HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-03-2002 - 3 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 3, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Update Update of Student Capacity, Membership and Projection Methodologies
DEPARTMENT: Budget PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Dean, 245-2151
March 13, 2002 Schools & Land Use Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Councils Agenda
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To review a variety of information related to school capacity, student membership,
and student projection methodologies that was discussed regarding the agenda material of the
March 13, 2002 Schools & Land Use Councils meeting.
BACKGROUND: In October 2000, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
created a School Facilities Task Force to address matters of mutual interest to the County and
both school systems. As its initial charge, the Commissioners directed the task force to review
School Construction Standards and student capacity as they related to the development of a
possible November 2001 bond referendum. The Board was particularly interested in receiving
input from school elected officials regarding how these components affected each systems'
need for future schools. A draft report of the Task Force's recommendations was published in
April 2001.
The Task Force recognized that determining the present and future number of students in a
district is an important component to planning future facilities. It is important to note that there
are distinct differences between the projected number of students used in planning for annual
current expense budgets and the number used for planning for future capital facilities.
The Task Force considered three major elements as it formulated recommendations for
projecting the number of students for capital purposes:
(1) identifying the actual number of students currently in a school system at a particular point
in time;
(2) developing sound methodologies to project the future number of students in a school
district;
2
(3) comparing the current and projected numbers with existing student capacity in a
system's,permanent structures.
Identifying the number of students actually occupying seats provides a base on which to project
future growth in student population.
The Task Force agreed that student membership provides the most realistic picture of the
actual number of students attending schools. This is the only method that accounts for new
student enrollees as well as those no longer attending class. In order to provide consistency in
comparing actual year-to-year growth, it is important that both systems report the same monthly
count to the County. The State requires school districts to report membership at the end of the
second (fortieth day of school) and fifth (one hundredth day of school) months. After
considering staff input, the Task Force agreed that student membership on the second
month (fortieth day of school) each year should be the base number to use in planning
for future school facilities.
Methodologies to Use in Projecting Future Students
Several student projection models have been discussed over the last year including models that
are currently available as well as ones that will be at hand in the future. In order to make the
most accurate projections, over time, it is important to use a compilation of methods for
projecting the number of students. It is also important to look at historical growth patterns for
each district. In order to provide consistency in projections from year to year, it is also important
that the methodologies outlined below are the only ones used unless the Board of
Commissioners approves an alternative method. This consistency allows for "best practice"
projections that provide consistency from year-to-year.
Currently Available Methodologies
Readily available projection models include:
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) model,
• Student Generation Report prepared by Tischler and Associates,
• Orange County Planning Department model,
• Cohort Survival Method; a model used widely by education statisticians
DPI Model
Historically, projections made by State DPI have been low when compared to actual
student membership growth. While the Task Force discussed this model, it was not highly
recommended.
Student Generation Report
The County recently contracted with Tischler and Associates to update its School Impact
Fee/Student Generation Report. While the Tischler method projects future student
population numbers based on an Average Daily Membership (ADM) basis, this
methodology is sound and can be applied to membership numbers as well. The Task
Force agreed that this model is one that can be used in making projections. This model
takes population statistics, housing starts, and student membership into account. In
3
addition, this methodology projects student generation rates based on historical trends in
each of these areas. In order to reflect ongoing trends, it is important that the School
Impact Fee/Student Generation Report be reviewed and updated on a regular basis such
as every 4 to 5 years. The student projections can be updated annually.
Orange County Planning Department Model
The Orange County Planning Department has also developed a projection model. This is a
linear model that reflects growth potential and takes into consideration the cyclical wave of
higher membership "bubbles" that progress through school levels. In addition, the unique
membership percentage of a specific school level to the total of the school district
membership is also reflected. (eg. relatively higher high school membership percentages in
the CH\C School District).
Cohort Survival Model
This methodology uses historical trends to calculate projected students by age group or
grade level. While the Student Generation Model outlined in the previous section
considers new housing starts, the Cohort Survival Model also provides for birth rates and
migration. This is an important factor because live birth rates for Orange County residents
have been relatively flat for some time. However, student populations continue to increase
annually. The use of computer spreadsheet models provides ease in updating these
numbers each year and in providing varying assumptions (for example, comparison of
student growth in a three, five, or ten year period).
On March 6, 2002, new capacity and membership data was received.
The Schools and Land Use Councils, for its March 13, 2002 meeting, (Agenda attached)
received an update of school membership data and capacity data for the two school districts as
noted in Agenda Item 4. Other Agenda Items (5-8) are noted in the attachment regarding
elements of the proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
On April 3, Planning staff will be prepared to make a brief presentation of the data presented at
that meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact results at this time.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners receive the information regarding the School Facilities Task Force and Schools
and Land Use Councils Agenda, offer comments, and direct staff to pursue updates and various
school aspect recommendations.
