Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 8-e - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Approval and Certification of 2019 Report
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 4, 2019 Action Agenda Item No. 8-e SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance — Approval and Certification of 2019 Report DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Town of Carrboro Resolution Craig Benedict, Director, 919-245-2575 2. May 9, 2019 School Joint Action Committee Ashley Moncado, Planner II, 919-245-2589 Memo 3. 2019 SAPFOTAC Annual Report 4. 11 x17 Copies of Student Projection Charts PURPOSE: To approve and certify the 2019 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report. BACKGROUND: At the December 11, 2018 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Board approved the November 15, 2018 actual membership and capacity numbers for both Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County Schools (OCS). Additional approvals/certifications, as outlined in the table below, are required by the SAPFO partners MOUs (Memoranda of Understanding). At the March 19, 2019 BOCC meeting, the Board received for transmittal the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Report. A letter and the Executive Summary of the Report were sent to all SAPFO partners on March 20, 2019 advising them of the availability of the draft Report and inviting comments. Comments were requested for submission by April 22, 2019. The Town of Hillsborough received the draft report at its April 8 Town Board meeting and had no comments. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen received the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Report at its April 9 meeting and approved the Resolution contained in Attachment 1. The attachment includes a request to the Orange County Board of Commissioners to forward comments contained in the resolution to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. Chapel Hill Planning staff shared the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Report with the Town Council on April 22 and no comments were received. The exact pages of the 2019 SAPFOTAC report that the BOCC will be acknowledging and certifying are listed below. The context (i.e.: definitions and standards) of the various SAPFO elements precedes the data to be certified and is within the full Report. 2 Page in Element SAPFOTAC Certification to be made by BOCC Report Building Capacity with Capital Building capacity and current year Investment Plan (CIP) changes 11 through 16 membership for OCS and CHCCS were approved at the December 11, 2019 (Change from previous year) meeting. Student Membership Projection Methodology 20 Certification that the average of 5 models (No change from previous year) will be used, as noted in #3 on page 20 Student Membership Projections ■ Orange County Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average only) (p. 36) 36 and 37 ■ Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Student Projections (row that notes average (Change from previous year) only) (p. 37) Student Membership Growth Rate ■ Orange County Elementary, Middle, and 38 High Schools ■ Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, (Change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools Student/Housing Generation Rate ■ Orange County Elementary, Middle, and 41 High Schools ■ Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary, (No change from previous year) Middle, and High Schools 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 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) has met to review elementary school capacity, impacts, and determine how to implement the school capacity changes into the SAPFO annual report and 10- year student membership and building capacity projections sheets. A final recommendation to implement class size changes shall occur this fall as outlined below. 1. Orange County Planning, OCS, and CHCSS staff will finalize school capacity numbers for SJAC and SAPFOTAC Report purposes over the summer. 2. Finalized school capacity numbers, 10-year student projections, and implementation options will be presented at the Schools Collaboration meeting in August for review and discussion prior to Board of Education meetings. Pre-K classroom capacity and impacts may be discussed at this time to determine next steps. 3 3. Implementation options will be presented to the Orange County Board of Education and Chapel Hill Carrboro Board of Education in September. A final recommendation for implementation will be requested by the Boards at that time. 4. Orange County Planning staff will present the SJAC's final recommendation and next steps to the Towns in the fall. Elementary School Capacity Calculations To determine future impacts related to changes in class size ratios and assist the SJAC with making a recommendation to implement changes in class size, school staff completed updated classroom and capacity calculations in April. During this process, it was discovered that updated classroom capacity numbers provided from school staff were not consistent with November 15, 2018 school capacity numbers submitted in order to draft 10-year student projection sheets and the 2019 SAPFOTAC Annual Report. Based on the school capacity numbers provided by the schools in April, it appears November 15, 2018 capacity numbers do not include Pre-K classroom capacity capacities. As a result, the outcomes detailed in the 2019 SAPFOTAC Report may provide a more accurate (i.e. in terms of actual school capacity usage, but not the Memorandum of Understanding calculation intent) account of capacity needs for the schools. Due to concerns with the inconsistent capacity numbers (including Pre-K impacts) the SJAC recommended delaying the certification of the 2019 SAPFOTAC Annual Report. Upon further review of the existing SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding it was determined that the SJAC does not have the direct authority to delay certification, but could be advisory in nature. In addition, since there are no immediate impacts or capacity needs resulting from class size changes, as detailed in the 2019 SAPFOTAC Report, a delay may not be warranted or provide a benefit at this time. Additional information is included in Attachment 2. Orange County and school staff will continue to analyze the school capacity numbers to determine the most accurate count for use by the SJAC and School Boards to make an informed and final recommendation to implement class size changes. In addition, the most accurate counts will be utilized for the 2020 SAPFOTAC Annual Report which will commence in early November. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current 10-year student growth projections show no future capacity needs for additional schools in the CHCCS District and OCS District. Implementation of class size legislation will likely require additional capacity at the elementary school level in a shorter time period. The SJAC was convened to address this issue and will have additional information to share in the fall. 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. Approve the 2019 SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the summary table above, and 2. Forwards comments received in the Town of Carrboro Resolution (Attachment 1) to Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools. 4 A motion was made by Alderman Chaney, seconded by Alderman Foushee, that the following resolution be approved: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAPFOTAC) 2019 REPORT WHEREAS, the Town has had a longstanding interest in the success and excellence of the Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools; and WHEREAS, the Town has participated in the development and implementation of the schools adequate public facilities ordinance provisions since 2003; and WHEREAS, the annual technical advisory committee report has been prepared and distributed for review. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Carrboro accepts the report and provides the following comments to Orange County Board of Commissioners and that the Commissioners forward the comments to the CH-Carrboro City School Board, as appropriate: - Carefully consider impact of development of surrounding counties on potential erosion of student population in the future - Have a difficult conversation on efficiencies regarding year-round schools and how this reduces the need for new schools because it maximizes the use of current structures. - Recognize the importance of following through on climate change action plans and specifically developing denser residential in core cities This the 16th day of April, 2019. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Alderman Bethany Chaney, Alderman Barbara Foushee, Alderman Jacquelyn Gist,Alderman Randee Haven-O'Donnell,Alderman Damon Seils, Alderman Sammy Slade 1,Catherine Dorando,Town Clerk for the Town of Carrboro,NC do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. OR �a ��� 90 s own Clerk ��►� w s = loll q•�i�ilrrr+lliiL'f�f1�1►O��� 5 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Rani Dasi, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education Dr. Stephen Halkiotis, Orange County Board of Education Penny Rich, Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Craig Benedict, Planning and Inspections Director, thru Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager, and Travis Myren, Deputy Orange County Manager DATE: May 9, 2019 SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Annual Report Background At the April 10 School Joint Action Committee (SJAC) meeting, Board members recommended to delay certification of the 2019 SAPFOTAC Report. Operationally, the CAPS system (i.e. gauging development against actual enrollment and capacity) still remains in effect thru November/December 2019. The primary reason for the request was due to inconsistencies between the school capacity numbers submitted on November 15, 2018 and school capacity numbers recently provided in April 2019. Additional reasons for the delay request were due to concerns with Pre-K classrooms (not specifically in the charge of the committee, but warranting continued discussion and consideration) and potential impacts from 2019 House Bill 251, which is related to changes in class size ratios. Based on the existing Memorandum of Understandings, November 15 numbers are required to be utilized for the 10-year student projection sheets and the SAPFOTAC Annual Report. If it is decided to not use the November 15, 2018 capacity numbers, new membership and capacity forms will need to be resubmitted by the schools and approved by the BOCC. These capacity calculations are still in flux with strong interest to insure consistent methodology between both school districts. This would restart the SAPFO process requiring updated 10-year student projection sheets and major revisions to the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Report. Please note, the Towns have completed their review of the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Report as requested in the formal transmittal letter dated March 20. Based on the capacity numbers provided by the schools, it appears November 15 capacity numbers do not include Pre-K classroom capacities. As a result, the outcomes detailed in the 2019 SAPFOTAC Report may provide a more accurate (i.e. in terms of actual school capacity usage, but not the Memorandum of Understanding calculation intent) account of capacity needs for the schools. Based on 10-year student projections utilizing November 15 and April capacity numbers, the earliest the schools may experience an impact resulting from class size changes is the 2021-22 school year. 6 Following the April 10 SJAC meeting, Orange County Planning staff reviewed the existing SAPFO Memorandum of Understandings and determined that the Schools Joint Action Committee does not have the direct authority to delay certification, but could be advisory in nature. The SJAC's specific mission relates to the legislative impacts upon school capacity and implementation recommendations. Alternatively, Orange County Board of Commissioners, Orange County Board of Education, and Chapel Hill Carrboro Board of Education would need to agree and vote to delay certification of the 2019 SAPFOTAC Report. Since there are no immediate impacts or capacity needs resulting in class size changes, as detailed in the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Report, a delay may not be warranted or provide a benefit at this time. Orange County Planning staff is recommending to move forward with certification of the 2019 SAPFOTAC Report at the June 4 or 18 BOCC meeting. This would provide the opportunity for the School Boards to review the draft report and provide comments to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The report's executive summary will include an update on the SJAC referencing concerns related to school capacity numbers and Pre-K classroom capacity as well as the committee's next steps to implement class size ratios. Orange County and school staff will continue to analyze the school capacity numbers to determine the most accurate count for use by the SJAC and School Boards to make an informed and final recommendation to implement class size changes in the fall. In addition, the most accurate counts will be utilized for the 2020 SAPFOTAC Annual Report which will commence early November. We would expect to have clear and consistent methodology for school capacity by the November 20, 2019 submittal dates. In order to meet BOCC deadline submittal dates, Orange County Planning staff requests any comments regarding the draft 2019 SAPFOTAC Annual Report be provided to Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director, no later than noon on May 22, 2019. Mr. Benedict can be reached by phone at (919) 245-2585 or by e-mail at cbenedict(a�_orangecountync.gov. Any comments received will be part of our agenda package in June. Next Steps 1. Orange County Planning staff will present the 2019 SAPFOTAC Report for certification at the June 4 or 18 BOCC meeting. 