HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-02-2004-GordonOrange County Board of Commissioners -June 2, 2004 Meeting Agenda
Addition to Item Sf Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) -Approval
of Annual Certifcations
MEMORANDUM
To: BOCC and Manager
From: Alice Gordon
Subject: Overview of Commissioner Gordon's Suggested Revisions to the Schools
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) Annual Report
Date:.Tune 1, 2004
Copy to Craig Benedict
On May 25, 2004 I sent a rather informal fax to Craig Benedict giving my
comments and suggested revisions to the SAPFO report, FIis reply was given in the
document, "Revisions made in the SAPFOTAC report by the Orange County Planning
Depaztment in response to Commissioner Cordon's May 25, 2004 Fax." Since my
handwritten comments may not be entirely clear, I am indicating below the basic issues
that were addressed in my fax. There aze also some suggestions for the future.
I. 2004 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary
A, Five Year Comparison of Student Membership Projections
The "5 year out Snapshot Comparison," which is Item IhC on page i, needed to be
clearly labeled as an increase or decrease m projections between the prior year and the
current year, However, in the future, I think it would be more important to provide a
summary chart showing how many student seats are available (unused) and how many
are needed. What we need to highlight in the Executive Summary is the most basic data
concerning whether there will be a need to create more capacity during the next few
years. Accordingly, I have made a chart for the five-year planning period, and included it
as page 3 of this memo. I thought it was helpful to show the data in both chart and baz
graph form, My suggestion for the SAPFO report is that we should produce the same baz
graphs for the current student projections that the budget office has produced in the past.
B, Increase or Decrease in the Growth Rate
Item B on page ii deals with the direction of the growth rate for each level
(Elementary, Middle, and High School) and both school districts, The information was
originally presented in a confusing way, but now the report indicates that in five of the
six cases, the growth rate was positive (increasing), and describes the increase or
decrease in the rate. In one case, Orange County Middle Schools (OCMS), the four-yeaz
growth rate was negative (decreasing), though the decrease has become more gradual.
Gordon - SAPFO Report Revisions -Page 2
II. 2004 Annual Report
A, Student Projections (pages 27-3.3)
My main suggestion for change was to correct the inaccurate language describing
the student projections for the Orange County Middle Schools. The report had originally
indicated that the projections showed a relatively slow but constant growth of about two
classrooms per year. However, as the chart for "OCS Student Projections (2003)" on
page .32 shows, the projections really show a decrease and some fluctuations. The actual
number of'students for 2003-2004 is 1671, Projections for the next year show 1627
students, a decrease of 44, The projected number of students does not come back to
200.3-2004 levels until 2009-2010 (1679 students), In addition, the report initially had
given 120% as the level of service for the year prior to the opening of the new noddle
school #.3, whereas now the correct level of 112% has been stated.
B. Corrections in Numbers, Changes in Format, and Clarifications
In my experience, the usual practice for writing technical reports dictates that one
should use systematic data that is gathered and reported for all levels. That is why I
asked that "editorial" language be removed, If systematic data is available in the future, it
could be reported. I also suggested corrections to some inaccurate numbers and
typographical errors,
1
w~
W
N
O
-~-
U
tt3
~I-i
wO'
W
r~
H
H
V~ °o
1-~ N
O"
pN
~ ~
i,
N M ~
F+`1 ~ V
s Y U °'
c, ~ ~
c ~ v
~ _. _.._ ...
~
'O Y p O
~ L{~
t~ ,
/
T ~
n O 1
N
ly
~ ~
`
V
N
~ '~ ~ '
v a`'i ~
n E ~ t~ o ?
{ N
,_ N
~ c Y ~ o
G y--. ~ N
~ ~
~'_, ~ ~ LLJ N
m ~'
: U¢ N
; a y
~ ~ G
J
y
~
V
U
y ~
,
7
b ~ ~
~ -_
~
Y N W
O
N
N O
4" O ~ 1
CI? O
O ~ ~
N
O
`
~
~
° O
~ ~ O
N ~j o
~y1
1
N
.a -C
Y Vj ~
P
.~
Y 1
b ~ ~ ~
T
m ~ `U
n. o a,
W
H ~~
V o
~
y
0 _
/
~1 N
~
M
o
O N
~_:,__
.