Agenda
Joint Schools and Land Use Councils
Southern Human Services Center
-:.2501 Homestead Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27.516
March 13, 2002
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Adjustments to Agenda
3. Review and Approval of Minutes — November 14, 2001
4. School Membership
a. School Membership for the Current Year
b. School Membership for Last Year
5. Memorandum of Understanding Elements
a. Student Generation Rates
b. Membership Method
C. Capacity Levels
d. Growth Projection Method
6. Schools APFO Procedure
7. Spreadsheet for determination of CAPS
8. Status of Schools APFO with respect to public hearings and actions
by local governing boards
9. Items for Next Meeting (if necessary)
Date: April 10, 2002
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Place: Southern Human Services Center
10. Adjournment
g:\craig\sluc\agenda-mar\03-05-02\dg
_ 5
I MINUTES
2 JOINT SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCILS
.3 NOVEMBER 14, 2001
4
5 The regular meeting of the Joint Schools and Land Use:Council (SLUG)was held on Wednesday,
6 November 14, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Government Services Center, Cameron Street, Hillsborough,
7 North Carolina.
8
9 Members Present: Chair Alice Gordon, Orange County Board of Commissioners; Allen Spalt, Carrboro
10 Board of Aldermen; Diana McDuffee, Carrboro Board of Aldermen; Brian Lowen, Town of Hillsborough
11 Commissioner, Edith Wiggins, Chapel Hill Town Council; Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of
12 Education (and Chapel Hill Planning Director)
13
14 Staff Present: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, Debra Graham, Orange County
15 Planning Department; Aaron Cain, Orange County Planner; Roy Williford, Carrboro Planning Director;
16 John Link, Orange County Manager; Margaret Hauth, Hillsborough Planning Director; Mike Brough,
17 Attorney for Carrboro and-Hillsborough; and Bill Mullin, Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools
18
19 1. CALL TO ORDER
20 Chair Gordon called the meeting to order at approximately 7:35 p.m.
21
22 2. ADJUSTMENTS TO AGENDA
23 None
24
25 3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES —June 13. 2001
26 A motion was made by Allen Spalt, seconded by Edith Wiggins to approve the minutes of June
27 13, 2001.
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
3o 4. DRAFT MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2002
31 A motion was made by Edith Wiggins, seconded by Brian Lowen to approve the meeting
32 schedule for 2002.
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 5. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE
36 Chair Gordon thanked Brian Lowen and Allen Spalt for their work on the SLUC and their support.
37 Brian Lowen said that he wished he could continue to serve on the SLUC and will help as much
38 as possible.
39 Allen Spalt indicated that he would continue to promote the adoption of-the Schools Adequate
40 Public Facilities Ordinance.
41
42 a. Attorneys/Planners/School Representatives (APSR)Workgroup recommendations
43 Craig Benedict said that, based on comments from the public hearing in both Orange
44 County and Chapel Hill, two issues needed to be addressed. One issue was the potential ability of
45 property owners/developers/applicants to hoard or"lock up" capacity for their project before they had
46 submitted anything to the local government. He noted that this is the way the ordinance was formatted
47 originally. In the first draft, before an applicant would come into the local government,they would go to
48 the School Districts to get a Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS). The CAPS issuance by the
49 School Districts as a public service provider has been moved to after the local government approvals
5o thereby eliminating the long term "'lock up"during the sometimes lengthy development approval process.
l0
1 The second issue was the effect of this ordinance on affordable housing. He said that this
2 ordinance is not fashioned to resolve affordable housing issues. He made reference to a memo from
3 County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill that said that affordable housing will be encouraged on its merits via
4 other programs that exist in the County and that the impacts of affordable housing projects related to the
5 total amount of housing will have minimal impact. He noted that there is a general understanding that -
6 affordable housing will be handled by other policies of the county through the Affordable Housing Task
7 Force. A Schools APFO can balance CIP expenditures and allow more distribution to affordable housing
8 initiatives.
9
o b. Memorandum of Understanding
1 Craig Benedict said that some alternatives have been provided from the original process
2 with regard to updating the Schools APFO each year. Three alternatives were presented which identified
3 who could recommend and make changes to the annual updates/variables of the Schools APFO formula.
4 He said that there was a joint report of the BOCC and the school district through the School Facilities
5 Task Force that recommended a certain membership period that could also be used for the Schools
6 APFO. He noted that the original structure of the formula would be static with all the variables annually
7 updated. In the previous version any changing of the formula and its components would have to go back
8 to all the local governments and could be a long-term project. He said that the workgroup decided that
9 the alternate 1 first version would be the most workable option because it keeps the formula intact and
o keeps any adjustments to the variables very technical.
1 Mike Brough clarified the comments made by Craig Benedict and said that the workgroup
2 was actually recommending the draft which is the first version but not noted as alternate 1. There was a
3 draft, alternate 1, and alternate 2.
4 Chair Gordon said that the Board of County Commissioners would prefer alternate 1
5 because they have been responsible for deciding on the projections up to now.
6 Diana McDuffee made reference to item 'c' on page two and the methodology for
7 determining the projected growth rate for student membership and asked if there would be consensus
.8 among all the parties as to the methodology.
.9 Mike Brough said that agreement on the items in item 'c'were prerequisites to the
o adoption of the ordinance.