2. Orange County Planning, OCS, and CHCSS staff will finalize school capacity numbers for SJAC and SAPFOTAC Report purposes over the summer. 3. Finalized school capacity numbers, 10-year student projections, and implementation options will be presented at the Schools Collaboration meeting in August for review and discussion prior to Board of Education meetings. Pre-K classroom capacity and impacts may be discussed at this time to determine next steps. 4. Implementation options will be presented to the Orange County Board of Education and Chapel Hill Carrboro Board of Education in September. A final recommendation for implementation will be requested by the Boards at that time. 5. Orange County Planning staff will present the SJAC's final recommendation and next steps to the Towns in the fall. 7 Sincerely, Craig N. Benedict, AICP Orange County Planning and Inspections Director cc: Will Atherton, Chair, Orange County Board of Education Joal Broun, Chair, Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education 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 Perdita Holtz, Planner III, Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Ashley Moncado, Planner II, Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 7 8 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 JUNE X, 2019 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 review elementary school capacity(including Pre-K impacts) and determine how to implement the school capacity changes into the SAPFO annual report and 10-year student membership and building capacity projections sheets. A final recommendation shall be made by November 2019. 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 14 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: 60 The Meadows Mebane 256 Middle: 31 High: 34 Elementary: 4 Villas at Havenstone Mebane 68 Middle: 3 High: 4 v 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 I.B.4. by OCS and shown in Attachment I.B.3. 4 22 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 Selluol Ft et Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested F"citnote K Membership Capacity capaelly Capacity Capacity Capacity Cameron Park 70,812 56.5 565 565 565 502 617 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 31694 3,694 3,6941 3,361 1 3,193 Speclal Note(s): I.for the November 15,2002 base year the board accepted the�i,perintendenl•ceriified capacities as part ofthe 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 House Bill 13. Capacity Certification: Superintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Certification, p t� 04,311 '0 Sup rintendent Date BOCC Chai Date 5 23 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 1 s,2017 e2017-2018 Requested Requested Requested Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity A.L.Stanback 136,000 7O 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 2,166 2,1661 2,166 2,1661 2,1661 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 Represcntative Technical Advisory Committee Report, These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this farm that is certified by the SOCC, Justification: Capacity Corti ication: Q\_i_V IA Zip Su erintendent gate CC Chair Date Membership Certification; ZZ4 � Sup ritendent Date BOCC Ch Date 6 24 Section I Attachment LS.1 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle,&High) (2017-18) (Page 3 of 3) School • Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Orange County Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: Novemlicr 15,2017-Novetnlici- 14,20I g Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2017 StIl f I High School "'" 11equesled Requested RCqUeSled Requested Requesled Membership Fee t Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Footnote N 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______L427,0091 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 2,4391 1 2,445 Special Note(s):1,For the Noveuiher 15,2002 base year the board accepted the superintendenl-eerlified capacities as pail or the School Fa iIiIius Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC.2.The 2012-2013 capacity numbers for Orange High School(1,399)is based on it capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public instruction in August 2012. Justification: Capacity Certification: S perintendent Date BOCC Chair Date Membership Ce Ifiaation: S erintendent Date BOCC Chair Y Date 7 25 Section I Attachment LB.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2017-18) (Page 1 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 Elementary Square I2017-2018 Justification Membership School Feet Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Footnote Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity capacit�y sebool year) Carrboro 60,832 533 533 533 533 518 1 490 Ephesus 66,9S2 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 Scroggs 90,980 575 585 $75 575 558 501 Seawell 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 1 828,8621 5,8291 5,8291 5,8291 5,8291 76674 5 522 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 orthis form that is certified by the HOCC. Justification: 1 New class sizes mandated by HB 13 result in a loss of 165 elementary seats. Capacity Certification: Superintendent Date B CC CI ' Date Membership Certification: 1 1/2.7Ir-7 ----� Superintendent Date BOCC Chai Date 8 26 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2017-18) (Page 2 of 3) Schools Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2017-November 14,201 S Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2017 Middle School Square Requested Requested WqUested Requested Requested '..te (referenced Feet C.4pacity Capacity