~ 0
N
'm
~
W i~
N
O 4-~
O O O
O O O O O
' ~
N O oD CO d' N N d
~ ~
C
O
~ O
w P.
O ~
Nv ~
W ~
a ~'
v~
~v
~x
v V
M
~' M
b
Q
N ~C
N
:~
y
~ C
~y O
w
U y
0
a
a °'
m
m -o
-mo ~
Qv
°o ~
~ N
U M
~ d
z "~
0
N
~ N
o ~
U
N
~ A
L ~N
~ a
v
O
O
s
y
°o v
Vl C
ttl
man a
M
x~
x ~.
d m
b
•o m
v
C
b
T
U
N ~
N id
N
h
W ~
W V
T O
N
a
Revisions made to SAPFOTAC report by the
Orange County Planning Department in response to
Commissioner Gordon's May 25, 2004 Fax (see attached)
Orange County Plarana'rzg Director° General Con:rnent.~ The SAPFOTAC report is
a "snapshot" of November, 2003; therefore, all references and charts reflect
November, 200.3 information. At that time, Chapel HilUCarrboro's third high
school was slated to open in 2006-2007. New information has now been received
that the new high school is not expected to open unti12007-2008.. Changes will
likely be made to the CIP to reflect the new timefiarne if the date remains 2007-
2008 when the next SAPFOTAC report is written.
Executive Summary
Page i - LC.: Membership Date was changed from November 14, 200.3 to November 15,
200.3 as noted in the MOU. November 15, 200.3 was a Saturday, so Friday the 14°i was
used.
Page i - IhC.: Language was added to the title of the chart to clarify that the chart
depicts an increase or decrease in membership projection total between the prior year and
the current year.
Orange Cour¢ry PZarnting Director's Cwnnzerzts, This chart does not show an
increase or decrease in the growth rate between projections of 2002 and
projections of 2003. The growth rate projections shown on pages 35 and .36 of the
report show individual year annual growth rates but may not illustrate an overall
positive correlation with a cumulative effect on the 5 yeaz-out total.
This 5-year timefiame is a good plamiing period in which to respond tlu-ough
capital investment programming (funding sources, design, and construction).
Page i - IhD.: A title was added to the chart to clarify that the percentages shown are the
average amiual growth rates over 10 years,
Page ii -The word "currently" was added to 4 of the 6 Item "A"s on this page to clarify
the timeframe.
Page ii - Item B of each school level: Language was changed to indicate in which
direction the growth rate is moving over the next 5 years. Inmost cases, growth has
exhibited a positive percentage growth rate (eg: 2.5%). When a new projection year
shows an increase in the growth rate (ie: 2.7%), we are reporting that there has been an
increase in the increase (positive) growth rate. In one case, the OCMS 2002 projection
average four-year annualized growth rate was a -0..78% decrease or negative in value.
Page 1 of.3
The 2003 projection showed a -0.21% decrease. In this event, we have explained the
change as a decrease in the decrease (negative) growth rate.
Page ii -Orange County School District -High School District, letter C: the coxnrnent
that Cedar Ridge High School is nearing 100% LOS in the second year was removed
since it doesn't have a direct impact on the SAPFO.
2004 Annual Report
Page 27 -Definition: Language clarifying school levels (elementary, middle, high) and
school district (Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District and Orange County School District)
was added.
Page 27 - #5 (Recommendation): Language directing the reader to the proper attachment
was added.
Page 27 -Orange County School District, Elementary level: "Editorial language" was
removed. The removed language is included directly below as a Plamring Director
Comment.
Ormrge County Plarming Director's Conrrnents: The slow growth at the
Elementary school level is somewhat an anomaly, because single-family housing
growth in the district has experienced a doubling (from 250 units to 500 units) of
growth over the last four years. Younger families and first time homebuyers also
seem to be prevalent in Orange County. This situation maybe creating a pre-
school-aged children bubble that will present itself in later years as they age into
the kindergarten.,
Page 28 -Orange County School District, Middle School level: Inaccurate language in
the first paragraph was removed. "Editorial" language was also removed..
Removed Lraccurate Language: [Projections are consistent with previous years]
that show a relatively slow but constant growth of about two classrooms a year.
Removed "Editorial"Languages Over capacity conditions at the two existing
Middle Schools are approximately similar.
Page 28 -Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District, High School level: A typographical
enor was corrected.
