The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 10-21-2002 - 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 21, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: As noted in "Background" section Rod Visser, ext 2308 Craig Benedict, ext 2592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 . Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss the proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Ordinance (SAPFO). BACKGROUND: For the past several years, the governing boards of the County, Towns, and school systems have been discussing the possible adoption of a Schools Adequate Public Facilities system. As noted in the MOU, that reflects the recognition of the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the County's two school districts occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the school districts to provide adequate school facilities to serve the children within new developments. It is also important to continue to maintain a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that is financially feasible and synchronized with historical growth patterns. Staff have compiled a variety of background documents, most of which the Board has seen before, to help focus discussion at this work session. Of particular import is the MOU Decision Matrix, which the Planning Director will use to explain the major decision points for each jurisdiction that will consider implementation of the MOU and Ordinance. Staff will be available to review and respond to questions Commissioners may have about information contained in the following list of attachments. Attachment 1 a Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 1 b Exhibit A— Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Attachment 1 c Decision Matrix of MOU Elements Attachment 1d Schools Adequate Public Facilities MOU and Ordinance Possible Implementation Timeline Attachment 1 e Schools Adequate Public Facilities Status of MOU and Ordinance Attachment 1f Flowchart— Procedure for Execution of School APFO Attachment 1g Tables — Schools APFO — Summary of Student Capacity Information Attachment 1 h Tables — Student Capacity by School District Attachment 1 i Spreadsheet— Preliminary CHCCS Student Projections Attachment 1' Spreadsheet— Preliminary OCS Student Projections Attachment 1 k Schools and Land Use Councils - June 12, 2002 Minutes Attachment 11 10/16/02 SLUC Chair Letter to Mayors/School Board Chairs FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact directly associated with this discussion. However, decisions that the BOCC and SAPFO partners will make regarding possible implementation of the MOU and Ordinance will have a profound impact on the need for and timing of future school construction in both Orange County school districts. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the proposed MOU and Ordinance and supporting documents and provide appropriate direction to staff. tw�err�' Ia. Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; = Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of , 200 and between_ the Town of , the Town of , Orange County, and the (the "School District"). WHEREAS,the portion of Orange County, served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School System has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth in population; and WHEREAS, this growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school facilities lies primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School Board, with funding provided by Orange County; and WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District], have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; WHEREAS, the parties have worked cooperatively and developed a system wherein school facilities are currently adequate to meet the needs of the citizens of the county and will continue to maintain a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that is financially feasible and synchronized with historical growth patterns; NOW, THEREFORE,the parties to this Memorandum hereby agree as follows: Section 1. The parties will work cooperatively to develop a realistic Capital Improvement Plan for the construction of schools such that, from the effective date of this Memorandum, school membership within each school level (i.e. elementary, middle or high) does not exceed the following: Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity Middle School 107% of Building Capacity High School 110%of Building Capacity a. 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 gAcraig\sapfo\nou-final 1 Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft-completed by staff 2/8/02 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. b. 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. C. Prior to the adoption of the ordinances referenced in Section 2, the parties shall reach agreement on the following: (i) A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that will achieve the objectives of this Memorandum; (ii) A projected growth rate for student membership within the School District's three school levels during the ten year life of the CIP; (iii) A methodology for determining the projected growth rate for student membership; and (iv) The number of students at each level expected to be generated by each new housing type (i.e., the "student generation rate"). d. After the adoption of the ordinances referenced in Section 2, the Orange County Board of Commissioners may change the projected student membership growth rate, the methodology used to determine this rate, or the student generation rate if the Board concludes that such a change is necessary to predict growth more accurately. Before making any such change, the Board shall receive and consider the recommendation of a staff committee consisting of the planning directors of the Town(s) and the County and a representative of the School District appointed by the Superintendent. The committee shall provide a copy of its recommendation to the governing boards of the other parties to this memorandum at the time it provides such recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. In making its recommendation, the committee shall consider the following, and in making its determination, the Board of Commissioners shall consider the following: gAcraig\sapfo\mou-final 2 Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft-completed by staff 2/8/02 (i) The accuracy of the methodology and projected growth rate then in use in projecting school membership for the current school year; (ii) The accuracy of the student generation rate then in use in predicting the number of students at each level actually generated by each new housing type; (iii) Approval of and issuance of CAPS for residential developments that, individually or collectively, are of sufficient magnitude to alter the previously agreed upon school membership growth projections; or (iv) Other trends and factors tending to alter the previously agreed upon projected growth rates. If any such change is made in the projected growth rate, the methodology for determining this rate, or the student generation rate,the Orange County Board of Commissioners shall inform the other parties to this Memorandum prior to February 1St in any year in which such change is intended to become effective what change was made and why it was necessary. e. The Orange County Board of Commissioners shall provide a copy of the updated CIP to each of the parties to the Memorandum as soon as it is revised, annually or otherwise. Section 2. The towns and the county will adopt amendments to their respective ordinances, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to coordinate the approval of residential developments within the School District with the adequacy of existing and proposed school facilities. Section 3. The following process shall be