Capacity capacity Capacity school year) Culbreth 122,467 670 774 774 774 774 689 McDougle 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 496,95,01 2,8401 2,944 2,944 2,9441 2,9441 1 2,833 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 CEP or(2)an amended version of this£ono that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: f I/2 7J1 -7 -----�,. Superintendent Date BOC Cha Date Membership Certification: 41W.6'e- j jI2-1J1- Superintendent Date BOCC Chai Date 9 27 Section I Attachment I.B.2 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2017-18) (Page 3 of 3) School APFO Capacity, Membership School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2017-November 14,2018 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2017 I I2017-2018 Membership High School Requested Requested Req u ested Requested Requested (referenced Feet capacily Capacity Capacity CRPACRY cupacily Footnote N school Year) Chapel Hill 241,111 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,563 East Chapel Hill 259,869 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,464 Carrboro 148,023 800 8o0 800 800 800 861 Phoenix Acad. 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 39 Total 1 654,210 .3,8751 SIML 3.8751 3,8751 3,8751 13,927 Special Note(s): I. For the November 15,2002 base year the Board accepted the superintendenbcertified capacities as part of the Scheol Facilities Task Force rcvicw and 2003 Planners and School Represcntative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain effective until changed by(1)the School UP or(2)an amended version of this Fenn that is certified by the BOCC Justification: Capacity Certification: �///27/,7 Superintendent Date BOCC Ch 'r Date Membership Certification: 1 Superintendent Date BOCC ChAr Date 10 28 Section I Attachment LB.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2018-19) (Page 1 of 3) School • Capacity, F and Change Request Form School District: Orange County 5cliools SAP1FO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November I5,2018 i I I I , I I I I School Feet Requested Rcquested Requested Requested Requested Footnote N Membership Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Cameron Park 70,812 565 565 565 502 502 597 Central 52,492 455 455 455 428 428 267 Efland 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 Now Bope 100,164 586 586 586 526 526 589 Pathways 85,282 576 576 576 540 1411 388 Total 1498,188 3,694 3, 41 3,694 3,361 3,3611 3,205 Special Note(s): 1.Fbr 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 C1P or(2)an amended version ofthis form that is cerli6ed by the:30CC. .Justification: Capacity Certification: fi IS�Ib�18' Superintendent Date OCC Chair Date Members``h,,ip Certification: Q�'4 D Su erintendent ate OCC Ch l Date 11 29 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, & High) (2018-19) (Page 2 of 3) School School District: Orange County Schools SAPPO CAPS Year:November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2018 middle I I I I I I I I I ' SquareRequested Requested Requested Requested Requested 'Justification metulmrship Sell i, ,i i Capacity Capaci�y Capacity Capacity Capacity A.L.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 1 366,620 2,1661 2,1661 2,1661 2,166 2-,1661 1 1,779 Special Note(s): i.For the November 15,2002 base year the hoard accopted the superintendent-certified capacities as part of the School Facilities Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative'rechnicat 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: Sup rintendent Date B T C Chair Gate Membership Certification: CV19 &2i� 11-14-10�/ Leg lei Su erintendent Date EVCC Chair Date 12 30 Section I Attachment I.B.3 Orange County School Capacity (Elementary,Middle, & High) (2018-19) (Page 3 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 Square 2014-2015 ! I I I i I Higli Scliool Feet Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Footnote N MCF111WI-Shil) Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Orange 2.13,509 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 1 427,009 2,439 2,4391 2,439 2,4391 2,4391 2,34911 Special Note(s):1.For the November I5,2002 base your 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 Nvill remain effective until changed by(1)the School CIP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC,2.The 2012-2013 capacity numbers for Orange High School(1,399)is based on a capacity analysis and facilities study completed by the Department of Public Instruction in August 2012. Justification: Capacity'Cortification: I1 Ib I SupAbrintandent Date B C hair Date Membership Certification- * N IL��b�11 q V�AA4, ndent Date B CC Chair I Date 13 31 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2018-19) (Page I of 3) School School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Sohools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2018 I I2017-2018 { E RequestedElementary squn;It Requested School Fee Capacity Capacity Capacity capacity Capacity Footnote 0 school Carrboro 60,832 533 533 533 5.18 518 487 Ephesus 06,952 448 448 448 436 436 440 Estes WIN 56,299 527 527 527 516 516 473 Glenwood 50,764 423 538 423 412 412 484 FP Graham 66,()89 538 423 538 522 52,2 615 McDougle 98,000 564 564 564 548 548 540 RoAkis 95,729 585 585 585 558 568 454 Scroggs. 90,980 575 585 575 558 $58 470 Seawell 52,896. 466 585 466 450 45Q 503 Morris Grove 90,221 585 575 585 568 $6.8 555 Northside 99,500 585 466 585 $68 r 568 450 Total 828,862. 5,829 5,829 518Z9 5,664 5 664 5,471 Special Note(s):1.For the November 15,2002 base year the Board accepted the superinlendent-certified capacities as part of the School I acilitics Task Force review and 2003 Planners and School Representative Technical Advisory Committee Report. These capacities will remain eductive until changed by(1)the School CiP or(2)an amended version of this form that is certified by the BOCC. Justification: Capacity Certification: r �&'d"e'J&, 1'til�.ti Superintendent Date B hair Date Membership Certification: IAA At A Superintendent Date BOCC Chair at 14 32 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2018-19) (Page 2 of 3) School , School District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools SAPPO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,2018 ! I I . t2018-2019 Middle School Squa,re Requested lIctlijested Reqtiested Requested Requested Justification (ret I erencetl-- Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity School year) Culbreth 122,467 670 774 774 774 774 736 McDougle 13fi,221 732 732 732 -,732 732 .683 Phillips 109,498 706 706`.. 