Projection is T 7558 H2O0 OCP 7549 H191 10C 7448 H90 5C 7449 H91 3C 7420 H62 AVG 7484 H126 H means High L means Low 21 38 Section II Attachment II.13.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2017-18) (Page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2017-2018 School Year (November 15, 2017) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • The projections were all high, ranging from 5 students to 152 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 70 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 110 students between November 15, 2016 and November 15, 2017. Middle School Level • The projections were all high, ranging from 14 students to 33 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 21 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 6 students between November 15, 2016 and November 15, 2017. High School Level • Projections were all high, ranging from 27 to 48 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 35 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 1 student between November 15, 2016 and November 15, 2017. TOTAL • The totals of all school level projections were all high, ranging from 62 to 200 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 126 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership decreased in total by 105 students, which is the sum of-110 at Elementary, +6 at Middle, and -1 at High. 22 39 Section II Attachment i1.B.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2017-18) (Page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2017-2018 School Year (November 15, 2017) 11/14/16 2017 Report 11/15/17 Change between actual Actual Projection for Actual Nov 2016- Nov 2017 2016-17 2017-18 2017-18 Elementary 5567 5522 -45 Model Projection is T 5641 H119 OCP 5632 H110 10C 5599 H77 5C 5580 H58 3C 5575 H53 AVG 1 1 15605 IH83 11/14/16 11/15/17 Middle 2829 2833 +4 Model Projection is T 2867 H34 OCP 2893 H60 10C 2844 H11 5C 2822 L11 3C 2807 L26 AVG 1 12847 IH14 11/14/16 11/15/17 High 3762 3927 +165 Model Projection is T 3812 L115 OCP 3812 L115 10C 3850 L77 5C 3848 L79 3C 3839 L88 AVG 1 1 13832 IL95 Totals 11/14/16 11/15/17 Elementary 5567 5522 Middle 2829 2833 High 3762 3927 12,158 12,282 +124 Model Projection is T 12,320 H38 OCP 12,337 H55 10C 12,293 H11 5C 12,250 L32 3C 12,221 L61 AVG 12,284 H2 H means High L means Low 23 40 Section II Attachment 11.13.2—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2017-18) (Page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2017-2018 School Year (November 15, 2017) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • Projections were all high ranging from 53 students to 119 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 83 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 45 students between November 15, 2016 and November 15, 2017. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed, ranging from 26 students below to 60 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 14 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 4 students between November 15, 2016 and November 15, 2017. High School Level • Projections were all low, ranging from 77 to 115 students below actual membership. On average, the projections were 95 students lower than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 165 students between November 15, 2016 and November 15, 2017. TOTAL • The total of all school level projections were mixed, ranging from 61 students below to 55 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 2 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership increased in total by 124 students, which is the sum of-45 at Elementary, +4 at Middle, and +165 at High. 24 41 Section II Attachment II.B.3 —Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2018-19) (Page 1 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2018-2019 School Year (November 15, 2018) 11/15/17 2018 Report 11/15/18 Change between actual Actual Projection for Actual Nov 2017 - Nov 2018 2017-18 2018-19 2018-19 Elementary 3183 3205 +22 Model Projection is T 3201 L4 OCP 3200 L5 10C 3140 L65 5C 3128 L77 3C 3139 L66 AVG 1 1 13161 1 L44 11/14/17 11/15/18 Middle 1730 1779 +49 Model Protection is T 1740 L39 OCP 1739 L40 10C 11822 H43 5C 1812 H33 3C 1814 H35 AVG 1785 H6 11/14/17 11/15/18 High 2445 2349 -96 Model Projection is T 2458 H109 OCP 2460 H111 10C 2354 H5 5C 2368 H19 3C 2340 L9 AVG 1 1 12396 IH47 Totals 11/14/17 11/15/18 Elementary 3183 3205 Middle 1730 1779 High 2445 2349 7358 7333 -25 Model Projection is T 7399 H66 OCP 7399 H66 10C 7316 L17 5C 7308 L25 3C 7293 L40 AVG 7342 H9 H means High L means Low 25 42 Section II Attachment II.13.