followed by the School District to receive and take action upon applications for Certificates of Adequacy of Public School Facilities ("CAPS") submitted by persons who are required by an implementing ordinance conceptually similar to that attached as Exhibit A to have such certificates before the development permission they have received from the town or county becomes effective. a. On February 15th of each year, the School District shall calculate the building capacity of each school level and the school membership of each school level as of November 15th of the previous year. Also on February 15th of each year, the School District shall calculate the anticipated school membership for each school level and the anticipated building capacity for each school level as of November 15th in each of the following ten years. These calculations shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 and also in accordance with the remaining provisions of this section. g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 3 Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 b. School membership calculations made on February 15th (utilizing the previous November 15th data) for each of the ten years following the year in which the calculation is made (the base year) shall be determined by applying the projected school membership growth rates determined in accordance with Section 1 of this Memorandum to the actual school membership numbers of the base year. C. The school building capacity calculations shall be based upon the following: (i) A calculation of the existing building capacity within each school level; (ii) The anticipated opening date of schools under construction; (iii) The anticipated opening date of schools on the ten-year CIP for which funding has been committed by the Board of Commissioners as a result of an approved bond issue, an approved installment purchase agreement, or otherwise; and (iv) The anticipated closing dates of any schools within the School District. d. By comparing the existing and calculated school membership to the existing and calculated school building capacity each year, the School District shall determine what remaining capacity (if any) exists or is projected to exist to accommodate new development. The School District shall make that information known to the local governments within 15 days of the comparison. e. As CAPS are issued for new developments during the course of the twelve month period from February 15th of one year to February 15th of the next year, the School District shall continually reduce the remaining available school building capacity in each of the ensuing years wherein new students are projected to be added to the school system by the developments for which the CAPS are given during that year. f. When an application for a CAPS is submitted, the School District shall determine the impact on school membership for each school level as calculated on February 15th in each year of the period during which the development is expected to be adding new students to the school system as the result of such new construction. In making this determination, the School District shall rely upon the figures established under Section 1 of this Memorandum as to the number of students at each level expected to be generated by each housing type, and data furnished by the applicable planning department as to the expected rate at which new dwellings within developments similar in size and type to the proposed development are gAcraiglsapfo\nou-final 4 _ Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; DrafCcompleted by staff 2/8/02 likely to be occupied. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, upon request of the applicant, the planning jurisdiction approving the development imposes enforceable conditions upon the development (such as a phasing schedule) to limit the rate at which new,dwellings within the development are expected to be occupied, then the School District shall take such limitations into account in determining the impact of the development on school membership. g. If the School District determines that the projected capacity of each school level is sufficient to accommodate the proposed development without exceeding the building capacity levels set forth in Section 1 of this Memorandum, then the School District shall issue the CAPS. If the School District determines that the projected capacity of each school level is not sufficient to accommodate the proposed development without exceeding the building capacity levels set forth in Section 1, then the School District shall deny the CAPS. If a CAPS is denied, the applicant may seek approval from the appropriate planning jurisdiction of such modifications to the development as will allow for the issuance of a CAPS, and then reapply for a CAPS. h. The School District shall issue CAPS on a "first come first served" basis, according to the date a completed application for a CAPS is received. If projected building capacity is not available and an application for a CAPS is therefore denied, the development retains its priority in line based upon the CAPS application date. Section 4. A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat,plan, or permit approval. Section 5. The towns and the county will provide to the School District all information reasonably requested by the School District to assist the District in making its determination as to whether the CAPS should be issued. Section 6. The School District will use its best efforts to construct new schools and permanent expansions or additions to existing schools in accordance with the CIP. Section 7. Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the Capital Improvement Plan referenced in Section 1 above. Section 8. In recognition of the fact that some new development will have a negligible impact on school capacity, a CAPS shall not be required under the following circumstances: a. For residential developments restricted by law and/or covenant for a period of at least thirty years to housing for the elderly and/or adult care living and/or adult special needs; gAcraig\.sapfo\mou-final 5 Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; - � Draff completed by staff 2/8/02 b. For residential developments restricted for a period of at least thirty years to dormitory housing for university students. If the use of a development restricted as provided above changes, then before a permit authorizing such change of use becomes effective, a CAPS must be issued just as if the development were being constructed initially. Section 9. The parties acknowledge that this Memorandum of Understanding is not intended to and does not create legally binding obligations on any of the parties to act in accordance with its provisions. Rather, it constitutes a good faith statement of the intent of the parties to cooperate in a manner designed to meet the mutual objective of all the parties that the children who reside within the School District are able to attend school levels that satisfy the level of service standards set forth herein. g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 6 ' Approved by Schools and LandUse Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 Exhibit A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] school system, has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth in population; and WHEREAS, this rapid growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school facilities lies primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange County School Board],with funding provided by Orange County; and WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District] have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; and WHEREAS, to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School Board], the [governing body] desires to provide a mechanism to assure that, to the extent possible, new development will take place only when there are adequate public school facilities available, or planned, which will accommodate such new development; NOW THEREFORE, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section of the Development Ordinance is amended by adding a new to read as follows: ADEQUATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that,to the maximum extent practical, approval of new residential development will become effective only when it can reasonably be expected that adequate public school facilities will be available to accommodate such new development. g:\craig\sapfo\ordinance-final 1 Approved by Schools and Land.Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 2. Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities. (a) Subject to the remaining provisions of this [article], no approval under this ordinance of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit for a residential development shall become effective unless and until Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities (CAPS) for the project has been issued by the School District. (b) A CAPS shall not be required for a general use or conditional use rezoning or for a master land use plan. However, even if a rezoning or master plan is approved, a CAPS will nevertheless be required before any of the permits or approvals identified in subsection (a) of this section shall become effective, and the rezoning of the property or approval of a master plan provides no indication as to whether the CAPS will be issued. The application for rezoning or master plan approval shall contain a statement to this effect. (c) A CAPS must be obtained from the School District. The School District will issue or deny a CAPS in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District] dated (d) A CAPS attaches to the land in the same way that development permission attaches to the land. A CAPS may be transferred along with other interests in the property with respect to which such CAPS is issued, but may not be severed or transferred separately. 3. Service Levels. (a) This section describes the service levels regarded as adequate by the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding described in subsection (b) with respect to public school facilities. (b) As provided in the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District], adequate services levels for public schools shall be deemed to exist with respect to a proposed new residential development if, given the number of school age children projected to reside in that development, and considering all the factors listed in the Memorandum of Understanding, projected school membership for the elementary schools, the middle schools, and the high school(s)within the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School District will not exceed the following percentages of the building capacities of each of the following three school levels: elementary school level 105% middle school level 107% high school level 110% g:\craig\sapfo\ordinance-final 2 Approved by Schools and Land.Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 For purposes of this ordinance,the terms "building capacity" and "school membership" shall have the same meaning attributed in the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding among the Towns of and Orange County and the ; Board of Education. 4. Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public School Facilities. A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat,plan, or permit approval. 5. Exemption From Certification Requirement for Development with Negligible Student Generation Rates In recognition of the fact that some new development will have a negligible impact on school capacity, a CAPS shall not be required under the following circumstances: a. For residential developments restricted by law and/or covenant for a period of at least thirty years to housing for the elderly and/or adult care living and/or adult special needs; b. For residential developments restricted for a period of at least thirty years to dormitory housing for university students. If the use of a development restricted as provided above changes, then before a permit authorizing such change of use becomes effective, a CAPS must be issued just as if the development were being constructed initially. 6. Applicability to Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending Approval. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this ordinance shall only apply to applications for approval of subdivision preliminary plats, minor subdivision final plats, site plans and conditional or special use permits that are submitted for approval after the effective date of this ordinance (b) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to amendments to subdivision preliminary plats, minor subdivision final plats, site plans, or special or conditional use permit approvals issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance so long as the approvals have not expired and the proposed amendments do not increase the number of dwelling units authorized within the development by more than five percent or five dwelling units,whichever is less. gAcraig\sapfo\ordinance-final 3 Approved by Schools and Land.Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 (c) The [governing body] shall issue a special exception to the CAPS requirement to an applicant whose application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan or conditional or special use permit covers property within a planned unit development or master plan project that was approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance, if the [governing body] finds, after an evidentiary hearing, that the applicant has (1) applied to the School District for a CAPS and the application has been denied, (2) in good faith made substantial expenditures or incurred substantial binding obligations in reasonable reliance on the previously obtained planned unit development or master plan approval, and (3) would be unreasonably prejudiced if development in accordance with the previously approved development or plan is delayed due to the provisions of this ordinance. In deciding whether these findings can be made, the [governing body] shall consider the following, among other relevant factors: (1) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such facilities which were designed to serve or to be paid for in part by the development of portions of the planned unit development or master planned project that have not yet been approved for construction; (2) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such facilities that directly benefit other properties outside the development in question or the general public; (3) Whether the developer has donated land to the School District for the construction of school facilities or otherwise dedicated land or made improvements deemed to benefit the School District and its public school system; (4) Whether the developer has had development approval for a substantial amount of time and. has in good faith worked to timely implement the plan in reasonable reliance on the previously obtained approval; (5) The duration of the delay that will occur until public school facilities are improved or exist to such an extent that a CAPS can be issued for the project, and the effect of such delay on the development and the developer. (d) The decision of the [governing body] involving a special exception application under subsection (c) is subject to review by the Orange County Superior Court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court shall be filed with the Clerk of Superior Court within 30 days after a written copy of the decision [of the governing body] is delivered to the applicant and every other party who has filed a written request for such copy with the Clerk to the [governing body] at the time of its hearing on the application for a special exception. The written copy of the decision of the [governing body] may be delivered either by personal service or by certified mail,return receipt requested. gAcraig\sapfo\ordinance-final 4 Approved by Schools and LandwUse Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 (e) The [chair or the mayor] of the [governing body] or any member temporarily acting as [chair or mayor] may,'in his or her official capacity, administer oaths to witnesses in any hearing before the [governing body] concerning a special exception. 