1 Discussion ensued about the possibility of exempting certain types of housing from the
2 ordinance.
3 Allen Spalt pointed out that reviewing the documents by August 15th was an awkward time
.4 because most of the towns are on vacation and are not able to meet.
.5 Craig Benedict explained the methodology for the student projection rate.
,6 Chair Gordon said that her interpretation of item 'c'was that all.parties would agree on the
,7 four items before the Schools APFO was approved. She said that the Board of County Commissioners
18 has not spent a considerable amount of time on the projected growth rate methodology.
;9 Edith Wiggins asked if the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners would
�0 be based on the County staff recommendation or could the recommendation come from this staff
G1 committee that included representation from each jurisdiction. The council decided that a
G2 recommendation could come from the staff committee since each jurisdiction is represented.
43 John Link said that we should not be rushing this process, and hurrying to do something
E4 for the next year's CIP because that just cannot happen. He said that there should be plenty of time for
15 the staff to work through this. Craig Benedict agreed.
16 Discussion ensued about the date of the yearly meeting of the staff committee as
47 specified in item 'd' on page two of the MOU.
t8 Bill Mullin clarified that the membership numbers have to be in by the 20th day of school.
E9 Chair Gordon would like to stick with November 15th as the date for the yearly reporting.
>o Roger Waldon made reference to Section 3a and explained the reasoning behind the date
;1 of November 15tH
I Chair Gordon read a portion of Alternate 1 (as follows):
2 d. After the adoption of the ordinances referenced in Section 2, the Orange County
3 Board of Commissioners may change the projected student membership growth
4 rate, the methodology used to determine this rate, or the student generation rate if
5 the Board concludes that such a change is necessary to predict growth more
6 accurately. In making this determination, the Commissioners will consider the
7 recommendation of the staff committee consisting of planning directors for the
8 towns, county, school districts, and superintendents. She also noted that in
9 Alternate 1 it states that the Orange County Board of Commissioners shall inform
10 the other parties to this Memorandum prior to November 15''. She stated that
11 there may need to be some tweaking there if the recommendation is supposed to
12 come out by November 15th. She continued Alternate 1 as follows:
13
14 In making this determination, the staff committee and Board of Commissioners
15 shall consider the following:
16
17 (i) The accuracy of the methodology and projected growth rate then in use
18 in projecting school membership for the current school year;
19
20 (ii) The accuracy of the student generation rate then in use in predicting the
21 number of students at each level actually generated by each new
22 housing type;
23
24 (iii) Approval of and issuance of CAPS for residential developments that,
25 individually or collectively, are of sufficient magnitude to alter the
26 previously agreed upon school membership growth projections; or
27
28 (iv) Other trends and factors tending to alter the previously agreed upon
29 projected growth rates.
30
31 If any such change is made in the projected growth rate, the methodology for
32 determining this rate, or the student generation rate, the Orange County Board of
33 Commissioners shall inform the other parties to this Memorandum prior to
34 November 15th in any year in which such change is intended to_become effective
35 what change was made and why it was necessary.
36
37 Diana McDuffee said that it was important that whatever wording is used, that it be clear
38 that the towns have an opportunity to see what change is being suggested.
39 Chair Gordon suggested on page four at the bottom that the school board should provide
40 a copy of the updated numbers derived in_steps a-d to each of the parties as soon as they are derived.
41 Chair Gordon made reference to Section 8a and residential developments permanently
42 restricted by law and/or covenant to housing for the elderly and/or adult care living and/or adult special
43 needs.
44 Diana McDuffee said that for senior housing, she does not think it is practical to require
45 somebody to use their pr,•nerty for only one type of housing forever or even for 100 years.
46 Discussion ensued about how long the property should be restricted.
47 Craig Benedict said that one idea was that if the property were ever converted, it would
48 fall under the ordinance. If it were restricted for 30 years, then after 30 years it would be a renewal of a
49 special use permit where the owner would have to start over again for a new use. He suggested adding
50 language as item 8c on page five regarding a new use. He offered the following language: "If the two
51 aforementioned developments are changed in nature, the new development has to receive a CAPS."
8 .
1 It was then suggested that the word "permanently" in items 'a' and 'b' be changed to "not
2 less than 30years." The council agreed with this.
3
4 C. Schools APFO Ordinance
5 Chair Gordon said that any changes made to the MOU would be reflected in the
6 ordinance.
7 A motion was made by Allen Spalt, seconded by Edith Wiggins to adopt the Schools
8 Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding the model Ordinance ("An Ordinance
9 Amending the Development Ordinance to Require that the Adequacy of Public School Facilities to
o Accommodate New Development Be Considered in the Approval Process") as discussed and amended.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 6. COMPUTER SPREADSHEET DEMONSTRATION OF A STANDARD FORMULA TO BE USED
4 IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHOOLS APFO
5 Craig Benedict made this presentation and explained the formula. The formula would be
6 calculated on November 15"'each year.