7066 706 706 .654 Smith- 128,764 732 732 732 732 732 860 7ota1 496,950 2,640 7,944: 2,9141 2,944 2,933 Special Nute(S). 1. For the November f 5,2002 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 oapaeities 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; ay 1 lS Superintendent Date Elf CC Chair Date M mbership Certification: Superintendent Date EJPCC Chair Date 15 33 Section I Attachment I.B.4 Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Capacity(Elementary,Middle, &High) (2018-19) (Page 3 of 3) Schooi APFO Capacity, Membership and Change Request Form School District: Chapel Mill-Carrboro City Schools SAPFO CAPS Year: November 15,2018-November 14,2019 Capacity and Membership Submittal Date: November 15,20I8 squArP 1 I E I i t l2018-2019 Membership High School Feet Requested Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity school year) Chapel Mll. 241,111 115P .11520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,527 East Chapel 41.1 259,869 1,515 1,515 1y515 .1,515 1,515 1,49.3 Carrboro 148;023 900 800 Soo 800 Soo 877 Phoenix Acad. 5,207 40 40 40 40 40 35 Total. 1 654,2101 3,875 35875 3,8751 3,8751 3,8751 13,932 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 Carnmittee 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: Superintendent Date B Chair Date Membership Certification: . L rll�l q v Superintendent Date Chai Date 16 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 STUDENT MEMBERSHIP PROJECTIONS PROJECTION TYPE DESCRIPTION 1 CHARACTERISTICS FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS Tischier Linear(OCS& Mathematical formula;straight tine projection y=((c*b)*x)+b Historical growth is reflected in projected growth CHCCS) y-projected population;c=historical annual change;b=base year;x=projection years BYM+(BYI+5(n))=EYM EYM*%SL=EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10-year average; SYM=base year 2nd month membership;BYI=year student membership increment OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school o increase m BYI of 5 every other year reflects (OCS) levels;reflects progressing waves of membership base;EYM ensuing year membership;n=projection year; /oSL=u total increases in housing growth; reflects buildout membership per school level(i.e.elementary,middle,high);EYMISL=ensuing year constraints member by school level BYM+(BYI-15(n))=EYM EYM*°/oSL=EYMISL Base year growth reflects 10-year average; BYM=base year 2nd month membership;BYI=year student membership increment OCP Linear Wave Mathematical linear with percent variation among school decrease in BYI of 15 until school year 2010-2011 (CHCCS) levels;reflects progressing waves of membership base;EYM=ensuing year membership;n=projection year;%SL=%of total reflects decreases in housing growth; reflects membership per school level(i.e.elementary,middle,high);EYMISL=ensuing year buildout constraints member by school level A� K„=k„.€+(k„.1*0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 nD O advancement rate over the previous 3 years for each a=(E G I g,r1)13 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the r 3-Year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=3 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g„_1(a) percentage of students in each grade level Cd kindergarten membership is based on birth records K=kindergarten membership;n=given school year;G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year "€ andfor historical growth rates 9 membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average � advancement rate;b=projected membership r C iZ K„=k„-t+(km, 0.01) O Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 advancement rate over the previous 5 years for each a=(f G„1 g„.1)!5 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the 5 year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=5 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g„-1(a) percentage of students in each grade level kindergarten membership is based on birth records K=kindergarten membership;n=given school year;G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year s and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average advancement rate;b=projected membership `d �s O K„=k„.1+(k„.1*0.01) Mathematical formula that computes the average n=1 C O advancement rate over the previous 10 years for each a=(E G„I g„.1)/10 Assumes a 1%annual growth rate for the d 10 year Cohort(OCS& grade level and then uses each rate to calculate n=10 kindergarten grade level; assumes the same CHCCS) projected membership by school level;an assumed b=g n-1(a) percentage of students in each grade level -s kindergarten membership is based on birth records K=kindergarten membership;n=given school year;G=given grade's graduate to the next level each year and/or historical growth rates membership(other than kindergarten);g=previous grade's membership;a=average O advancement rate;b=pro;ected membership O vn 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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 48 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 49 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 50 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 . - - ' ®�®®®®®�®®��©�®�®®®ate ®®®®®®®®®®®®® rrr�rri �m���.��xr���ss�:���s�sr+��ss��.*» ,;. ©:�©en��©�©m©rn©an©m©m����©m©�©�©�©�©gym©m©�� ��sn������n�������������t����������n�:s�n��� ® ® ® ® ® ®®® ®®® ® • ����w�■��e������������� �,�n�m��m���n����n����n���������n�a����m������m��� ® ®®®®®�� ��rse��r���e� ■���©� �� ©�����©���©mom©����®�®�®�©m��©���©�©m��©� �����������mt�m����mi�����r����a������� �rn��+�sr�r<���s���s�+�����+�mt�±���s�+���.n�s��r_��s��s��� ��® � ® �® ®® ®� 52 �o CHCCS Student Projections(t)(4) C) Ellairletitary School Year 2007d3 230910 2M041 2M1.12 2M219 201344 =115 201515 M15.17 2M748 201&49 201940 =041 2021d2 20M423 =3} X0 25 2V635 M.Vr7g�l auual 5,173 5,302 5219 5,218 5AN 5,543 5,5M 5.541 5501 5,567 5,522 TI01hlg S55G 5580 5 24 565E ;�u-2 5725 57� 5793 527 GC Ranin 5541 556fi 5629 5 72 5.713 5754 6780 5."7 5818 10 Year GroEdh 5.496 S.d0.1 5892 5:401 5.4 15462 SSii 51 5.629 S Yea GrMh 5475 536fi 5.339 5333 5335 5369 5.442 5497 5552 3 Yea Gra«�h 5.79 5391 5380 5315 `3I3 5427 5481 5536 5,931661H Sdfii SAl3 5®A 6,676 6.551 6,6M 66d1 6mIncraaa,loacr,asel In Adual8 Proj,dM Memberrhyl 193 129 3 7r 1W437 11 40 @B 13 4 5 15 16 47 44 46 42Caazl -1W.Level d SeMtt LG 4921 62dd 6,N4 6244 62ddSB29 O2] SOH 68M 5554 5556 Sfifid 5 d Gal 556 Sfifi4 am 5554 Efi1 �. ILmderef5ludenle ACWel end Prc acted Over lkder 100%LOS 252 59 62 2N75 Be 3N 262 142 1 197 197 176 160 11 66 19 F.1 Ca azi 105%Leveld3errlw L6 5157 5503 50fi 5506 55� 51M 61b 6 im 5 S 7 GUT GUT 5,9A7 S.B�I GAG 6 T 59d7 S � 6dxnber oT 9lutlenls Psiwl end Pro eaetl OWr UMer 106%LO3 5 T d2 79 19 3 dx 4m dB0 dTd d69 dd3A: hu '011% WY"5 1010% 1412% 953% 9`.