7. Appeal of School District Denial of a CAPS. The applicant for a CAPS which is denied by the School District may, within 30 days of the date of the denial, appeal the denial to the [governing body] of [local government from which development permit is sought]. Any such appeal shall be heard by the [governing body] at an evidentiary hearing before it. At this hearing the School District will present its reasons for the denial of the CAPS and the evidence it relied on in denying the CAPS. The applicant appealing the denial may present its reasons why the CAPS application should have, in its view, been approved and the evidentiary basis it contends supports approval. The [governing body] may (1) affirm the decision of the School District, (2) remand to the School District for further proceedings in the event evidence is presented at the hearing before the [governing body] not brought before the School District, or (3) issue a CAPS. The [governing body] will only issue a CAPS if it finds that the CAPS should have been issued by the School District as prescribed in the Memorandum of Understanding among the School District, Orange County and the [governing body]. A decision of the [governing body] affirming the School District may be appealed by the applicant for a CAPS by proceedings in the nature of certiorari and as prescribed for an appeal under Section 6(d) of this ordinance. 8. Information Required From Applicants. The applicant for a CAPS shall submit to the School District all information reasonably deemed necessary by the School District to determine whether a CAPS should be issued under the provision of the Memorandum of Understanding between the [governing body], Orange County, and the School District. An applicant for a CAPS special exception or an applicant appealing a CAPS denial by the School District shall submit to the [governing body] all information reasonably deemed necessary by the [governing body] to determine whether a special exception should be granted as provided in Section 6(d) of this ordinance or for the hearing of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS as provided in Section 7 of this ordinance. A copy of a request for a CAPS special exception or of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS shall be served on the superintendent of the School District. Service may be made by personal delivery or certified mail,return receipt requested. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective The foregoing ordinance, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this day of , 200_. Ayes: Noes: Absent or Excused: gAcraig\sapfo\ordinance-final 5 Updated 10/17/02 Decision Matrix of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Elements x Elementary For I"year SAPFO implementation,adjust LOS at each LOS Middle 105 specific level and in each school district,where necessary,to High School 107 match anticipated membership projection to Level of Service Decision Possibly Yes to 110 standard until new Capital Investment Plan school opens Forthcoming Start— MOU Section 1 whereby Level of Service would return to original standard of 105%, 107%and 110%. MEMBERSHIP DATE Use November 15 for 1st year SAPFO implementation NOV 15 membership date. A change to this date may be addressed Decision Made: NO MOU Section la by the Planning Directors,School Representative Technical November 15 Advisory Committee in ensuing years. Square Feet v.(DPI)program BLDG CAPACITY ` S Decision Made: DE ER TO Use existing superintendent capacity numbers for 1 years 2001 NO NOT INCLUDE School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Schools Superintendent MOU Section lb PORTABLES' Facilities Task Force to develop before Fall,2003,a capacity Certified calculation standard format. CIP AS ADOPTED Use BOCC 6/27/02 adopted 2002-2012 Capital Investment As adopted by NO BY BOCC Plan. BOCC on 6/27/02 MOU Section lc(i) STUDENT GROWTH AVG 5 PROJ RATE (FALL 2001 Calculate growth rate percentage from average of 5 models DATA;Spring for 10 years. MOU Section lc(ii) 2002 PROJ) 1 Updated 10/17/02 STUDENT PROJECTIONS AVG 5 PROJ Average-5 projections created from Fall 2001 membership Decision data. Forthcoming Section 1c(ii) STUDENT 3,5,10 PROJECTION METH COHORT/ Use 3,5, 10 Cohort and Tishchler Linear and Orange County Decision NO TISCHLER Planning Linear Wave. Forthcoming MOU Section 1c m LINEAR OCP STUDENT GEN RATE TISCHLER Use Tischler and Assoc. Student Generation Rates Report Decision made: S from 2001. Tischler MOU Section 1c(iv) Note 1: An earlier SFTF draft report included recommendations concerning building capacity and recommended that mobile classrooms("portables")not be included as part of permanent capacity. Note 2: Many of the variables noted in Section lc (i— iv) of the MOU will be reanalyzed each year by the Planning Directors, School Representative Technical Advisory Committee and recommendations made,if necessary,and distributed to all parties to the agreement. 2 �0e_k VY1 Updated 10/17/02 SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) AND ORDINANCE POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Mid-September 2002 School Facilities Task Force Review and Recommendation of Memorandum of Understanding variables as delegated by Board of County Commissioners. Late September 2002 Special Schools and Land Use Councils meeting(Sep 25) Schools and Land Use Councils Review and Recommendation of Memorandum of Understanding/School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance based on local government, School District and Schools Facilities Task Force responses (which incorporate public input). October 2002 Schools and Land Use Councils transmit fmal version of Memorandum of Understanding/School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, including all determined variables, for consideration by local governments and school districts. MOU AND ORDINANCE ADOPTION October-November 2002 All local governments and School Districts adopt,or readopt accordingly,if necessary. October 2,2002 Orange County Planning Board Ordinance Review of School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. October 21,2002 5:30 PM dinner/work session regarding Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance prior to regular Board of County Commissioners meeting at Southern Human Services Center Late October 2002 Discussion at October 30,2002 Assembly of Governments meeting. If necessary,Board of County Commissioners discussion afterward November 6,2002 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item for adoption of Memorandum of Understanding and Ordinance. November 11,2002 Board of County Commissioners Work Session—if necessary for adoption. November 15,2002 Receipt of membership numbers by school levels from School District for Planning Directors, School Representative Technical Advisory Committee (PSTAC),begins 2002 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance student projection report. November 19, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item for adoption of Memorandum of Understanding and Ordinance if not acted upon on November 6 or November 11,2002. Early January 2003 Planning Directors, School Representative Technical