7 Aaron Cain went through several scenarios to demonstrate the use of the formula.
8
9 7. SLUC TRANSMITTAL TO LOCAL GOVERNING BOARDS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
o ACTION
1 A motion was made by Diana McDuffee, seconded by Allen Spalt to authorize the Chair to
2 transmit the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and ordinance to the local governing boards and-the
3 school boards, with copies to the SLUC members, Planning Directors and School Superintendents.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5 Craig Benedict will work with Chair Gordon to draft the letter. As part of the process, the MOU
6 and model ordinance will go through public hearing again.
7
8 Allen Spalt made reference to the memo from County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill and said that the
9 section on allocating school capacity among jurisdictions would raise issues with Carrboro that would
o cause extreme delay in the passing of the ordinance.
1 There may need to be a memo of explanation to Carrboro.
2
3 8. COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO PROPOSED SCHOOLS APFO
4 This item was received as information only.
5
6 9. ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
7 Date: December 12, 2001
,8 Time: 7:30 p.m.
19 Place: Southern Human Services Center
.p
1 10. ADJOURNMENT
2 With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
.3
4 Alice Gordon, Chair
15 -
4 Becky Butler, Minutes Preparer
47
18
Schools and Land Use Council
MARCH 13, 2002
AGENDA ITEM#4a;#4b
4a. School Membership for the Current Year
4b. School Membership for Last Year
Abstract:
Attached is the school membership data for the two school districts from the
current and previous year. The use of portable classrooms is noted on page
two of the report. These facilities are not counted as permanent capacity in
the proposed Schools APFO. In addition the Level of Service (LOS) for
school levels are noted on page three.
Recommendation: Receive as information.
9:cmig\sluc\item4a-03132002\03-05-02\dg
to
updated March 6,2002
Figure 5. Student Capacity by School District
Permanent Structures Only,No Mobile Units (Including:Projects Under Construction)
CHCCS OCS
Square Members Square Members
Elementary Feet Capacity hip(1) Elementary Feet Capacity hip(1)
Carrboro 60,832 563 492 Cameron Park 70,812 598 456
Ephesus 66,952 472 550 Central 52,492 463 293
Estes Hills 56,299 549 555 Efland Cheeks 64,316 509 411
Glenwood 50,764 445 371 Grady Brown 74,016 575 459
FP Graham 63,541 570 587 Hillsborough 51,106 414 393
McDougle 98,000 596 669 New Hope 100,164 601 457
Scroggs rz� 90,980 609 572. Pathways 85,282 560 427
Seeweil 52,869 498 076
Totar CHCCS - Total OCS
Elementary 540,237 4,302 4,472 Elementary 498,188 . 3,720 2,896
Middle Middle
Culbreth 104,798 670 .644- A.L.Stanback 136,000 740 . 744
McDougle 136,221 732 634 C.W.Stanford 107,620 726 789
Phillips 109,498 706 749
Smith 128,764 732 521
Total CHCCS Total OCS
Middle School 479,281 2,840 2,548 Middle School 243,620 1,466 1,533
High High
Chapel Hill 241,111 1,520 1,560 Orange 213,509 1,518 1,723
East Chapel Hill 258,985 . 1,515 1,395 Cedar Ridge• 206,500 1,000 (3)
Total CHCCS Total OCS High
High School 500,096 3,035 2,955 School 420,009 2,518 1,723
Total All Levels 1,519,614 10,177 9,975 Total All Levels 1,161,817 7,704. 6,152
3rd Month Membership
(2)Capacity as approved by CHCCS Board of Education in January 2001
(3)Currently being constructed
Changes from 2000-01 figures reflected in shaded background
Small increases from 2000-01 in CHCCS HS square footage because of construction of concession areas
Decreases in individual 2001-02 OCS elementary school membership reflects opening of Pathways -Dec 2000
Reductions in OCS elementary capacities.reflect new pre-K classes-20 seats per class
Figure 7. School Districts Use of Mobile Units
Usage for2001-02 School Year
CHCCS OCS
Assigned As—signed
Elementary #Units Usage Elementary #Units Usage
Carrboro 1 Classroom Cameron Park 1 Resource Room,
Supply Storage
Classrooms and
Ephesus 7 Small Group Central 0 No Units
instruction
BEH Self Occupational
Estes Hills 1 Efland Cheeks 1 Therapy and
Contained Room After School
Classrooms, Classrooms and
Glenwood 4 Resource Room, Grady Brown 3 Resource
Family Specialist Rooms
Room
FP Graham 2 Classrooms Hillsborough 0 No Units
McDougle 2-. New Hope 0 No Units
Scroggs 0 No Units Pathways 0 No Units
Seawall 6 Classrooms '
Total CHCCS 23. Total OCS 5
Elementary Elementary
Middle Middle
Culbreth 0 No Units A.L. Stanback 1 Classroom
McDougle 2 Classrooms C.W. Stanford 6 Classrooms,
Resource
Phillips 0 No Units
Smith 0 No Units
Total CHCCS 2 Total OCS 7
Middle School Middle School
High High
Chapel Hill 6 Classrooms Orange 2* Classrooms
East Chapel Hill 0 No Units Cedar Ridge 0
noenix
Academy/Lincol 3 Classrooms
n Center
Total CHCCS 9 Total OCS High 2
High School School
Total All Levels 34 Total All Levels 14
* to be returned upon opening of Cedar Ridge In Aug 2002
ct)Currently being constructed
updated March 6,2002
Figure 8. Elementary School Capacity
Permanent Structures Only, No Mobile,
CHCCS OCS
Capa Member %,of Capa Member %of
School city ship�11 Capacity School city ship�'? Capacity
Carrboro 563 492 87.4% Cameron Park 598 456 76.3%
Ephesus 472 550 116.5% Central 463 293 63.3%
Estes Hills 549 555 101.1% Efiand Cheeks 509 411 80.7%
Glenwood 445 371 83.4% Grady Brown 575 459 79.8%
FP Graham 570 587 103.0% Hillsborough 414 393 94.9%
McDougle 596 '669 112,2% New Hope 601 . 457 76.0%
Scroggs 609 572 93.9% Pathways 560 427.