-1k 914%2A9% .I 1 0 4123K 43 1 -081% -02fi6 d. 0.1 0%f,5 091 S H wnam caKar�a+�a-Ca--.Eex�eay a[a a>nm ro-1 ,=6rrerur smol r:cwre«,.e,ms real �1 re Iwrema[s,xr��.0 rar azpd�i mob,sa,ee;ee�mv Ynmi wxm w6ad:�d, N 4�pvla�lxoh:Pezws a9®.rerta sdxcl ca1�.-mmwoa ore�.c..ere a-2z1a«.are walae�d.m as�nrlRs�ra��mr 1a 7�-a�� CHCCS Student Projections(1) A rAcIdw School Yeu 2007-09 1 2DO9-03 1 20470 1 201041 2011.12 2012-13 20134 201415 291615 201647 201748 x1l 2019-20 2020�21 2021-N 731 � 24 202b26 2OZZ 2026-27 2027-29 Pc[uel 2622 -;6"1 2103 2722 2753 2185 2858 2,651 2344 2929 2633 �e Taschler 2850 2.868 M5 2.9M 7 2,�5 2.972 990 aWT CC Ratnln 2846 2645 2642 2aN 5 2874 2894 1910 2916 Illy-GTcwth 20 1911. 3011 1 2 fi 2t168 2.948 877 2D% � 5 Yoa-G-1, 1 37 2.978 2959 2.942 2 27e9 2.745 2772 2600 I� 9Yea Grmlh 7915 2.975 2946 2932 9 2803 2173 2371 ]6A 01 MAW 2 M5 2 2 2 2116 ZOOS 2JIM ail hlcmaa c e In AaualB 'eaed Melnbaah- 30 75 11 14 31 32 73 75 17 1 4 66 46 1 22 24 O Ca ac' -1W%Laval al 5ervice� 2940 2B40 640 2640 2940 29C 2840 2944 2944 2 2944 2944 2944 294423.44 2944 2844 944 2 -1 Iklmber of Students Actual end Pro,ft d Over Under 1Ol LOS 21 1d3 132 11 6! 6 19 83 000 116 111 66 8 16 208i % 8 W O 1pry LeWl ol3ervlce 3 3OM 11.= 3039 309D 3 9 5159 9110 15p 1150 3111 150 31b0 3160 3150 3150 3IM 3160 140 S1� U] Nrruerol Sht Pthul end Pno eded Over UMe 107%L05 41 311 1 181 MI 1 14 21 26 39 A B6 9ld M ."r Atitual-`b Levea�rvea 92"% '3504 93 P_qy 9EPy. 3510'e 1000% 97 T4 9b2%A Ave' S-%Laid of 2e v.e >14- 9c2% et ••-S'+W +7'% PRv. 534:'. .i8'l. Am4N 3011Mat GTCiWt RB[e 11 2M 041% OBI% 114% 116% 262% 0.10% d.69% tW% 0.1d 1989E 1_ 1 �1.4• d.fib 31% d2aT.6 076% 0Bd% y,r adbralrumvssasae[ibad bldm srtml V i...pa..nm.nm.m.inm n.«oae.a,anima m. ..s.ms .nmvoren.�..ee.e.nw.txccs.wemsm apussm e.. .. m .ne.eF,nAl.n..�.'.-rd+aa��m�nx..awau.u..rsnuum.eanwn caeca �• . « i...nu.a M ..m..ne br•.�m a .-yaw a w mmo w« n (7 CHCCS Student Projections(t) .r nt O Schml Year 200738 XARN 20WIC 2MO-11 2M1.12 2012.13 20344 2111416 2016.16 2016.17 2017-18 207e•19 2019.20 20M.21 2021-22 40 0 2=324 2024A5 202546 2MVr7,21, Actual 353o 3606 3640 3T14 3706 3764 3730 3701 3762 3927 Tisrnlcr 2 3951 3975 39% 4029 4016 4072 4 4129 4144 OC Ratnin 3933 3,940 3.941 2,941 3,990 3.913 3,89i 3.N2 3,889 `J 10Y9nr Grpv.01 38B4 3991 3900 3914 4094 4091 4p]1 4fIG8 3�5 I� 5 Yew Gr" 3889 3�4 u!M 3853 3996 3597 3552 3931 3A5 3 Yoa Graah 3,91, 3�N 39,f 3937 a07, n05o 47^s n.20 391n3915 3.00 3633 S C29 4.024 4OCS 4004 3,911 rD Anwal Chan e-Increase Decrease In ActudB Pm'eded Wemberehf 116 24 36 7d B2 68 29 61 185 '12i 16 3 1 96 :4', 16i '61Ca az1WYo Levelase[Nce 635 &15 3B75 75 875 375 3875 3875 3.575 3675 3875 3.675 3960 3W0 3,�0 3.960 39� 3980 3,9w teed Stutl Aefudand Pro detl OWr lkdee IM%LOS T29 161 9 111 145l[ 11741 Ilia 52 40 55 1471 d5 49 dd N 24 in) 5:- 110%LeWId34Mea 4219 42191 4291 d 4M 4M 1 4263 4Z3 420 4253 4.233 4ITTO 4 &NO 4M 4me &M Uhl 4370 eC NarBard A and Prc OWr a 110%LOS 47 1 444 462 arwal-%LavddSarvica l48% 947% 910% A39% 8% �0% 971% 953% 971% 1019% Pr Pace-%Laud of Frvim +01N1 014% Am%l 011% 1o0-+'% 100b4 '390P6 9F6% �. Annum SW&, Gr Rat, S d.1d% �C.M% 09 2.M d 0.90% d.1B% dM d.31% 0. 0. Obi% 2Af d39ed a 459% d.3A% I� nfsdmlramaenfalana w.h®addmdeau ,mm�ua�n'ry egsTmlhemrm (SDy, O J 1�UQ 00 ►� 53 �o OCS student Projections(1)(4) elem6rna<y `� &-W Year NOB-09 2009-10 201V-11 Mll-121�2-11 M13-14 MW15 =16-16 2016-17 201T48 201E-19 201920 202D21 2021-22 202223 2=44 20?A26 2=26 202627 2112T,28 2M49 3 28 933 -s:l!_rM 3,21] 3,229 3.241 3,2. 3,266 3,279 3.280 3.302 3,314 3,32T 3215 3236 3269 3283 9308 9394 4380 3.485 3.407 3428 - 311] 3293 331A 3378 34aB 3462 351] 3552 3588 36R9 3,19i 3,25T 3265 3317 33T8 3,412 3448 3486 3515 3550 a Grw,4 ?>W 3284 8311 311 3491 3,4]1 3506 3541 3.5]7 3612 Avers a 13 !LM 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 3 Annual Chen -Increase Gecroase In Actual&Pr ectetl Membershl T Afi 7d 63 90 1. 26 e16 22 B 4916 49 4T 2a d 369d 369a 3694 1- 36BI 3694 3ffi1 361 1.1 3361 3,ffi1 3351 Owl 3.1 3,361 3361N,enber&Stu deal s.Actual Intl Pr ecte d.Over U,,der 169%L39 29 4B3 ` -09 fi 261 435 3/fi 401 1T9 1 149 9 N3 40 6 34 63 91 119 147 3 T93 9 '3 9 4 San 3BT9 39T9 39T9 3529 3.629 3329- 3629 3529 3529 3529 3529 3.629 3.629 3529 3529Pr acted Over Untler 1CS%LOS 14 1 44a a20 1 566 M2 31T l 41 B 152 134 106 17 49 K5]Sk 4fi 9% d99% 90 fi% Cy% 802% 858X ft31r3(3) 0 [. 2. 1 OJ96% 4i 191 `d.76% 0 0 1, % 1(096 0 *JW40. 091 D. wm��al ormewl,e�4,0acpslq ruMuavadanatirrmur ofays ss�or��� Gpxlryda[reaae demcra�In tlasisxe rasce cer Haue Bis L3(K.3 �l sm ere a va• nm a e w.,iw xvy�am,nrames-3nreesrarem�rmm nam �1Of axra9e dasslxe ratlosaeL asdreded by5ran legslatlse acticrt) Hy gr,rg of arriS Eb eait ry a m- rmrmvpama van vnr�a e cx ' pmxmeunvn n s a1m mmwma'vneenirm'rart�nxmarwcn¢s. bGro're([c tlbn byKl NgWrRe xLa+rs',ra0.M clareila0 lal am.r e .xa.rnn,e.er��woqamrme.H®m'.rn�ssv.dcarom.vert ..p s�amamm, p..nm.�.yncxccstrA..r,r+�o,tta e®m,sca�..a.e�er�mn eyfe.� (� OCS Student Projections(1) MIGd9 O eS Sahsol Year i006A 2009-10 2010-it X111-12 Xr12-130M1314MWlS 2016.16 NIi6-iT if11T-16 2016-iB if11920 202D21 2@i-22 202223 202S2A 2LG125 20Q6-26 20262T 202T28 201629 ANlel 1,60'F 1,655 1 688 1]09 1 8B 1]39 1 Y24 1730 1.779111111111111111 1S' 7lsdrlar 2 t 786 1 793 t 799 1 e06 1 S13 1 820 1.825 I&:3 1MO 1&17 OC Plairnn 1]]3 1175 1 779 1 l82 1]86 1]91 1 795 1 622 1 E11 1 681 18Yeer CxoW[R 1 808 1]26 1.715 1 B]8 1 T03 1 T10 1 TS3 1 615 1833 1 851 SYaerG- 1)94 1.700 16n 1,699 1,652 1,643 1860 1,725 1,792 t,i55 3 Yaar G,-J, t]86 1 Na 1 B84 1,852 1,833 16R4 1]29 R9 1197 1 fit- 0 •incroaae s 24e In Actual&Pr acbd Membenhl 64. 33 -6 49 11 1 ie 1 3T 16S- 2166 2166 2166 2166 SAW 165 SAW 2166 2166 2166 2'196 21. 2166 2166 2168 216s 21. 1. 2166NmberofSavdeMe ActuM lntla'ede Over Under 100%L09 1 dB2 d8 62 dd2 d98 6 629 d30 d3T " 1 3392 18 2 16 18 ?16 R 1 18 2 B S18 2318 2 10 2 18 2518 2 16 2 16 2 16 2 16 18 318 2 B NumberOSeuderb A ml wdit ech Over Under 10T%LOB 1 14 Ac1ua1-k L<•.-:I of Semcv ]384e ]B 9% 784% T8 11]^n Avaraca ", el of Service ^n':; `t�3."% T2 aT. ]P,1% 1'i e'X :3124, fi'+'W 3rry, +111Y, i.e A.-I Studarrt Ororr0l Fabe e) 2. d.00% 1. 4.36 -117% 3.7a% 0,96% 4,31 ash% 033% 2,99% P,60% 2,9p.9 -0 -t.19% 1.OAb o,t1 1.Ba 2.09 O.b9/ 0. Qr4 m w ear .rem m • • ew ver.enmwe.pmwei_.s V ur.ama ve,r.r.ee.o..eay.m.p..m.mwa.ea.w.er..v.,em..m a,.,...�.arm.ma.rrer«e ierw.e Nrd.a'.