Advisory Committee report issued to School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance parties. Early February 2003 Board of County Commissioners certification of 2002 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance system February 15,2003 New development subject to School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Updated 09118/02 MOO Adequate Pabile FaCilMOS a Status of MOO and Ordinance rA I° 0 14 N MU v 4i k4 a. Boa t-: U 11/14/01 SLUC Vote X X X 02/08/02 SLUC SAPFO Version sent to all local governments and School Districts. f Review and Approve: s Carrboro X X X e Chapel Hill X X X i Board of County Commissioners Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools X X X Hillsborough X X X Board of County Commissioners Orange County Schools X X X 0 SLUC X X X X X X X r 05/16/02 Schools Facilities Task Force t 06/27102 Schools Facilities Task Force X X X X 09/19/02 Schools Facilities Task Force , .. .. . SLUC Compile and Resend to local governments and School Districts i Review and Re-approve as appropriate): Carrboro Chapel Hill i Board of County Commissioners Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners Orange Coung Schools 02/15/03 Local Government Implementation 1 1_ Revised March,2002 Procedure for Execution of School APFO Data Gathered Strict School�Boards and BOCC Provide Buildin Capacity Figures November 15th Data Reported to PSTAC (Planners and Schools Technical Advisory Committee); PSTAC Recalibrates Model(i.e.updates actual membership and building capacity)and Projections(to assist in CIP development);Notifies All Parties of Results January 10th (guildline) BOCC reviews materials from PSTAC and determines whether or not changes to model or other elements are necessary;notifies other parties to the agreement Process renews February 1st each fall N BOCC Certifies Model, Projections and Results by February 15th New CAPS Model for New Development Goes Into Effect OCS&CHCCS w/BOCC Develop New CIPs&School Capacity Limits H:`,D[?P 1 S'.SC E I(X)I,S`:C:AP PC:�I.S�BooI;APFU`procc-Jma lflowcttarlU3(12,doc Schools APFO -Summary of Student Capacity Information School Year Ending 2003- Membership on 20th Day(End of First Afonth) M Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Ending 2002 Ending 2003 Difference Level Of Available Level -2!Pacity Membership Membership from 2002 Service Seats Elementary_ 4,302 4,472 4,555 83 105.9% 253 iddle 2,840 2,548 2,604 56 91.7% 236 School 3,035 2,955 3,184 229 104.9% 149) Total 10,177 9,975 10,343 368 101.6'/e (166) Orange.County Schools Ending 2002 Ending 2003 Difference Level Of Available Level -2!BacitY Members-hip Membership from 2002 Service Seats Elementary 3,820 2,896 2,862 34 74.9% 958 Middle 1,466 1,533 1,629 96 111.1% 163 Hi h School 2,518 1,723 1,866 143 .74.1% 652 Total 7,804 6,1521 6,3571 2051 81.5%1 1,447 It is important to note that this reflects the 20th day of membership for the school year ending 2003 and does not reflect the date of membership as outlined by the Schools APFO which is November 15,2002. Staff will be working to update membership numbers at that time and will bring forward a set of"official"membership numbers as of November 15,2002 . ..-». ..»....».............»......+-.».......................».......»»r....w..-•„r...............»ra.w...r w....•.-.4w...•..... •..... r•...v.......4»w.........n.n..a..a........r....M.nw•v»r.uw..a✓...r.......r.rwtw...4•.r..a.:4:i...an».-.4.•..»»A.,..»..... ... a... ......• Student Capacity by School District Permanent Structures Only,No Mobile Units(Including Projects Under Construction) School Year Ending 2003. CHCCS M OCS Square Members Square Members Elementary Feet Capacity hip t1l Elementary Feet Capacity hip(1) iCarrbom 60,832 563 527 Cameron Park 70,812 598 411 Ephesus . 66,952 472 547 Central 52,492 483 304 Estes Hills 56,299 549 534 Efland Cheeks 64,316 529 412 Glenwood 50,764 445 430 Grady Brown 74,016 575 433 FP Graham 63,541 • 570 568 Hillsborough 51,106 414 389 McDougle 98,000 596 656 New Hope 100,164 621 442 Scroggs 90,980 609 591 Pathways 85,282 600. Seawell .52,869 498 702 471 Total CHCCS Total OCS Elementary 540,2„37 4,302 4,55 Elementary 498,188 3,820 2,862 Middle Middle Cuibreth 104,798 670 606 A.L.Stanback 136,000 740 819 McDougle 136,221 732 626 C.W.Stanford 107,620 726 810 Phillips 109,498 706 745 Smith 128,764 732 627 Total CHCCS Total OCS Middle School 479,281 2,840 2,604 Middle School 243,620 1,466 1,629 High High Chapel Hill 241,111 1,520 1,708 Orange 213,509 1,518 1,159 East Chapel Hill 258,985 1,515 1,476 Cedar Ridge 206900 1,000 707 Total CHCCS Total OCS High , High School 500,096 3,035 3,184 School 420,409 2,518 1,866 Total All Levels 1,519,614 10,177 10,343 [Total All Levels 1,162,217 7,804 6,357 1st Month Membership C11 Does not include Hospital students Preliminary CHCCS Student Projections c1) Updated 10/11/02 to reflect revised OC Planning Projections Elementary aw School Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Actual 4,444 4,474 4,555 Tischler 4,678 4,801 4,924 5,047 5,170 5,293 5,416 5,539 5,662 5,785 OC Planning 4,760 4,923 5,080 5,231 5,377 5,517 5,626 5,736 5,845 5,928 10 Year Growth 4,735 4,915 5,050 5,186 5,364 5,418 5,472 5,527 5,582 5,638 5 Year Growth 4,810 5,061 5,264 5,459 5,682 5,739 5,796 5,854 5,913 5,972 3 Year Growth 4,745 4,935 5,090 1 5,233 5,414 1 5,4681 5,523 5,578 5,634 5,634 Average 4,746 4,927 5,082 5,231 5,401 5,487 1 5,567 5,647 5,727 5,791 Capacity-100%Level of Servi 4,3021 4,302 1 4,302 1 4,9 4,921 4,921 5,521 5,521 5,521 5,521 5,521 5,521 5,521 105%Level of Service 1 4,5171 4,517 1 4,517 1 51167 5,167 5,7 5,797 5,797 5,797 5,797 5,797 5,797 Actual-%Level of Service 1 103.3%1 104.0%1 105.90/, Average-%Level of Service 96.4% 100.1% .8% 97.8%1 99.49/6 100.8% 102.3% 103.7% 104.9% Elementary#9 opens in fall 2003 with Elementary#10 opens in fall 2006 Middle additional 619 seats with 600 additional seats School Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-0 5 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Actual 2,326 2,540 2,604 Tischler 2,745 2,885 3,026 3,166 3,307 3,448 3,588 3,729 3,870 4,010 OC Planning 2,711 2,780 2,845 2,905 2,961 3,012 1 3,085 3,157 3,230 3,304 10 Year Growth 2,677 2,644 2,710 2,807 2,861 2,991 3,120 3,295 3,328 3,361 5 Year Growth 2,679 2,662 2,755 1 2,889 2,991 3,204 3,404 3,630 3,667 3,703 3 Year Growth 2,685 2,651 2,712 2,815 2,881 3,034 3,170 3,349 3,383 3,417 Average 2,699 2,724 2,810 2,916 3,000 3,138 3,273 3,432 3,496 3,559 Capacity-100%Level of Servi 2,108 2, 0 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 2,840 107%Level of Service 2,256 843,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 3,039 Actual-%Level of Service 1 110.3%1 89.4% 91.7% Average-%Level of Service 95.0% 95.9% 98.9% 102.701 105.6% 110.5%1 115.3% 120.8%1 123.1% High School Year 2000-01 2001-02 12002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Actual 2,815 2,963 3,184 Tischler 3,423 3,662 3,900 4,139 4,378 4,617 4,856 5,094 5,333 5,572 OC Planning 3,202 3,285 3,364 3,437 3,506 3,569 3,627 3,685 3,743 3,826 10 Year Growth 3,285 3,497 3,608 3,660 3,738 3,786 3,879 3,942 4,161 4,319 5 Year Growth 3,278 3,493 3,611 3,665 3,759 3,838 3,976 4,104 4,426 4,673 3 Year Growth 3,327 3,594 3,741 3,813 3,904 3,940 4,048 4,130 4,371 4,557 Averse 3,303 3,506 3,645 3,743 3,857 3,950 4,077 4,191 4,407 4,589 Capacity-100%Level of Servi 3,035 3,035 3,035 3,035 3,035 4,03 4,035 4,035 4,035 4,035 4,035 4,035 4,035 110%Level of Service 3,339 3,339 3,339 3,339 3,339 4,4 4,439 4,439 4,439 4,439 4,439 4,439 4,439 Actual-%Level of Service 92.8% 97.6% 104.9% Average-%Level of Service 108.8% 90.3% 92.8% 95.6% 97.9% 101.0% 103.9%1 109.20/( high school#3 opens in fall 2005 with 1,000 additional seats Q indicates first year that district surpasses the current Schools APFO recommended Level of Service S indicates year that highest level of service is reached before new seats are available �b t�l It is important to note that this reflects the 20th day of membership for school year ending 2003 and does not reflect the date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(which is November 15,2002). Staff will be working to update membership numbers at that time and will bring forward a set of"official" membership numbers as of November 15,2002. (2) The Tischler Model provides for the"Linear Method"of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection models included the"Linear !