Seawell 498 -676 135.7%
Total CHCCS Total OCS
Elementary Elementary.
School 4,3021 4,471'. 104.0% School 3,720 2,896 77.8%
CHCCS
Elementary OCS Elementary
Capacity at 105% Capacity at 105%
Level of Service 4,517 4,472 99.o% Level of Service 3,906 _2,896 74.1%
(1)3rd Month Membership
! 3
updated March 6,2002
Figure 9. Middle School Capacity
Permanent Structures Only,No Mobile Units
CHCCS OCS
Capa Member % of Capac Member %of
School city ship I'I Capacity School Ity ship(') Capacity
Culbreth 670 644 96,1% A.L.Stanback 740 744 100.5%
McDougle 732 634' 86.6% C.W.Stanford 726 789 108.70/6'
Phillips 706 749 .106.1%
Smith 732 521 71.2%
Total CHCCS Total OCS Middle
Middle School 2,840. 2,548: 89,7% School 1,466 1,533 104.6%p
CHCCS Middle OCS Middle
School Capacity School Capacity
at 107 0/6•Level of. at 107%Level of
Service 3,039 2,548 83.8% Service 1,569 1,533 97.7%
(i) 3rd Month Membership
updated March 6.2002
Figure 10. High School Capacity
Permanent Structures Only, No Mobile Units
CHCCS - OCS
Capa Member %of Capa Member %,of
School city ship 111 Capacity School city ship n) Capacity
Chapel Hill 1,520 1,560 102.6% Orange 1,518 1,723 113.5%a
East Chapel Hill 1,515 1,395 . 92.1% Cedar Ridge(2) 1,000
Total CHCCS Total OCS High
High School 3,035 2,955 .. 97.4% School 2,518 1,723 68.4%
CHCCS High
School Capacity OCS High School
at 110% Level of Capacity at 110%
Service 3,339, 2,955 88,5% Level of Service 2,770 1,723 . 62.2%
fl) 3rd Month Membership
(2)Opening Fall 2002
y. ..* A ins YOk, . ..s r R• .a• '^ _
Student capacity refers to the number of permanent seats available in schools. This
number does not represent the number of seats provided in mobile or relocatable units.
The chart below outlines student capacity and membership for each system. For
Purposes of this report, the membership numbers used for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Schools reflect the .third month of school year 2000-01. For the Orange County
Schools, membership numbers reflect the fourth month of the 2000-01 school year. In
addition, membership numbers do not account for the number of students from each
district who are members of charter schools, nor does it reflect the number of students
attending the 'Hospital School'operated by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools.
Figure 5. Student Capacity.by School District
Permanent Structures Only,No Mobile Units(including Projects Under Construction) .