�..m avr.m 1"S OCS Student Projections(4) High (� 9Me6l Yea 20o- 2W9.10 201P11 2011.12 231243 2013.14 2014-16 2015.16 2016.17 201740 20T9.19 ?01920 2020.21 202I.22 2022-29 202324 202426 2096.26 20262T 202T28 202929 Actual 2242 2217 2222 2283 2315 2121 2562 2469 2446 2A46 2349 Q 7 ] 1 4' 429 4 8 MM OC glair nln 2365 2462 2420 2938 4459 24]9 2488 2486 2504 2516 vj 1CYeer Gfbwth 2339 2182 2419 2493 2443 2432 23T8 2SS1 2420 24SO S Year Grouts 2339 22]] 2399 2455 2380 2311 2297 2261 2305 2300 y,r1 3YserHrorM 1319 1321 232] 2350 2- '_215 2129 2205 2210 2184 L Ares e 2 2 2398 2 6 2 2 2 2346 238fi 2-- 1 fre Mnuel r]ian -Increase 0ecroase in ACNal6R ecled Membarvbi 61 S 81 32 106 91 23 1 96 1 2 11 ]9 30 6 7 17 m 12 Ga ac -109%Level o<9ervkce 2 2 2566 2660 2439 ,, 2439 2439 2439 243E 2,a39 2439 2439 2939 v 2939 2939 2939 2.939 2939 2939 2939 Number ol5[udeMa Attuel-d Pr seta Over Under 100%LDS 3i6 1 75 inn 1 63 30 7 fi 90 f 8 "1 1 3 9 676 593 553 542 910%Level cf Servlee 2 14 2 14 2 1d 2014 2E&1 2899 2889 2683 2683 2683 2683 2 3293 3 3 3 3.233 3233 9 Nun beree80.keraa Actual and" eete O er Under 11O%LOS 1 1B1 14 12 0 T �. ACIu91-%Level of Sanice Br 6% BB 1'F, 80A 392% 949% 0M% r026% a01 1003% 1002% Averzge-%Leml of Serveon P63% 1121 812i F26% 81.618 F12% 484a5 p93% 9i 2% 316% Annual 9...Grmvttl Rate S31 1.99 -1.12% 0.23% 2. 1.d0% 4b 3.36% 4 a o,04% 3.99% a,56% 1, 071 1fi9% -12d% a26% -1.id% rym.mmc.xmrop.n,e,nvr.,.xama�,ea..nm,cxc-s..eessraVdwo=m.,,,.-r�mo..a.aa�•mn.aaeu�,�ra�ea.,rawncxres ratriaeM1p nraiarrn efpmame 3lmlre cyal4 atltletl ( ageXMraa•Ib d�eaM va sal zwh fetler WdYH10'r-Md atldr9500 uaL. �rr�� arm � x 54 CHCCS Student Projections(1)(4) f0 Elemm f) $chWI Yea =09 Ms-ia piM111 M142 2012.13 231314 2014-16 2MI115 201647 23Ra$WHl pp.21 21R1.22 2022�23 70Z.434 202d.25 P26� 3m52r 2.OR'7� 2029.29 Mllnl 5,302 5,219 52Y 5.454 5543 5554 5541 5501 5,161 5,5 Tischle 2 .5,55a 5,595 5836 16.947 iS.947 SY66 5801 5.842 5,884 OC Ra�nln �e 1 5,504 5.54U 5.554 5880 5.691 S,B D 10 Y.,Graedh -1i 5464 5489 5715 5T77 5830 5M 1� S Yea Gronsh ^_iW 5340 5332 5433 sod- 14'2 5n8 3Yea1-h 5468 5485 �r:L ;',1 Awry 444 5 74 608 5653 `5700 746 870T ha.. crux h dual a ftlleded Membxah'1 128 tl 77 Me 79 11 1 40 66 30 24 47 47 46 42 "!• Caat -1W,Lae¢I of SerAC L0 5244 �'S-2dd 6.244 5244 5244 5.829 S823 5623 6.66 5.064 5.664 5954 56Cd 566d 6664 5.864 r"r Wmberef5dudenl5 Actual and Praeded,0wr"ar lUn L05 50 i5 --- 220 29B 275 8 _ 262 FA2 18i 216 20 1A 3� I'll 36 81 19 Ca ac' -105%Leval of GeMce LO 5506 65M 5603 120 6120 6120 6997 6947 6 947 6 47 5947 5947 594T 847 U47 rr,Shed AcWol and Pm-dad Owr Udder 70S%LUS 04 a 16 47fi A8B 473 3w 1 9 P.uua1.%Level cf�rciee995& 10?0% 1012% W57% 4S x% 951% 014%. ?55% arez+e%Le+e'u15a�vlce `{,I% 971% �%I 990% 9935 IOC 6% 1014% 1012% e"!• Amual 9WdmtGraNh Rats 2, .1.57% Ue% 37 1,45% 020% -0Y2% f2016 41RI Q92% 0,41% 0 OASM 1 0 0e4% 093% 0. 0.T ICI ICI Pa NrenOa t520rA Caar4 Cyxlq OkukmeOlO5�P P E�neralsaO W'n'r9 fv�m1 FEneitrV9rool3ie zea6 •- yv�W.InavatlrrauMO�aYpee]91m1 ..k�renaf'aotl ppyp tlrsamdnmrdargnrffi saeramR Pa Heaeef a3 R-3 aiaap `/�1 m� ��.e....m....x�..a.:�a...� .� .oba wry ..�...+...a.+.a.rxe�..w..m.e Me �wpm a�eemw,ayrn.m vl mrm mlmeaum vma6m�,6raaw6-6tleselm r�aee ae lal asdre<cdMO�¢ylwrnE �1 �.r.Ar, . ....ukr.a�rm abnrwree.arr:��xrpl+...w a�va.w..om..n�m..u... v ..qma r.a:. �wea rma:za ii�i er.yeatla.ee�.sa y�,.1m 41ax ro.pdsa��6re xe ca�.W vn•�,8.,amr..�m�a ffi�v.and.A>m Pm�.......sWr�,,...s.a.�aoo.�..w.�a.er•.n.c.rr:r..+rreo.eaa�>m....a..w,mr:.s.,..�.e..,..,. CHCCS Student Projections(1) Mkkke 4hoa1 Yer 10]8ffi 21Q410 201611 2011-12 101213 201314 2014-15 201S1fi 201F17 2017-16 2018-19 ]01&A 2®7-21 2021-22 20Yt-13 MZAZd 271d36 2115' N M2637 ilRT-� 202339 MA 2,697 2,708 222 1. - 2i151 2314 2&3 2.933 Tischla Z 2,955 2.977 2.999 3M7 a044 5066 3088 3110 3.132 3154 OC Ralnln 2910 2S"18 2905 2901 2837 2015 233? - - 2903 2991 10Y-G-b 3,010 3.038 2,951 2,905 2,$14 2315 ;!_ _21 2.550 2980 SYea Graarh 2,906 2976 2,962 29�4 2,871 2_1� :a1 "48 2.175 2,60.1 3 Y0,Grae;h 9025 '3.036 2987 29. 2Ya5 __O `°i3 29E2 2,091 302' Awra 2 1 1 1 2 ^z 2 2 2 962 2 Rrrua<Chan herwae rune hAduA Pwedtd Memb-h 75 11 14 31 32 73 Ti 77I'll 16 4 100 23 18 19 6 1 36 23 ffi a Ce aci -100L Level aT 3ervla 2860 2Bd0 BM3 2B40 2840 2840 2944 44 294d 91d 2946 2944 29dd 2944 294d 29dd 2344 294d 296d 294d 2 d/ O PYunber ol9udenls Actual and Pro edetl,Over UMer 100Y LO6 16 132 110 A 'b 1B Im FS 111 It is 37 17 3 46 91 d1 5 40 44 l"'{ 107%Lewl df RrNce 3 3033 039 3039 30% 039 3160 3160 3150 60 3159 3150 760 3760 3160 160 3150 3150 3150 160 315Q Wrr#r N881 Pn„•i antl Pn detl Owr IA1der 30i%L03 31i 161 31 1® 169 1® i52 11 1 162 Acrcel.%Lemld Szmca 9,0% 994% 956% A69% 961% tlb_6% OY 966% 961% *1% A9fi% e"r lever e-%Ln+d oISOVIce 1OD `013% 1005% 1000k 9 987% 986% 99R% 10266 10 Areual 6tudrrrt GraMh Rre 2. O.fi% 71 1.16% 2&% 01 om 0.5n Q11 3. O97% Q aJBX 080'b .1. 0YI 004% 1.24% 0. 0SW" �. l� b .. n w n o du.ur5msaaunwaoek[xcce � CHCCS Student Projections(1) p A HIgh $eh.1 Yer 2008a 2 10 2010.11 M142 M2.13 2013-14 2014-15 201E-16 20 W 2017.16 201849 21119ao M3.21 2miln 202}23 2025id =,Is 3R626 2M-U 2007a 2C28- O MA 3,fi30 3,606 3,647 3714 3,796 VU b790 3701 3,762 8,927 3992 Tixhla2 3982 3991 -0021 4051 4060 4110 4140 4159 4199 42� OC R£nnln 4.055 4,057 4058 4050 4057 4.031 4 15 3,999 41U7 4U15 IUYe6r Gr,W 3 4 3829 3 2 405 40U2 4Q40 4014 3854 .7 3302 S Yea Graah 3900 3993 3%0 3651 4a19 4017 3989 3471 3sffi 3196 3Ye'a Gr-h 3,92E 3,974 399E 4191 4,162 4,14c 4141 4]10 ?'PA 4,034 Aw 3 3972 3 1 4037 386 d 4068 4007 3083 3 Me Iw1 hcreue c e In AdA& 'eded Memb-hi 24 34 74. 92 M 61 165 6 16 24 9 w 49 1 10 12 A�y �100%Level NServlce 3836 38m 3.87E T5 3876 $76!146 i6 3975 3975 387b 3676 3976 3,m0 3960 3990 3980 3990 39M 39M 3990 3,;m I~'r Wmder of Sludenla Actual and Prdeded Owr UMer 10�L08 M 235 1fi1 79 511 174 113 52 5T 73 6 57 106 fib 7fi 2T 3 15d 19 d21B 263 d 4 4 4 4263 d263 d 4.376 d379 43IB RB d 78 4376 4378 37676 Praedetl 0wr Lhtler 119rh LO$ 613 623 467 Q39 . 31 15 406 .2 1 371 ?9591 I% 55'k 3i t°<ME 014% '.Q2� I12;% 102a IF 71, 101 0.91% 20 221% -0.64% 019% 1.�% ,4- .0 -3279d 4 030% ahmiw Prah2p HYJsimlb®r..s CFgW NI H05501M a1i3®IA5�a5. _ _ oAtalhaf miml a+ir9 m]du mml fD W lD bmhnr,w..n.�r+r.rwer•Ha�m. xcs..eoespuger�k�uwnr�..am..e,...nwmnu..emsaanpumormr x[esrusam yse MN 40 HtleR�ttY ��v (a�Mxegxtl.mxwl�hawYrxkemmasM1'er+r.�miloa«eaX6lrxe anq.Mauur�'wawIDeueA Wb% O ��rrll�rrr4 �a H/4 55 Section II D. Student Membership Growth Rate 1. Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change—The updating of this section will be conducted by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, and Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) each year and referred to the BOCC for annual report certification. Projections will be distributed to SAPFO partners for review and comments to the BOCC prior to certification. 2. Definition —The annual percentage growth rate calculated from the projections resulting from the average of the five models represented by 10 year numerical membership projections by school level for each school district. This does not represent the year-by- year growth rate that may be positive or negative, but rather the average of the annual anticipated growth rates over the next 10 years. 3. Standard for: Standard for: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District See Attachment II.D.2 See Attachment II.D.2 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions: Analysis of Existing Conditions: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District The membership figures and percentage growth on the The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued growth at each school level attachments show continued growth at each school level within the system. within the system. Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next Projected Average Annual Growth Rate over next ten years: ten years: Year Projection 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 56 �o 2017-2018 Orange County Student Projections Elementary School Year 2017-2018 2018-2019 702=50A -2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 actual Membership3183 3,161 3186 3,198 3228 3,258 3,284 3,312 3,340 3,367 Average%Increase -0.56% 1.04% 0.35% 0.96% 0.86% D.86% 0.86% 0.83% 0810/0 Middle ztl17-zols ''� School Year 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 20252026 2026-2027 2027-2028 m (actual) - r' Nlemberslip 1,730 1,785 1,794 1,730 1,709 1,682 1,701 1.697 1,717 1,733 1,749 l'Z Average%Increase 3.19% 0.50% -3.60% -1.21% -1.56% 1.14% -0.25% 1 1.20% J 0.92% 1 0.92% High School School Year 2(actual) 2018-2619 2�24 -20120 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 Membership2,445 2,396 16 2,456 2,474 2,517 2 480 244 2,410 2,396 2,419 Average%Increase -2.01% 0.84% 1.66% 0.74% 1.72% -1,48% -1.27% -1.58% -0.54% 0.93% O O� Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections Elementaryto 2017-2018 School Year actual 2018 2019 2019-2020 2tl20.2tl21 2021-2022 2022 2tl23 2023 2024 2024 2025 2025-2026 2026 2027 2027-2028 O '� Membership5,522 5,509 5 467 5,473 5,488 5,504 5 551 5596 6,641 5,653 5,723 rA Averse%Increase -0.23% -0.77% 0.10% 0.27% 0.30% 0.86% 0.80% 0.81% 0.75% 0.70% 0 O. G. Middle z017-2018 School Year actual 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 � 0 Membership 2,833 2,889 2,936 2,929 2,924 2,881 2,863 2.854 2,846 2,868 2.692 0--i .. Averse%Increase 1.98% 1.61% -0.24% -0 17% -1,44% -0,65% -0 31% -0.26% 0,76% 0 84% J C High School \ r School Year 1tua178 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 74002E4 2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 0 Membership3,927 3,915 3 930 3,933 3,934 4,028 4 D093926O Averse%Increase -0.31% 0.38% 0.07% 0.03% 2.41% -0.39% -0.11% -1.59% -0.38% w O C ¢' C `"r N �r O .7 J 00 fD 57 �o 2018-2019 0 Orange County Student Projections Elementary School Year 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 actual Membership 3,205 3,213 3,262 3,278 3,321 3,367 3,395 3,424 3,452 3,480 3,508 Average%Increase 0 23% 1 53% 0 50% 1 31% 1 40% 0.83% 0.83% 0.83% 0 81% 0 79% �r Middle 2018-2019 School Year (actual) 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 Membership 1,779 1,790 1,737 1,731 1,710 1,728 1,729 1,758 1,795 1,811 1,827 Average%Increase 0 60% -2 93% -0 36% -1 19% 1 03% 0.08% 1.65% 2.09% 0 89% 0 89% 'r A'+ High School y d School Year 2(actua19 (actual) 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 a Membership 2,349 2,348 2,371 2,388 2,426 2,396 2,390 2,363 2,346 2,386 2,397 0 Average%Increase -0 05% 1 00% 0 71% 1 59% -1 24% -0 26% -1 14% -0 720/. 1 70% 0 48% lJ A+ O O �D Chapel Hill/Carrboro Student Projections N Elementary School Year 20actua119 2019-2020 2020-2021 �5474 2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 Membership5 471 5,448 5,444 5498 5557 5606 5 653 5 7005745 5787 ¢Average%Increase -0.41% -0 08% % 0 43% 1.07% 0.89% 0.84% 0.83% 0 78% 0 74% O O O Middle 2018-2019 School Year actual 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022 2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 Membership2,933 2,962 2,981 2 961 2 943 2,898 2 905 2 904 2 939 2 962 2,988 Average%Increase 0 97% 0.65% 06 68 0 0.60% 1 52% 0.21% 0 04% 1.2400 % 0 78% 0 86% C n � >v High School 2018-2019 G School Year actual 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 �47 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2g95 Membership14 3 932 3,948 3,972 3 981 4086 4 064 0584 0073 983Average%Increase 0.40% 0.62% 0.23% 1.21% 0.44% 0.24% 1.27% 0.58% fir O C C ¢' O Q Qm O N O � �+ r4- � y 58 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 59 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 60 �o o' ti TischlerBise Student Generation Rates — 2014 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools 0-3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Weighted Average Single-Family Detached 0.61 0.84 1.13 0.84 y 0-2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms Weighted Average Single-Family Attached 0.27 0.42 0.38 Multifamily/Other 0.11 0.47 0.18 Manufactured Home 0.268 0.86 0.78 CrJ Weight Average for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District 0.49 n Orange County Schools 0-3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Weighted Average Single-Family Detached 0.35 0.57 0.57 0.44 G� 0-2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms Weighted Average Single-Family Attached 0.07 0.17 0.15 Multifamily/Other 0.08 0.67 0.17 Manufactured Home 0.67 0.47 0.52 y Weight Average for Orange County School District 0.37 N 0 Source:Student Generation Rates for Orange County School District and Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District,TischlerBise,October 28,2014 Revised N1ay 7,2015 W 61 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 62 Section III School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Process 1 - 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 63 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 64 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 65 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 � 9���� �� I ME HE M ®��®���� ������m���f�mf������f�������-���f��������f�m��m��mi �������� ����� ©�©®®©���©�©�©m©mom