� Extrapolation Method"for CHCCS. updated 10/11/02 to reflect revised OC Planning Projections Preliminary OCS Student Projections (1) Elementary LOW School Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Actual 1 3,0781 2,8931 2,862 Tischler 2,873 2,885 2,896 2,908 2,919 2,931 2,942 2,954 2,965 2,976 OC Planning 2,939 3,020 3,104 3,177 3,252 3,330 3,395 3,461 3,529 3,598 10 Year Growth 2,863 2,887 2,869 2,919 2,950 2,979 3,009 3,039 3,069 3,100 5 Year Growth 2,840 1 2,842 1 2,816 2,855 2,884 2,913 2,942 2,971 3,001 3,031 3 Year Growth 2,832 2,823 2,780 2,807 2,825 2,854 2,882 2,911 2,940 2,969 Average 11 2,869 2,891 2,893 2,933 2,966 3,001 3,034 3,067 3,101 3,135 Capacity-100%Level of Servi2l 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 105%Level of Service 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 4,011 Actual-%Level of Service 80.6%1 75.70, 74.9% Average-%Level of Service 75.1%1 75.7%1 75.7%1 76.8% 7706% 78.6%1 %1 81.2% 82.1 Middle School Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Actual 1,504 1,527 1,629 in I Tischler 1,701 1,772 1,844 1,916 1,987 2,059 2,131 2,202 2,274 2,346 OC Planning 1,632 1,663 1,695 1,742 1,790 1,840 1,892 1,945 2,000 2,056 10 Year Growth 1,638 1,548 1,513 1,480 1,487 1,455 1,490 1,507 1,522 1,537 5 Year Growth 1,615 1,503 1,438 1,393 1,381 1,342 1,365 1,380 1,393 1,407 3 Year Growth 1,636 1,543 1,488 1,447 1 1,433 1 1,3761 1,389 1,393 1,407 1,421 Average 1,644 1,606 1,596 1,5961 1,6161 1,6141 1,653 1,685 1,719 1,753 Capacity-100%Level of Service 1,4661 1,4661 1,4661 1,466 1 1,466 2,1 F561 2,166 1 2,166 1 2,166 1 2,166 2,166 2,166 1 2,166 107%Level of Service 1,5691 1,5691 1,5691 1,569 1 1,569 1 ,2-3181 2,318 1 2,318 1 2,318 2,318 1 2,3181 2,318 1 2,318 Actual-%Level of Service 102.6%1 104.2%1 111.1% Average-%Level of Service m %1 73.7% __73.7%1 74.6%1 74.5%1 76.3%1 77.8%1 79.4%1 81.0% middle school#3 opens in fall 2005 High with 700 additional seats School Year 2000-01 2001-0 2 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Actual 1,672 1,753 1,866 Tischler 1,941 2,015 2,090 2,165 2,239 2,314 2,388 2,463 2,538 2,612 OC Planning 1,931 1,969 2,008 2,048 2,090 2,132 2,191 2,251 2,313 2,377 10 Year Growth 1,879 1,941 1,957 1,919 1,893 1,876 1,784 1,776 1,793 1,777 5 Year Growth 1,866 1,911 1,909 1,842 1,796 1,748 1,639 1,612 1,611 1,589 3 Year Growth 1,920 2,024 2,061 2,020 1,995 1,958 1,844 1,817 1,798 1,758 Average 1,907 1,972 1 2,0051 1,999 2,003 2,006 1,969 1,984 2,011 2,023 Capacity-100%Level of Servi 1,518 1,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 2,518 110%Level of Service 1,670 1,670 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 2,770 Actual-%Level of Service 110.1% 74.1% Average-%Level of Service 75.8% 78.3% 79.6% 79.4% 79.5% 79.7%1 78.2% 78.8% 79.8% 80.3% cedar ridge high opens r) indicates first year that district surpasses the current Schools APFO recommended Level of Service S indicates year that highest level of service is reached before new seats are available 5 It is important to note that this reflects the 20th day of membership for school year ending 2003 and does not reflect the date of membership as outlined in by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(which is November 15,2002). Staff will be working to update membership numbers at that time and will bring forward a set of"official" membership numbers as of November 15,2002. 1 (2) The Tischler Model provides for the"Linear Method"of projections for both CHCCS and OCS. Original projections used in prior years projection models included the"Linear lj,� Extrapolation Method"for CHCCS. t, MINUTES JOINT SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCILS JUNE 12,2002 The regular meeting of the Joint Schools and Land Use Councils was held on Wednesday, June 12,2002 at 7:30 p.m. at the Government Services Center,Cameron Street,Hillsborough,North Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Alice Gordon,Orange County Board of Commissioners;Michael Gering,Hillsborough Town Commissioner;Dana Thompson,Orange County Schools; and Jim Ward, Chapel Hill Town Council STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict,Orange County Planning Director; Chris Berndt,Chapel Hill Planning Department; Bill Mullin, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools; Catherine LaSpaluto,Orange County Planning Department; and Roy Williford, Carrboro Planning Director. CALL TO ORDER—Chair Gordon called the meeting to order. ADJUSTMENTS TO AGENDA Dana Thompson asked to talk about the data determination for school membership for the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. This will be addressed in agenda item#6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 15,2002 Chair Gordon said that there was a different edited version of the minutes(copies passed out)and no one would have had time to read them. Some of the differences are clarification. She suggested holding off on approving the minutes until everyone had the chance to read them. At the end of the meeting,a motion was made by Michael Gehring, seconded by Jim Ward to approve the minutes of May 15,2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL MOU ADOPTION HEARING OF APRIL 8,2002 Memorandum to Mayor and Town Council from W.Calvin Horton,Town Manager Discussion Paper Resolution A Resolution B Chair Gordon said that the Town of Chapel Hill adopted Resolution A and not Resolution B. Craig Benedict said that Chapel Hill did not address Resolution B. The question is with the level of service. There was testimony at a public hearing that if you use the 105°/x, 107%,and 110%as in the MOU at this time,it is likely that in a few years there would be a moratorium or a deferral that would occur. This testimony was from the Chamber of Commerce. The information was based on one projection methodology that was in use in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system. The level of service may need to be adjusted. He asked Chris Berndt if Resolution B had been discussed since the hearing. Chris Berndt said no-and that the Council adopted Resolution A. She brought the minutes from the meeting,but it is pretty clear that Resolution A was the one that they wanted. Craig Benedict said that any adjustments to these level of service percentages that are wrapped into the MOU and have been recommended by this board,will have to be returned to the local governments and to the school districts for reevaluation and approval. There are three elements wrapped into the MOU, and there are four that would be determined before the actual land development ordinance goes into effect. Within the next month,the new projections will be compared with the proposed CIP to 1 see at what level new schools would be needed. The projections will be put together starting tomorrow and will be forwarded to the School Facilities Task Force by the end of the month and then brought back to the SLUC after the summer break. TOWN OF CARRBORO Board of Alderman Agenda Item Abstract March 26,2002 Resolution of Adoption dated May 14,2002 Roy Williford summarized the conditions added to the resolution adopted by the Town of Carrboro. These five conditions are listed in the agenda abstract and are stated below: Capital Investment Plan to accommodate student projections and adjustments to