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2018-19) (Page 2 of 4) Orange County School District School Membership 2018-2019 School Year (November 15, 2018) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • The projections were all low, ranging from 4 students to 77 students below actual membership. On average, the projections were 44 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 22 students between November 16, 2017 and November 15, 2018. Middle School Level • Projections were mixed, ranging from 40 students below to 43 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 6 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually increased by 49 students between November 16, 2017 and November 15, 2018. High School Level • The majority of projections were high, ranging from 5 students to 111 students above actual membership. One projection was 9 students below actual membership. On average, the projections were 47 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership actually decreased by 96 students between November 16, 2017 and November 15, 2018. TOTAL • The totals of all school level projections were mixed, ranging from 40 students below to 66 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 9 students higher than the actual membership. • The membership decreased in total by 25 students, which is the sum of+22 at Elementary, +49 at Middle, and -96 at High. 26 43 Section II Attachment II.B.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis(2018-19) (Page 3 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2018-2019 School Year (November 15, 2018) 11/15/17 2018 Report 11/15/18 Change between actual Actual Projection for Actual Nov 2017 - Nov 2018 2017-18 2018-19 2018-19 Elementary 5522 5471 -51 Model Projection is T 5556 H85 OCP 5541 H70 10C 5496 H25 5C 5475 H4 3C 5479 H8 AVG 1 1 15509 IH38 11/14/17 11/15/18 Middle 2833 2933 + 100 Model Protection is T 2850 L83 OCP 2848 L85 10C 2926 L7 5C 2907 L26 3C 2915 L18 AVG 1 12889 IL44 11/14/17 11/15/18 High 3927 3932 +5 Model Projection is T 3951 H19 OCP 3938 H6 10C 3884 L48 5C 3889 L43 3C 3912 L20 AVG 1 1 13915 L17 Totals 11/14/17 11/15/18 Elementary 5522 5471 Middle 2833 2933 High 3927 3932 12,282 12,336 + 54 Model Projection is T 12,357 H21 OCP 12,327 L9 10C 12,306 L30 5C 12,271 L65 3C 12,306 L30 AVG 12,313 L23 H means High L means Low 27 44 Section II Attachment II.13.3—Student Membership Projection Models Performance Analysis (2018-19) (Page 4 of 4) Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District School Membership 2018-2019 School Year (November 15, 2018) Statistical Findings PROJECTION TYPE ABBREVIATIONS `TISCHLER' LINEAR (T) 10-YEAR COHORT (10C) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING (OCP) 5-YEAR COHORT (5C) 3-YEAR COHORT 3C Elementary School Level • Projections were all high ranging from 4 students to 85 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 38 students higher than the actual membership. • The actual membership decreased by 51 students between November 16, 2017 and November 15, 2018. Middle School Level • Projections were all low, ranging from 7 students to 85 students below actual membership. On average, the projections were 44 students lower than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 100 students between November 16, 2017 and November 15, 2018. High School Level • Projections were mixed, ranging from 48 students below to 19 students above actual membership. On average, the projections were 17 students lower than the actual membership. • The actual membership increased by 5 students between November 16, 2017 and November 15, 2018. TOTAL • The majority of all school level projections were low, ranging from 9 students to 65 students below actual membership. One projection was 21 students above the actual membership. On average, the projections were 23 students lower than the actual membership. • The membership increased in total by 54 students, which is the sum of-51 at Elementary, +100 at Middle, and +5 at High. 28 45 Section II C. Student Membership Projections 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for annual report certifications. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition —The result of the average of the five student projection models represented by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level (Elementary, Middle, and High) for each school district (Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School District and Orange County School District). 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill Carrboro School District Orange County School District The 5 model average discussed in Section The 5 model average discussed in Section II.B (Student Projection Methodology) II.B (Student Projection Methodology) See Attachment II.C.4 See Attachment II.C.3 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show a decrease at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools' elementary school level and at the Orange County Schools' high school level. The attachments show an increase at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools' middle and high school levels and Orange County Schools' elementary and middle school levels. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools and Orange County Schools projected average annual growth rates have all decreased since the previous year. The projected annual growth rates show positive growth for all three levels in the 10-year projection period. Attachment II.C.3 and Attachment II.C.4 show year by year percent growth and projected level of service (LOS). The projection models were updated using current(November 15, 2018) memberships. Ten years of student membership were projected thereafter. 29 46 Seetion II Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Elementary The previous year(2017-18)projections for November 2018 at this level were overestimated by 38 students. The actual membership decreased by 51 students. Over the previous ten years, this level has shown varying increases in growth rates including a decrease in actual membership in 2009-10 which was most likely due to the shorter enrollment period caused by the institution of the new date requiring kindergarteners to be five years old. Following that dip, membership numbers experienced an increase each year with a significant jump (168 students) in 2011-12 before experiencing a decrease in 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18, and this school year. Growth rates during the past ten years have ranged from -1.57% to+3.17%. The district's eleventh elementary school,Northside Elementary School, opened in 2013. Capacity was decreased in 2017-18 due to changes in class size averages for kindergarten to third grade by the North Carolina State Legislature. The need for an additional elementary school is not anticipated in the 10-year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre-K programs continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre-K programs exist. Specific impacts of Pre-K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed and discussed in the coming year. Middle The previous year(2017-18)projections for November 2018 for this level were underestimated by 44 students. The actual membership increased by 100 students. Over the previous ten years, this level has shown varying increases before experiencing a decrease in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Growth rates during this time period have ranged from -0.59%to+2.86%. Capacity was increased in 2014 with the opening of the Culbreth Middle School science wing. The need for an additional middle school is not anticipated in the 10-year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. High School The previous year(2017-18)projections for November 2018 for this level were underestimated by 17 students. The actual membership increased by 5 students. Over the previous ten years, change has been variable with decreases in membership in five of the ten years. Growth rates 30 47 Section II during this time period have ranged from -0.90 to +4.39%. The need for additional high school capacity at Carrboro High School is not anticipated in the 10-year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. Due to renovations to Chapel Hill High School, this level will experience an increase in capacity of 105 seats for the 2020-21 school year. Additional Information for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Following the economic downturn, there has been an increase in residential projects, specifically multifamily development, in the Town of Chapel Hill. Currently, there are over four thousand proposed single family and multifamily housing units approved, but undeveloped in the CHCCS district. As previously stated, proposed growth is not included in the SAPFO projection system until actual students begin enrollment. The CAPS test is conducted during the approval process at a certain stage. Once students are enrolled in a school year, through annual reporting of student membership numbers, 10-year student projections can be updated to display future capacity needs in time to efficiently plan for future school construction requests. Staff and the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will continue to monitor and evaluate the demand and growth of residential development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as its effect on student membership rates. Charter schools are not included as part of the SAPFO Annual Report and, as a result, their membership and capacity numbers are not monitored or included in future projections. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter schools and their effect on student enrollment at both school districts. If a charter school does close and a spike is realized in school enrollment, the student projections will likely accelerate the need in future years, still within an appropriate time for CIP planning. Charter Schools are additionally monitored by the Department of Public Institution (DPI) which provides pupil information, based on data received from Charter Schools located in Orange County, to the County for funding purposes. Orange County School District Elementary The previous year(2017-18)projections for November 2018 at this level were underestimated by 44 students. Actual membership increased by 22 students. Over the previous ten years, this level experienced positive growth before experiencing decreases in 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -5.07% to+2.30%. In the Orange County 31 48 Section II school system, historic growth is more closely related to new residential development than in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District, which has a sizeable number of new families in older, existing housing stock. Capacity was decreased in 2017-18 due to changes in class size averages for kindergarten to third grade by the North Carolina State Legislature. The need for an additional Elementary School is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre-K programs continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre-K programs exist. Specific impacts of Pre-K programs at the elementary school level will continue to be reviewed and discussed in the coming year. Middle The previous year(2017-18)projections for November 2018 for this level were overestimated by 6 students. The actual membership increased by 49 students. Over the previous ten years, growth has varied widely and includes decreases in student membership in four of the ten years. Growth rates during this period have ranged from -2.20%to+4.00%. The district's third Middle School, Gravelly Hill Middle School, opened in October 2006. The need for an additional Middle School is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. This is similar to last year's projections. High School The previous year(2017-18)projections for November 2018 for this level were overestimated by 47 students. The actual membership decreased by 96 students. Over the previous ten years, growth has varied and includes decreases for the last three school years and this year. Growth rates during this period ranged from -1.32%to 4.58%. In 2011-12 student membership increased by 32 while capacity decreased by 199 at Orange County High School as a result of a N.C. Department of Public Instruction(DPI) study. Similar to last year's projections, the need for additional capacity at Cedar Ridge High School is not anticipated in the 10 year projection period. However, to address public safety concerns with the current high school capacity exceeding the 100%threshold, Orange County Schools is in preliminary planning stages to expand Cedar Ridge High School from initial capacity of 1,000 students to1,500 students for the 2021-22 school year. 32 49 Section II Additional Information for Orange County School District The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange County portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, the City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not require that CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools)be issued prior to development approvals. Following the economic downtown, there has been a slight increase in approved and undeveloped residential development in the City of Mebane and the Town of Hillsborough. Currently, there are over one thousand proposed single family and multifamily housing units approved,but undeveloped in the City of Mebane and the Town of Hillsborough. The residential growth that has occurred in the recent past within Mebane's and Hillsborough's jurisdiction has yet to be seen with OCS student membership numbers and fully realized into the historically based projection methods due to the recession, charter schools, and possibly new family dynamics effecting family size. Staff and the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee will need to continue monitoring and evaluating the demand and growth of residential development in Mebane and Hillsborough as well as its effect on student membership rates. Currently, there are two Charter Schools located in the Town of Hillsborough. Eno River Academy(K-12) serves 655 students and The Expedition School (K-8) serves 355 students. Both of these charter schools continue to have an effect on OCS membership numbers. Charter schools are not included as part of the SAPFO Annual Report and, as a result, their membership and capacity are not monitored or included in future projections. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter schools and their effect on student enrollment at both school districts. If a charter school were to close and a spike were to be realized in school enrollment, the student projections will likely accelerate the need for additional capacity in future years, still within an appropriate time for CIP planning. Charter Schools are also monitored by the Department of Public Institution (DPI)which provides pupil information,based on data received from Charter Schools located in Orange County, to the County for funding purposes. 