Page 29 -Chapel Hill/Canhoro School District, High School level: "Editorial language"
was removed. The removed language is included directly below as a Planning Director
Comment.
Page 2 of 3
Orange Cou~:ry Plar:ning Director's Cona»zents.~ Later years of the 10-year
Capital Investment Plan project the need for another High School. This situation
will be monitored in future years, because past growth has been a balanced mix of
new housing growth and new families in old housing stock. This may begin
changing in later years of the Capital Investment Plan cycle where new housing
will likely be a smaller portion of the new membership total with a possible
decrease in overall increases because of decreasing available land for new
housing and less likelihood of large Planned Developments such as Southern
Village and Meadowmont.
Page 29 -Orange County School District, High School level: "Editorial language" was
removed. The removed language is included directly below as a Plamling Director
Comment.
Orairge Coan2ty Planni~ig Director's Com~nents.~ It is important to note that
growth has been differentially apportioned to the new High School (Cedar Ridge)
where membership is nearing Phase I capacity in the second year. The school
was designed to eventually be expanded from 1,000 to 1,500 capacity.
Page 3 of 3
Typewritten Copy of Fax
COVER SHEET
FAX FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONER ALICE CORDON
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Fax # (919) 967-3823
TO: Craig Benedict
DATE: May 25, 2004
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE:
If you have trouble receiving this transmission, please call (919) 93.3-0550
MESSAGE: REVISED (*)
Here are my comments and suggested changes for the SAPFO item.
Please let me know about questions or comments. THANK YOU,
Dotma Balser should have sent you this already. (Your fax was
busy). Here it is again with a couple of revisions (marked with *),
Please confirm that you have received this fax. Thank you,
X004 5~F®'~`AC Execlgt~ve Slnl~anary V
1.
Base 1VYemoraudum of Understanding
tA.. Level of Service ..............................................(No Change).........Pg. 1
°Temp°rmily~ded
B.
Chapel HiIUGnrboro
Sclloot D6Yrid
~ Orange County
Scleaod Dit7rict
Elemen 105% 105% _
Middle 107% 107%°
FTi h
I10%s _
_
110%
Banding Capacity ............................................(Change)..........Pg. 2
Chapel Hill/Gurboro
SchooPDisulct Orange County _--
SchoolDuYrid
Plena 4921 +619 to 392 +100 =*
Middle 2840 1466
Hi h 3035 2518
C. i~emllersllip HDate -1Vovetnber,,j~; 2003 .................(No Change).......Pg..12
IYY. annual Update t0 St9aPPQD System
EL. Capital Iuves4mleut Plan (CI1')..., ........................(Change)..........Pg.13
B. Student Memlaersllip Projection Metlaod0logy......(jVo Change).......Pg. l6
The overage of 3, 5, and 10 cohort srnlival and 2 linear projection models,
C. Student Nlembers6ip Projections .............................(Chaltge)...........Pg.27
~ Q'l
~~ ~~-~a~
~
~/per}
yp ~+ y /1 p.~~. 111
S 1a.46 ~Yt Ona lH®t i.®m aX YY®Y6 1~Q-c/~.G4f.E- ~Y~ /
~ ~
~7 UlJ~'~-.
H~'mrbnmScli.D&mtd eCo Sd+.Dimlta
2002 2003 2002 2003
~-~
I?lem M ,,_~.~
5405. 5366 ,_
3067
3126
Middle 2954 2883 1567 1656
Hi 6 3719 3737 1952 2070
~..~. tlldCIIt eirrOWt1A late...........
.~
a
p-<..
T^- ~ ~ ~~
................ . . . .. . (Change) ...... .... P g . 3 4
_ Chapel HidUCarrboro
__ School Dist_rld Orange Grump
School District
Elemenia 234% 1S4%
Middle 2.63% 0.79%
H' h 2.81% 1.28%
~~-ry
~dw lti6-e-~
-,-~-- c~Er~l~--~-~
E. Student / Uonsiug generation liate ....................(No Chaage).......Pg. 37
ol- ~ Y'a e c,~~i INS-.(~
~' U Yr~ Ir- u r ~{ ~ ~ .