building capacity limits (i.e.level of service)if necessary. Attorney to prepare text amendment for eventual inclusion in Carrboro code. Staff to prepare process for adoption and transmittal of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Request to add new language specific to Town of Carrboro regarding a consideration of a repeal of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance if Capital Investment Plan does not support Memorandum of Understanding. Request to amend Memorandum of Understanding to include any changes to MOU in Section 1 d to provide for consultation with governing boards,planning directors,and school district appointees. The Board of Aldermen also added new language at the end of Section 9,as follows: "However, Carrboro intends to remain committed to the MOU only so long as the County continues to execute the CIP as agreed in the MOU. If the Carrboro Board of Aldermen finds that the County is no longer in compliance with the CIP as outlined in this MOU, Carrboro will no longer consider itself bound by this MOU and may consider repealing the ordinance referenced in Section 2." Chair Gordon verified that this means that the County will execute a CIP each year that follows the specifications of the MOU. The Board of Aldermen also added new language in Section ld as follows: The second sentence shall read,"Before making any such change,the Board shall consult with the governing boards of the Towns and shall receive and consider the recommendation of a staff committee consisting of the planning directors of the Towns and the County and a representative of the School District appointed by the Superintendent." Craig Benedict elaborated on what it would look like for the Board to "consult with the governing boards of the Towns." Chair Gordon said that the numbers would be coming out on January 10th. The County Commissioners are supposed to decide if the numbers are okay by February 1 st. This is a tight timeframe. If the numbers are not working technically,everyone would find out on January 10th. February 15th is when the new methodology for the CAPS is supposed to be in place. There would probably not be time to do a formal meeting with the jurisdictions. Jim Ward suggested scheduling an Assembly of Governments meeting routinely, shortly after January 10th, Chair Gordon said that the County Commissioners should be allowed to take this as their job. 2 Roy Williford said that the Board of Aldermen just wanted to be sure that the information did not go directly from the staff to the County Commissioners without them being in the loop with these numbers. Craig Benedict said that an Assembly of Governments meeting in January would be tricky because of the timeframe. It is possible to use 20th day numbers instead of 40th day numbers and then get recommendations in the fall. Discussion ensued about the membership date of November 15th. Chair Gordon asked when Hillsborough would be discussing the MOU. Michael Gehring said that it is scheduled to go to public hearing for the MOU and the proposed ordinance on July 23rd, Chair Gordon said that the staff should make up a letter to send to all parties saying where we stand at this time with the MOU. Craig Benedict asked if the SLUC wanted to vote on the amendments to the MOU as made above. Chair Gordon said that we should wait until all comments were received. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Craig Benedict said that the Orange County School Board had a meeting on April 29th where they discussed the APFO, and from that meeting a letter was generated by Brenda Stephens, Chair of the Orange County School Board to Barry Jacobs, Chair of the Board of County Commissioners. This letter is in the agenda packet. There were some concerns related to three primary issues-school capacity, student projections, and start-up cost for new schools. There needs to be a consistent method of determining building level capacity for both school systems. There is also a need to determine what method will be used to gather data for student projections. Orange County School systems feels that the 3/5/10 year models being used may not be applicable to their system because of the difference in rate of growth between the two systems. The start-up costs for the two new schools opened in the last three years have drained the fund balance. Dana Thompson said that they only learned in the last few months that they were allowed some discretion in determining capacity for exceptional children,pre-K, foreign language,etc. Chair Gordon said that they have not decided that there was going to be any discretion from the Department of Public Instruction guidelines. She thinks that the County Commissioners do not want the school systems to unilaterally change the capacity of the buildings. Both school systems need to be consistent. She asked Bill Mullin for any comments. Bill Mullin said that he agrees that there should be some consistency. He said that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system was back to doing it the DPI way. Craig Benedict said that this would be decided by the School Facilities Task Force and-it will be a consistent method. Regarding student projections, Craig Benedict said that there are five different methods. Staff has recommended that we continue to look at the five models for a few more years of testing. He thinks that an average should be used for both school systems for the first few years. He said that once school capacity and school projections are discussed by the School Facilities Task Force,then there can be an agenda item and we can go forward. 3 Dana Thompson reiterated that so'much depends on student projections for the Orange County Schools. Before approving this document,the Orange County Schools wants to see.some sort of analysis of the different methods because some of them are very volatile. Craig Benedict said that in the next few months,the staff is going to plot out all of the models and show how there is divergence between one year and the next with the same model. He said that projections were not used for the CAPS,but for the CIP to tell when new schools are needed. Dana Thompson made reference to start-up cost for new schools and said that last year Orange County Schools opened Pathways Elementary and this year they will be opening Cedar Ridge High School. They are still using their fund balance to pick up building costs of Pathways. They are also looking at opening a new middle school in two years. The one-time start-up costs have been a challenge. They are asking for some kind of designated deliberate place where start-up costs are figured. They would like some discussion where,in a two-district county,the County Commissioners cannot be sensitive to the particular needs of a single district when they start a school. There are some fairness issues. They are looking for some kind of wording or document for one-time start-up costs. Chair Gordon said that the construction budget does include capital start-up costs. She clarified that Dana Thompson was talking about the operational start-up costs. The operating expenses are paid for per capita,or with the per pupil allocation. Dana Thompson made reference to the membership date of November 15th and said that Orange County Schools would like this to be reconsidered. Their thinking has been to take the highest average daily membership of the two months. This works better than November 15th for the Orange County Schools. Chair Gordon said that this was one of the topics discussed by the attorney/staff work group. The group recommended that the date be the same for both school systems. She said that it could be changed in future years if it did not work out. This date is in the MOU and it would have to be unraveled if the date were changed. Dana Thompson questioned who decided on the November 15th date. She