CHCCS Ocs
Square Member Square Member
E]emerrtary Feet Capacity ship(') teary Feet Capacity ship t+)
Carrboro 60,832 563 523 Cameron Park 70,812 598 577
Ephesus 66.952 472 580 Central 52,492 483 427
Estes Hills 56,299 549 340 Efland Cheeks 64,316 529 539
Glenwood 30,764 445 369 Grady Brovm 74,016 575 522
FP Graham 63,541 570 579 Hillsborough 51,106 414 398
McDougle 98,000 596 676 New Hope 100,164 621 615
X99$(2) 90,980 609 554 Pathways 85,282 600 14)
Seawell 52,869 498 623
Total CHCCS Total OCS
Elementary 540,237 4,302 - 4,444 Elementary 498,188 3,820 3,07
Middle Middle
Culbreth 104,798 670 655 A.L.Stanbadc 136,000 740 717
McDougle 136,221 732 861 C.W.Stanford 107,620 726 787
Phillips 109,498 706 810
Smith* 128,764 732 (3)
Total CHCCS Total OCS
Middle School 479,281 2,840 2,326 Middle School 243,620 1,466 1,504
High High a
Chapel Hill 238,074 1,520 1,540 Orange 213,509 1,518 1,672
East Chapel Hill 255,948 1,515 1,275 Cedar PJdge* 206,500 1,000 t')
Total CHCCS Total OCS High
High School 494,022 3,035 2,815 School 420,009 2,318 1,672
Total All Levels 1,513,540 10,177 9,585 Total All levels 1,161,817 7,804 6,254
3rd Month Merers
bhip for CHCCS and 4th Month Membership for OCs
r4 Capacity as approved by CHCCS Board of Education iri January 2001
(3)Currently being constructed
t")Not in operation on 2nd month of 2000/01 School Year,opened December 2000
It is important to note that there are two unopened schools, Smith Middle School in the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro District and Cedar Ridge High School in the Orange County
13
6
Figure 7. School Districts Use of Mobile Units
Usage for 2000.01 School Year
CHCCS OCS
Elementary Units Assigned Usage Elementary Units Assigned Usage
Resour
Carrboro 1 Classroom Cameron Park 1 Supplyr�Ream,
• uPPh+ftm9e
Classrooms and
Ephesus 7 Small Group Central 0 No Units
Instruction
. Occupational Self Estas Hills 1 BCo�rttai Room Efland Cheeks 1 Therapy and After
School
Classrooms,
Resource Room, Classrooms and
Glenwood 2 Family Specialist Grady Brown 3 Resource Rooms
Room
FP Graham •4 Classrooms 1141ilsborough 0 No Units
McDougle 0•No Units New Hope 0 No Units
Scroggs 0 No Units Pathways 0 No Units
Seawell 6 Classroorns
Total CHCCS 21 Total OCS 5
Elementary Elementary
Middle Middle
Culbreth. 0 No Urirts L Stanback 1 Classroom
McDougle 2 Classrooms C.W.Stanfard 6 °Rims
Phillips 0 No Units
Sm1th 0
TOW CHCCS 2 Total OCS 7
Middle School Middle-School
High High
Chapel Hill 6 Classrooms Orange 2 Classrooms
East Chapel Hill 0 No Units Cedar Ridge• 0 p�
Phoenbc Acaden 2 Classrooms
Total CHCCS Total OCS
High School 6 High School 2
Total All ?9 Total All 94
Levels Levels
Currently being constructed
15
�lpmentary Capacity
At the end of the second month of the current school year, elementary capacity in the
individual districts was within the 105 percent. level of service, with a combined
capacity for the two systems of about 92 percent. Membership in the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro School District is less than two percent of the acceptable level of service
allowing for growth of approximately 73 students .at the elementary level. The
opening of Pathways Elementary in December 2000 expanded the Orange County
School District's capacity by 600 students, providing a growth factor of 933 students
at the elementary level before*reaching.the 105 percent level.
Figure 8. Elementary School Capacity
Permanent Structures only,No Mobile Units
CHCCS . . OCS
Caps member % of Caps Member % of
School city ship t�1 Capacity School city ship Ht capacity
Carrboro 563 523 92.9% Cameron Park 598 577 96.5%
Ephesus 472 580 122.9% Central 483 427 88.4%
Estes Hills 549 540 98.4% Efland Cheeks 529 539 101.9%
Glenwood 445 369 82.9% Grady Brown 575 522 90.8%
FP Graham 570 579 101.6% Hillsborough 414 398 96.1%
McDougle 596 676 113.4% New Hope 621 615 99.0%
Scroggs 609 554 91.0% Pathways 600
Seawell 498 623 125.1%
Total CHCCS Total OCS
Elementary Elementary
School 4,302 4,444 103.3% School 3,820 3,078 80.6%
CHCCS
-Elementary OCS Elementary
Capacity at 105% _ Capacity at 105%
Level of Service 4,517 4,444 98.4% Level of Service 4,011 3,078 76.7%
% of
Caps
Combined Elementary Capacity Capacity Membership nt city
1100% Level of
Service 8,122 7,522 92.6%
105% Level of
Service 8,528 7,522 88.2%
3rd Month Membership for CHCCS and 4th Month Membership for OCS
tZ�School not open on 40th day;opened December 2000
16
Middle School Capacity
Figure 9 provides. individual and combined capacity for middle schools in both
districts. It is importsintAo".note that in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro District, the current
membership is 2,326 students, which surpasses the 107 percent level of service
standard (Culbreth,: McDougle, .and Phillips Middle Schools) by 70 students. The
opening of Smith Middle School in fall 2001 will allow for District growth.of 720 new
students at this level.
Figure 9 below Indicates that membership at the Middle School Level in the Orange
County School District has surpassed the 100 percent mark but is still slightly below
the 107 percent Level of Service. There is a growth factor of 65 students before the
District meets the 107 percent level.
The opening of Smith Middle School will increase the combined middle school
capacity in both districts to 5,038 students at the 107 percent level of service.