5. Recommendation: Use statistics as noted in 3 above 33 SIEI�1 I� CIE��i MIONISSli111111311lI B l9EI�i 16 ill��i I ��� I EI 1■ B 1 i�� !f ��I 51 Section II Attachment II.C.2—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2017-18) 99 K.� m $ a §99 ry a � pff� g �� n � Ep R"' % 6; q �•^ of r d- e9 8 L s gg § d pgq E § 8g8g � 4 1 k e $ e s : a r.6 GE E m I a '� 3`S �e � aa zsev — d3z5� 4�G� � ae 35 52 Section II Attachment II.C.3—Orange County Student Projections (Elementary,Middle,&High) (2018-19) A� mar F �5 t � g � Ii$4 g3�R$o g�5 F �222 1kI t $e� rLa �s O w moo.-'maa` ae�s O 2 ,=or oz.za ___ O i ,-off can zt za aa � 36 53 Section II Attachment II.C.4—Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2018-19) M 1 l � � 1 :1-; L R m R b 8: id R a o n = 4 9 3 G d n a i 1t - 1 i9 iR � jEm � E � W d 9 65 co ee� 37 54 Section II D. Student Membership Growth Rate 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) each year and referred to the BOCC for annual report certification. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition —The annual percentage growth rate calculated from the projections resulting from the average of the five models represented by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level for each school district. This does not represent the year-by- year growth rate that may be positive or negative,but rather the average of the annual anticipated growth rates over the next 10 years. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment ILD.2 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The membership figures and percentage growth on the The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued growth at each school level attachments show continued growth at each school level within the system. within the system. Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next ten years: ten years: Year Projection 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- Year Projection 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- Made: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Made: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Elementary 1.11% 0.92% 0.91% 0.36% 0.56% Elementary 0.55% 0.80% 0.51% 0.58% 0.91% Middle 1.15% 0.82% 0.95% 0.21% 0.19% Middle 0.09% 0.67% 0.36% 0.13% 0.28% High 1.22% 0.93% 0.72% 0% 0.16% High 0.39% 0.56% 0.22% -0.10% 0.21% 5. Recommendation: Recommendation: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Use statistics as noted. Use statistics as noted. 38 55 Section II Attachment II.D.1 —Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2018-2028 based on 11/15/17 membership numbers) (2017-18) a N ae ce oo m m ao *� o Imo o Cno (ho o C-4 o No o NC 0 N CD N V N N M N N p N m co N N O Qrn r� ti� ti aD co N M p r p N N p ry L n p N N p N M O 0 00 o Mo o (Oo o Mo o co 0 0 M O r 0 N O O a N O M r N N N N N N O o O o O C4 o O o N N O N CO N V N V CO N O M W t� N V'Lq A Cfl co k4 oc N k O Lr7 p G N O v V 0 N N N YI N N N G ..ww e4 O LA "I YI O 00 p O M LO = o O M C O 0 o O 0 o N � d N (D CN N V� }� N LQ c N cc r N O 0? � NCO � [ON � V N (, � �c0 � COM � DM M p No r O ? N r o I!i O N O S O W CO c O o O o AO O o C Mo O o •O eV N co o CO �y N �fJ CO ru rD lf� N N O ,rJS� _ V it] e.13, w cn o r L o M'o o Nr -W L6a a NO pro /= N m ' oN coccoo N � N $11 0o N m N °N° ` W N CV � N N M !N N O o M O o o N r N a O o N r o Q N N N N N N N e 00 a rno a vo O e W N 6J m N [J N ti Q T N M M M I�CV ,�, V N W O M O o o N O L o O o N O q M O N N N L N N N (� O O co o O O o O o o `/ O M o N c Nco O V a r° o o 1-0 d v� _\ d vQ c rnc�v d wo W !V N N N N N Cft r O © O © O O •Y N t(7 In N (�o N N M�- N CO CO O �, N ^ Li? C\ CoV Co d Ci V 9; C9 ^ M p M,CD O ra o NO o u�0 a Nr O MC] N N N N N N s 0 0 o LDo o Lpo V 6 O?o © Oo n Ltio N CO co N MM N CTir N OM N 00 co N ,b r-0 06 r-r � Mo 26 USN 06 mrn 96 MC'� p MO C r�-j O NN p Ln0 p Nr p MO N N N N N N 00 00_ 00 00 00 00 N M N f O N M N ° N N MM N N i07 coLo a CO M o �sM se tF1 c AN � tSM N N N N N N N d] N N d] L Lei L L Ili Lei +O v pq Uf v v Ln bA N v [n to z ¢ n z d 2 rig d w vx 39 56 Section II Attachment H.D.2—Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Growth Rates (Chart dates from 2019-2029 based on 11/15/18 membership numbers) (2018-19) 0 N i pp a a a a a a rl o mo b" I--o b" I-- o b" I-- o b" mo = Loo o N 00 N N O N W CO N co N CO (O N OO N x L() V- oo cc co oc (' V oo r I— M O co M O) co o co O O O o N O o LO O o N O O (O O N N N N N N 00 NWN 0N0 0N0 0N0 0NN0 N CD O �_o O (O o O LO o O N o O (0 0 N Co N O) N CO O N t co N O co N co CO L� V CO CO CO C) I- r r� CD r O) L() o CO C:) CD b'' N� s' LO o b'' Np s' V) C? N N N N N N o N o o LD o (oo o Oo o Oo o r o N LD (`') N M O N V N N O C) N CO V N O r- 'D V Co b O 'D 00 r- b V- CO z M N b O N o O O o �(N o NO o LOO Yl O o O cc)-I co o G 0 o N N O N LO LO N (O V N LON O V N LD V O V1 V Co Lf �_O kh C) — (fl CO O O O N o (O O o o N C o LO O c N O c V O O L() o O M o O O o AAO O (O o O LO o G CO o •� N O N N co N CO IW N O O) N O N (fl V (O c0 r-O ('') N 4 (O co ON O V L c (j O c O Np N C:? 