is not sure if Orange County Schools was properly represented in the work group. Gordon said it was her understanding that the Orange County School.Board's attorney was the representative for the group. Jim Ward said that we do not know how good any of the numbers or projections are. This is why they wanted an average. He felt that it was more important to get the ball rolling and that the numbers could be changed if they did not work. There will never be certainty of the best date for both school systems. Dana Thompson asked about the process of changing the date in the future. Craig Benedict said there would be a school representative on the Planner/School Rep/Technical Advisory Committee and it would be requested that way. The adjustment could be made quickly. Chair Gordon said that there would be a summary in a letter to the jurisdictions of where we are right now. The School Facilities Task Force is meeting through the summer and there would be some new projections. The goal will be to start collecting the numbers and get the process going by November 15th. 4 CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LETTER OF MARCH 28,2002. Craig Benedict said that this letter suggested changing the level of service from 105/107/110 to 110/114/120 because they thought that adopting the higher thresholds would not cause any slowdown in growth. They were concerned that the lower thresholds would create a defacto moratorium in the interim. The Chamber letter indicated that, if 110%were used at the high school level,that would be only 300 students. Then a new high school would be built for only 300 students. Then a new high school would be built for only 300 students. MATRIX OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ELEMENTS Craig Benedict explained the matrix. The School Facilities Task Force is going to be addressing some of the issues. STATUS OF SCHOOLS APFO WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTIONS BY LOCAL GOVERNING BOARDS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS Chair Gordon said that the summary letter of where the MOU and APFO stands should go to the Managers,the Mayors,the Superintendents,and the school board chairs. NEXT MEETING(IF NECESSARY) Date: August 14,2002 Time: 7:30 p.m. Place: Southern Human Services Center ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss,the meeting was adjourned. Alice Gordon,Chair Becky Butler,Minutes Preparer 5 r� BARRYJACOes CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS STEPHEN H.HA00077S,VICE CHAIR 1Z MARGARET W.BROWN POST OFFICE BOX 8181 MOSES CAREY,JR. AuCEM.GORDON 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET HILLSBOROUGH,OcOber ,� OUNA 27278 a `fie trb �Eaco� Mayor Kevin Foy Town of Chapel Hill 306 South Columbia Street Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27514 Dear Kevin: The purpose of this letter is to provide a report from the Schools and Land Use Councils(SLUC)on the status of the process regarding development and consideration of the proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)and Ordinance(SAPFO).The SLUC met most recently on September 25,2002. The attendance included the full membership of the Towns and School Boards as well as a complement of administrative and planning staff support. The SLUC fulfilled their charge concerning the Schools Adequate Public Facilities MOU at their June 12,2002 meeting. Their recommendations are noted in the Schools Adequate Public Facilities MOU Decision Matrix,a copy of which is attached. Since that time,the SLUC has been synchronizing its SAPFO-related discussions with those of the School Facilities Task Force(SFTF),a work group comprised of two members each from the Board of Commissioners and the two Boards of Education. The Task Force was charged by the BOCC to provide advice to Commissioners regarding a variety of topics,including possible modifications to school construction standards and issues related to Schools Adequate Public Facilities. During its first five meetings,the Task Force has focused almost exclusively on remaining SAPF Memorandum of Understanding decision points. The timely resolution of these points is central to a successful implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding and'Ordinance by February 15,2003.The Task Force has worked on standardizing a system of reporting school building capacity as well as assessing the implications of new student membership projections and associated methodologies against level of service(LOS) percentages established in the Memorandum of Understanding. A joint meeting of both school boards and the Board of County Commissioners on September 23,2002 also addressed these issues. I would like to draw your attention to several enclosures to this letter,which are outlined briefly below: Decision Matrix of Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)Elements The decision matrix identifies a number of decision points that may require reconsideration by all SAPF parties prior to MOU and Ordinance implementation. A mutual goal of the BOCC, SLUC,and SFTF has been to identify in one comprehensive package a list of needed or requested modifications to the Memorandum of Understanding or Ordinance that have occurred subsequent to the approval by some parties of the MOU. By having all parties consider all the proposed changes at one time,we will have been able to avoid a cycle of repeated presentations of individual changes to those instruments.The comprehensive package should be ready for consideration by the governing boards of all parties within the next few weeks.Although the discussion about how best to balance Level of Service,Capital Investment Planning, and school building capacity calculations while avoiding the de facto need for a development moratorium has been challenging,I believe that substantial progress has been made and that a satisfactory resolution to that challenge is nearly at hand. www.co.orange.nc.us Protecting and preserving—People, Resources, Quality of Life Orange County, North Carolina—You Count! (919)245-2130. FAX(919)644-0246 Mayor Kevin Foy October 16,2002 Page 2 School Adequate Public Facilities MOU and Ordinance Possible Implementation Timeline The timeline plots the steps necessary to fully implement the Schools Adequate Public Facilities system by February 15,2003: Status of Memorandum of Understanding and Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance This status report shows that all parties to the agreement have addressed or approved the Memorandum of Understanding. The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled for mid-October discussion and November adoption of the MOU and Ordinance and is awaiting the input from all associated task forces and councils. Some specific comments that have been received from various parties will be incorporated in a final transmittal after the BOCC reviews the document. Summary of Student Capacity Information and Student Capacity by School District These tables,which were prepared for and reviewed at the most recent meetings of the School Facilities Task Force and Schools and Land Use Councils,reflect preliminary membership vs. capacity figures for 2002-03 and are based on actual student membership as of the 20`h day of school in both systems. I hope that this communication helps to explain the diligent effort by all parties and task forces to accomplish our mutual goals this fall. This is indeed a complex subject, and I welcome you to contact Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict,or me, with any questions or comments you may have about the Schools Adequate Public Facilities process. Very truly yours, Alice Gordon,Chair Schools and Land Use Councils cc: Orange County Commissioners Schools and Land Use Council Members John Link,County Manager Geof Gledhill,County Attorney Craig Benedict,Planning Director