Figure 9. Middle School Capacity
Permanent Structures Only,No Mobile Units
CHCCS OCS
Capa Ilember %of Capac em er %of
School city ship") Capacity School Ity ship(') *Capacity
Culbreth 670 655 97.8% L. Stanback 740 717 96.9%
McDougie 732 861 197.6°� C.W. Stanford 726 787 108.4%
Phillips 706 810 114.7%
Smith(2) 732 0 0.0%
Total CHCCS Total OCS Middle
Middle School 2,90 2,325 81.9°/. School 1,466 1,504 102.6%
CHCCS Middle OCS Middle
School Capacity School Capacity
at 107°.6 Level of at 107%Level of
Service' 3,039 2,325 76.3°� Service 1,569 1,504 95.9%
%of
Capa
Combined Middle School Capacity Capacq Membership city
100%Level of
Service 4206 3,830 88.50
107%Level of
Service 5,038 3,830 76.0%
"J 3rd Month Membership for CHCC.S and 4th Month Membership for OCS
(2)Opening Fall 2001
17
- 19
Nigh School Capacity
-Current capacity at the high school level in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro District is 3,035
compared to a membership. of 2,815. This equates to about 93 percent of capacity
compared to the level of service standard of 3,339 students (I 10 percent). On the
other hand; Orange County High School has surpassed the 110 percent level by two
students. The opening of Cedar Ridge High School in fall 2002 will bring Orange
County District's capacity to 2,518. in addition, the combined high school capacity at
the 100 percent capacity level will increase to 5,553. It is also important to note that
with the opening of Cedar Ridge, the 110 percent level of capacity for the two districts
will be 6,108.
Figure 10. High School Capacity
Permanent Structures Only,No Mobile Units
CHCCS OCS
Cape MemBer %of Capa em %of
School city ship(l Capacity School city ship") Capacity
Chapel Hill 1,520 1,540 101.3% Orange 1,618 1,672 110.1%
East Chapel H1( 1,515 1,275 84.2% Cedar Ridge(2) 1,000
Total CHCCS Total OCS High
High School 3,035 2,815 92JM School 2,518 1,672 66.49/6
CHCCS High
School Capacity OCS High School.
at 110%Level of Capacity at 110%
Service 3,339 2,815 g4.30A Level of Service 2,770 1,672
%of
Capa
Combined High School Capacity Capacity Membership ra city
100%Level of
Service 5453 4,487 80.8%
110%Level of
Service 6,108 4,487 73.5%
n)
3d Month Membership far CHCCS and 4th Month Membamhip,for OCS
c2) Opening Fall 2002
_ ac
Schools and Land Use Council
MARCH 13, 2002
AGENDA ITEM #5a7#5b, #5c, #5d
Abstract:
Four items within the School APFO Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
must be agreed upon by the four jurisdictions and two school districts before
the corresponding ordinance can be implemented. These four items are
listed as items 5a-5d. The Joint Schools and Land Use Council will discuss
these items and provide comments and/or recommendations, as appropriate.
The choices for each item are as follows:
5a. Student Generation Rates
5a. 1. The Tischler report conducted for the school impact fee study
included public school generation rates for two categories of dwelling
units (single family detached and multi-family). It is based on 1990
census data with extrapolations to 2000 and is the most detailed report
the county has on the subject.
2. Another option is to use 2000 census data for children/dwelling unit,
though it would not discriminate between public and private school
children and does not differentiate between types of dwelling units.
Recommendation 5a: Use option 1 since presently it is the most statistically
valid analysis available.
5b. Membership Method
5b. Many figures are compiled to describe a district's membership total.
A school facilities task force has recommended membership as the
appropriate measure (instead of enrollment).
The choices for this method are:
1. 20'' day membership
2. 40'' day mt.-Tnbership__
3. highest monthly average membership of first two months
Note: The highest monthly average has been consistently used by
State Department of Public Instruction for funding.
4. Membership as of November 15
Recommendation 5b: Use option 3.
g:craig\sluc\item5a-03132002\03-07-02\dg
5c. Capacity Levels
5c. According to the Schools APFO and MOU the capacity levels are
determined by the.School Boards and the BOCC.
Recommendation 5c: The method for joint determination of capacity
should be established by the BOCC and School Districts as soon as possible.
5d. Growth Projection Method
5d. The growth projection method is key for determining the future CIP
and future capacity,levels under School APFO. The Tischler report
conducted for the school impact fee study includes recommended
projection methods for each school district. Including the Tischler
method, there are five methods utilized by the BOCC. These methods
are:
1. Tischler Linear (Both districts similar)
2. Orange County Planning Linear Wave
3. 10 year growth
4. 5 year Cohort survival
5. 3 year Cohort survival
Using the graphs for the five methods, the staff will explain the differences
among the methods. These graphs will be distributed at the meeting.
Recommendation 5d: Orange County Planning Staff through discussions
with the other planning directors suggest using an average of four methods
to start the Schools APFO system, namely, methods 1, 2, 4, 5 above. The
staff believes there is no clear pattern of accuracy with any one model at any
particular school level or school district. Each subsequent year the Schools
APFO technical team could analyze the trends from historical and consistent
data collection and recommend which model or average better 'fits' the
actual membership data.
s:craiz\sluc\item5a-03132002\03-07-02\d2
as
Schools and Land Use Council
MARCH 13, 2002
AGENDA ITEM #6
Spreadsheet for determination of CAPS
Abstract: The purpose of this item is to demonstrate the logistical working
of the formula and procedures for developers to obtain CAPS under the
proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
Recommendation: Receive as information and make comment.
g:craig\sluc\item6-03132002\3-5-02\dg
. a3
AGENDA ITEM#6-.