0 LSD p c N p Np V O a N N N =w' N N N W 7 7 7 i p N 4 N rn v N L i m N 0) N N � ' yr N C) N O N C) NLOO N c0 LO N O N o C6 O O N G Ld G N G V Oo O Cfl o O CO N N N O N N O 0 N O CO N V O N CO O Zr u �S 'I- c �S (D �S c p C) N L Ld O N O O N N N •Y N N N coo 0 0 0 co V V N I- O N C)(fl N CO N I� LC) N O CO N [O C) N Ln I--co C) V LD O (O O) N e (6 O e O Ne N O Ne Lo O Ne N O c C) O N N N N N N 0 0 R o N o O o o O V o 0 o N CO CO N Ln N co C O V CO II N N I� C N N CO N Oo N Ln O �O) O ('O O '� O V CDo CDCO O CI) O C coo o Oo o co V p coo p No p c0o N C) N O O N V LDN V N O N V O a N N a r O ai C) CZ) V V a O O) a 07 V C C) p C p N O C Lo O C N O C C) O N N N N N N N� LO .ti.. O " O) " " CO ti N o co c) 00 N oo oo kj C) oo kj ao+Lj O o6 O ti e co C) N N N N N N cNa c`�a m m ca c`�a U U U U U U N °J U)Le) bq � p bLyqbq O Oc W z d Un d 2 ri d 40 57 Section H E. Student / Housing Generation Rate 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and referred to the BOCC for certification. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition — Student generation rate refers to the number of public school students per housing unit constructed in each school district, as defined in the Student Generation Rate Study completed by TisherBise on October 28, 2014. Housing units include single family detached, single family attached/duplex, multifamily, and manufactured homes. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.E.1 See Attachment II.E.1 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: At the January 2014 SAPFOTAC meeting, members discussed the increased number of students generated in both school districts from new development,particularly multifamily housing. The SAPFOTAC recommended further evaluation of the adopted Student Generation Rates and the impacts the number of bedrooms a particular housing type may have on student generation rates. As a result, Orange County entered into a contract with TischlerBise to update the student generation rate analysis. The new student generation rates were approved on May 19, 2015 and are shown in Attachment II.E.1. New rates from the 2014 Student Generation Rates for Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District Report are based on an inventory of recently built units from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013. It should be noted that students are generated from new housing as well as from existing housing where new families have moved in. The CAPS system estimates new development impacts and associated student generation, but it is important to understand that student increases are a composite of both of these factors. This effect can be dramatic and can vary greatly between areas and districts where either new 41 58 Section II housing is dominant or new families move into a large inventory of existing housing stock. 5. Recommendation: No change at this time. 42 59 Section I Attachment I!£j -rurmmudnGeek|g2#ae(G!q \ � / -0 % 2 F i J ! 2 \ G 2 \/ 2 6 2 6 6 6 0 2 6 2 k k k k § k k § k 2 § CD k 2 0 \ \ § ID ■ m � g � / 2 + C + C t © 2 © } 0 c U % Q \ 0 E E k / E E \ k 0 0 7 k \ \ \ 0 \ k 2 k k 0 O k I o o 0 0 § o d o o / \ m \ U + 0 0 + & 2 ' U 2 j a ƒ E E k 0 2 E k \ q 2 § _ ® § § \ /= o 2 \ 2 / / � 2 / 2 \ / \ � m m � � m m \ 9 C k 9 C 2 o 0 0 0 [ ■ § g v U { a E -k J E CID2 f � k a f � E E 2 2 LL U- 2 2 E E M Cn Z, � co 43 60 Section III III. Flowchart of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process Abstract: The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance process has two distinct components: A. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Process 1) Timeframe: In November of each year, Student Membership and Building Capacity is transmitted from the school districts to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for consideration and approval and used in the following years CIP (e.g. November 15, 2018 membership numbers used to develop a CIP to be considered for adoption in June 2019). Process Framework 1. SAPFOTAC projects future student membership from historical data, current membership and hypothetical growth rates from established methodologies. 2. School Districts and BOCC compare projections to existing capacity and proposed Capital Investment Plan. 3. SAPFOTAC forwards data and projections to all SAPFO partners. 4. School Districts develop Capital Investment Plan Needs Assessment during this process 5. The Capital Investment Plan work sessions and Public Hearings are conducted by the BOCC in the spring of each year. 6. The adoption of CIP that sets forth monies and timeframe for school construction (future capacity)by BOCC. 44 61 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) 1 Schools) T � y Actual Adjustments (Current Year Actual Replaces Past Year Membership Projection) y i b 0 rA rA '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) 0 ZThe only part of the CAPS System(i.e., computer spreadsheet subdivision tracking)that receives data from the Process 1 CIP includes the actual c membership (November 15 of preceding CIP year)and new school capacity amount(seats)in a specific year pursuant to the CIP. 45 62 Section III B. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Update (Process 2) Timeframe: The CAPS system is updated approximately November 15 of each year when the school districts report actual membership and `pre-certified' capacity, whether it is CIP associated or prior `joint action' agreement. `Joint action' determinations of changes in capacity due to State rules or other non-construction related items are anticipated to be done prior to the November 15 capacity and membership reporting date. This update may reflect the Board of County Commissioners action on the earlier year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as it affects capacity and addition of new actual fall membership. The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) stays in effect until the following year —(e.g.: November 15, 2005 to November 14, 2006). New development is originally logged for a certain year. As the CAPS system is updated, each CAPS projection year is `absorbed' by the actual estimate of a given year. Later year CAPS projections of the same development remain in the future year CAPS system accordingly. For example, if a 50-lot subdivision is issued a CAPS, 15 lots may be assigned to "Year 1," 10 lots to "Year 2," 10 lots to "Year 3," 10 lots to "Year 4," and 5 lots to "Year 5." When"Year 1" is updated, the students generated from the 15 lots are absorbed by the actual estimate. The students generated in"Years 2, 3, 4, and 5" are held in the CAPS system and added to the appropriate year when the CAPS system is updated. As previously noted in Section II.C, The City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO and does not require that CAPS be issued prior to approving development activities. Increasing development within this area of the county has the potential to encumber a significant portion of the available capacity within the Orange County School District. Although the SAPFO system is not formally regulated in Mebane, staff monitors development activity and when students enter the school system their enrollment is calculated and used in future school projection needs. Please note that the two processes (CIP and CAPS) are on separate, but parallel tracks. However, the CIP does create a crossover of capacity information between the two processes. 46 63 Section III For example, the SAPFO system for both school districts that will be established/initiated/ certified each year in November and is based on prior year created and/or planned CIP capacity and current school year membership. The SAPFOTAC report including new current year membership and projections are to be used for upcoming CIP development as noted in Process 1. CIP Process 1 (for CIP 2019 - 2029) November 2018—June 2019 (using 2019 SAPFOTAC Report) SAPFO CAPS Process 2 (for SAPFO System 2019—2020) November 2018 -November 2019 47 64 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 2 - Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Allocation 2019 CAPS system is effective November 15, 2018 through November 14, 2019. The system is updated with new membership, CIP capacity changes, and any other BOCC/School District joint action approved capacity prior to November 15, 2018. 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, 2018. CAPS Allocation System CAPS System 1. Certified Capacity AC2=SC2 - (ADM2+ND 12+ND22+. . .) b 2 LOS Capacity o 3. Actual Membership 4. Year Start Available Capacity 5. Ongoing Current Available Capacity(includes available n capacity decreases from approved CAPS development by year) 6. CAPS approved development AC>_0 - Issue CAPS a. Total units b. Single Family' AC<0 - Defer CAPS to later date C. Other Housings .n 'Student Generation Rates from CAPS housing type create future membership estimate. Please note that this CAPS membership future estimate is a different than the projection based on historical data and projection models used in the CIP process 1. This estimate only captures new development impact,which is the component that the SAPFO can regulate. 0 ZAC - Available Capacity- Starts at Annual Update Capacity and reduces as CAPS approved development is entered into the system. SC- Certified School Level Capacity n ADM-Average Daily Membership ND - New Development;ND means first approved CAPS approved development 49 Annual Ch age Increase(Decrease)In Actual&Projected Membership) IN ra�;;f Students,Actual and Projected,Over(Under)100%LOS rig MEN Annual Chang, Increase(D,cmse)In Actual&Projected M—bership) KIM ®f��1��1��1��ef�E�1�F1��1�6m1�®f��1� 171��f�6D1� 1� 1��1 �� � � � WE M MR