i
~v/
(Executive Summary coati//n_u_ed) ~ ~ ~~~ "
Q 5"'tc ~ C.,c) 0`^~ ~~"-*i . V~-~ C~ S ~~Z GL'.., ~Z^~ (~ f1~oL~
SCII®OI. AIIE(3iTA'I'E PiT~I~IC F'ACIL S ®1tDINANCE S'I'A3'US
(based on future year Student Membership Projections) ``
~,.Ls O it
CFI,APEL .FIILL/CARRBelRO SCHCDOL J3BSTRdCT
.~--',Zip- ~rovajx- l'°~~e- Lin. N u,?~e-a~l~' %~, coYl~~v'{
Elementary hool District ('a 6 ~ `~~ (~ s ~(,,,>-Q,
A, Does not exceed l OS% LOS standards `~°~' l''`
B. at this level. ~ 3
C. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Elementary Schoot #11 would still be scheduled at the
2006-2007 C1P date. ~
Middle School District ~ c re..~e..
A- Does not ceed 107% LOS standards
E, at this level.
C. Chapel Hill/Canboro Middle School #S would likely be projected for 2009-10
versus the prior year projection of 2008-2009.
high School District
A. Presently at 109.7% LOS and projected to exceed ! 10% LOS standard next year,
but MOU suspended the CAPS adequacy test at this level so CAPS may still be
issued. -yy,Gr-~.r~- ~^ 7-.e ~ ra ~+1~• r 'd-e-
B. Faster~rewth at this level `/_
C. Chapel Aill/Carr'ooro High School #3 still projected to b _ed as soon as ~''F
possible with new construction schedule estimates 006-200. „ 20 0 ~r .- ~ o ~
OR~9NGE C®UNTd'SC~O®L DI.S~TRICT
.~~~,~,~ ~- ~.,,~°- ~ ra ~rfi-- ~~..~-e.-
Elementary Schooq Distract
A. Does not exc lOS% L05 standard.
g, F at this level.
C. Does not affect br prompt CIP activity in 10-year timeframe.
Middle School District
A Presently at 114% IAS which exceeds 107% LOS standard but MOU suspended
the Certificate Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) adequacy test at the level until
Orange County School District (OCSD) Middle School #3 opens so CAPS may
still be issued.,~,__.____._ ~(~ f. ~ / u ~ (y... (~-~-
B. F.~Ster-~ew#h at this level.
C. OCSD Middle School #3 is still projected to be needed as soon as possible with
construction schedule estimates at 2006-2007. ~
High School District
A. Does not ex eed 110% LOS.
B. F at this level.
C. Does not affect or prompt CIP activity in 10-year time $ame,~tcrn~
Rrdge ° J
ii
1.
2.
3,
~6 U.
C. Siv9itle~t$ Pr®,qe~®ffis ~,L~-~. a-t' e Ctm e c /c~o'-f^-~ °~ ~ar
Responsible Entity for Suggesting Change Updating of this section will be/conducted
by the Planning Directors, School Representatives, Technical Advisory Committee
(SAPFOTAC). Q,r~ d Y~e ~ c,%~~ ~" ri-t ~ ~e v~%S'
I3efinitwn -The result of the average of the five models represented by l0~yeaz (dcs Fh~
numerical membership projections by school level for each school district. c ti-~cs 1
Standard for:
Chapel Hill Cazrboro School District
See Attachment II C.4
4.
Analysis ofExxisting Conditions
Standard for:
Orange County School District
See Attachment II C.3
The membership figures and percentage growth on the attachments show continued
growth in both systems. Variability by school level and between the School Districts is
also noted. The projections models were updated using current (November 15)
memberships and ten yeazs were projected thereafter.
Recomr~aendation -
Use statistics as noted in 3 above
Recomneendation-
Use statistics as noted in 3 above
vc s ~ ~- 3
C l+c`~ ~ ~- `f
Elementary
Projections are consistent with previous years
that show a relatively moderate but constant
growth of about seven classrooms a year. The
105% level of service will be maintained until
a projected 10°i Elementary school is expected
to open in 2006-2007. In the later years of the
ten yeaz Capital Investment Plan, the need for
an additional Elementary #11 would be
projected. Also, note khat a mild decrease in
Elementary
Projections are consistent with previous years
that show a relatively slow but constant growth
of about three classrooms a year. During the
ten. year timefianae, membership is projected to
be within the level of service (I.OS) standards
of the School APFO. ~'h
~-
>~lemen hoollevel:
anomaly, because e•
growth in th 'strict has
,wnar an
housing ~`~-'"
a ~-~-
av (e,~,~s
g'l try ~ 6 / ~.~. ^1" (i~w4
z~
C
the.increase of growth in this school level
lengthens the time period between new school
openings.
doublin growth over the last four years.