Schools APFO Process
Data Gathered
/Membership chool District School Boards and
Provides BOCC Provide
Data Building Capacity
Figures
ovember
15th
Data Reported to PSTAC
(Planners and Schools Technical
Advisory Committee)
January
10th
PSTAC Recalibrates Model and Projections;
Notifies All Parties of Results
ebruary
15th
Process
renews BOCC
each fall Certifies El
Model,
Projections
and Results
Y
New CAPS Model for New Development Goes Into Effect;
OCS & CHCCS w/BOCC Develop New CIPs & School
Capacity Limits
G:\aaron\School APFO\Flowchart for CH-C meetines
Schools and Land Use Council
MARCH 13, 2002
AGENDA ITEM #7
Spreadsheet for determination of CAPS
Abstract: The purpose of this item is to demonstrate the logistical working
of the formula and procedures for developers to obtain CAPS under the
proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
Recommendation: Receive as information and make comment.
g:craig\sluc\item7-03132002\3-5-02\dg
ns
Schools and Land Use Council
MARCH 13, 2002
AGENDA ITEM #8
Status of Schools APFO with respect to public hearings and actions by
local governing boards
Abstract: Attached is a table of the current status of the Schools Adequate
Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding and Model Ordinance in
the four affected jurisdictions.
Please note that since the MOU and ordinance have undergone some
changes over the last year the ordinance is being reprocessed through the
public hearing process in the jurisdictions.
Recommendation: Receive as information and make comment.
g:craiglsluc\item8-0313200213-5-021dg
i
STATUS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE
Memorandum of Unders anding Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Jurisdiction Review Public Hearing Adoption Review Public Headnq Adoption
Carrboro* i 6-12-01 3-26-02 0-12-01 3-26-02
Chapel Hill* 2-13-01 2-19-01 3-25-02** 2-13-01 2-19-01 3-25-02**
Hillsborough* 3-25-01 3-25-01
3-11-02 3-11-02
Orange County* 9-25-00 5-28-02 9-25-00 5-28-02
10-02-00 10-02-00
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools 1-17-01
Orange County Schools 12-11-00
* Updated on 3-5-02.
** Scheduled for vote.
1 ..
gAaaron\School APFOWOU-APFOchart
Schools and Land Use Councils—Meeting Summary for March 13, 2002
(See the March 13 minutes for the full report of the meeting)
Agenda Item 4—School Membership
The Council received,as a report,data for both school districts concerning the school membership
for the current year as well as the school membership for last year.
Agenda Item 5—Memorandum of Understanding Elements.
The Council discussed the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding,with
particular attention to the following four elements:
Agenda Item 5a. Student Generation Rates
The Council discussed the two methods for determining student generation rates,but did not make a
recommendation. The two options were:
1. The Tischler report conducted for the school impact fee study(based on 1990 census data)
2. Year 2000 census data for children/dwelling unit
The staff recommendation was to"use option 1 since presently it is the most statistically valid analysis
available." (See the agenda packet for a more complete description of the two options.)
Agenda Item 5b. Membership Method
The Council discussed the following four methods for determining membership:
1. 20`h day membership
2. 40`h day membership
3. Highest monthly average membership of first two months
Note: The highest monthly average has been consistently used by the State Department of Public
Instruction for funding
4. Membership as of November 15
Note: This method is the one specified in the MOU.
MOTION: It was moved by Teresa Williams,seconded by Jim Ward,to accept Option#4 "Membership
as of November 15"to calculate school membership
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Agenda Item 5c. Capacity Levels
The Council discussed the importance of capacity levels,but did not make a recommendation.
The recommendation in the agenda packet is that the method for joint determination of capacity should be
established by the Board of County Commissioners and School Districts as soon as possible.
Agenda Item 5d. Growth Projection Method
The Council discussed the following five growth projection methods:
1. Tischler Linear(both districts similar)
2. Orange County Planning Linear Wave
3. 10 year growth
4. 5 year cohort survival
5. 3 year cohort survival
MOTION: A motion was made by Teresa Williams,seconded by Jim Ward,that the growth projection
method be the average of the five projection methods listed in agenda item 5d(above)with the provision
that the Tischler method will use the same linear model for both school districts. Whether that will be the
linear method or the linear extrapolation method will be determined later.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Agenda Item 6. Schools APFO Procedure
The Council received an explanation concerning the flowchart that showed the timeline for how
the Schools APFO would be implemented. The flowchart will be revised to make it conform to the MOU.
Agenda Item 8. Status of the Schools APFO
The Council discussed the status for each jurisdiction. Craig Benedict will prepare a timetable of
the items that need to be addressed prior to the final local government adoption of the ordinance.