This situation m e creating a pre•~school-~
aged children bubble tha present itself in
later years as they age into the
Projections are consistent with previous years Projections are consistent with previous years ,
that show a relatively slow but constant growth that show a re~lativa low but constant growth
of about three classrooms a year. The existing f about two classrooms a v A~ * .__ ~c
student membership has been below the 107% The existing student membership has been Cs a -~
~~~)
level of service. This favorable condition above the 107% level of service since 2002-
be maintained as projected to 2009-2010 hen 2003, and is expecty to exceed this percentage
anew Middle School is projected too en. to about 0°/ until the new Middle School ~~OT
Because of the moderate growth a e opens, which is expected to occur in 2006- ~c~~
Elementary School level, the p ~eeted opening 2007. Over-sapasitg
of the new Middle School been moved prex~ately-~~`~'
back one year. Thep us projected opening simil~r~
date was 2008-2009
--~j .F-~- ,S rte, lti~`~ ~y
~tti+ ~raW~r--^~-E-
S ~-~~
~~ ~-s .
~- ~ d~,-
Please note that the Orange County School
District Middle School C.ertifieate of Adequate
Public Schools adequacy test has been
suspended (i.e. not activated) until the new
third Middle School opens. When this occurs,
,.
the Middle School becomes an active school
level element of the School APFO. Thereafter,
there does not appear to be any projected level
of service deficiencies in the ten yeaz time
flame.
~gte scttoot ~gh Sct-ool
_ Projections are consistent with previous years Projections are consistent with previous years
q~a ~"~
that show a moderate to high gds rate of that show a moderate but constant growth of
approximately seven classrooms a year. Seven
classrooms equate to more growth than seven
about four classrooms a year. The existing
student membership will stay below the 110%
28
'~i
classrooms at the Elementary school level level of service. It is
because there are only four grades at the High growth has been dim
School level versus six grades at the
Elementary level. The existing level of service
for 2003-2004 is 109.7% (110% is the School
AI'FO standard). The membership is projected
to be at 115.1% in 20042005 which is above
the standazd, but as was implemented with the
Orange County School District Middle School
the new High School
membership is nearir
second yeaz. The scl
eventually be expan~
capacity.
~~
level, the High School adequacy test was
suspended ti6rhe third High School opens in.
the 06-20 ~ where the level of servj~may
have been approximately ~' ~
In the later years of the ten year Capital
Investment Plan, needs are projected for ~ ~~ `7°
another High School.~This si will be
monitored in future years, b e past growth
has been a balanc of new housing
growth and new ' 'es ld housing stock
This-mayl~ rs-ofthe-"
housing on of the
to note that
apportioned tore
idle} where
'has I capacity in the
I was d ed to
from 1,000 to 1,500
~.J'~u- S
V
new mem ers p to a vtn a o 'ble decrease
in overa~c~ ases.
N
Z
M
Y
w
m
v
m
~m
N
M
N
N
t0
V
_C
C
O
U
3
9
L
O
~_
G
O
V
m
O
d
m
~'
0
~~ 3
`~ ~t- ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ , J
y s
~ ~, ~a--
~ p ; ~ (2003)
~ ~
~ ~1
~ ~~
~ ~ ~.~
3 ~ ~
~ ~
~
A
~. ~' z~-~ ~ " ~
_
~'..
Y
m
m
v
m
ate..
N
C
O
v
O
g
C
O
V
m
O
v
a
c
v
Y
U
O
;o;qq
~b
'or
~g~s
,~e
M~G~
EHfi
~~..,,
y ~
:Y
~ (~
U ~
`~ ~+
-_, ~ U ° vl ~°~, ~°
~
~
~ ~ ~ w ~
` ` ~ ~
\M `
N
L
t
.e..
C9
N
M
W
_~
c
a
0
v
0
z
c
0
v
Q
a
».
c
m
w
x
V
tV
L
w
N
W
W
v
c
c
0
0
v
0
m
c
0
m
0
a`
c
m
'o
N
v
c~
U
(2003)
a
off.
6
R
'e
4
5
s~~
G~ s
~'~~
3~a~
r 6