Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-10-2002-9aDRAFT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 10, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understandi DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Planning/ PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 11/27/02 County Attorney Letter INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Addenda to MOU John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300 uate Public Facilities l Ade h S Craig Benedict, ext 2592 q oo c Memorandum of Understanding TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Revised Exhibit A -School Adequate Hillsborough 732-8181 Public Facilities Ordinance Chapel Hill 968-4501 Decision Matrix of MOU Elements Durham 688-7331 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List Mebane 336-227-2031 11/19/02 Chamber of Commerce Letter PURPOSE: To approve the proposed School Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and confirm the future intention to adopt a model 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 School 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 systems 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. The Board reviewed and discussed a wide range of documents related to school adequate public facilities at their October 21, 2002 work session, and again at the October 30, 2002 meeting of the Assembly of Governments. The Board further discussed schools adequate public facilities at the November 19 meeting and indicated the intent then to give formal consideration to approval of the MOU at this December 10 meeting. Staff have provided an updated MOU Decision Matrix, which outlines the major decision points that would be inherent in the Board's formal approval of the MOU. The Schools Facilities Task Force recently met, with the County Attorney in attendance, and proceeded to make recommendations on all issues. The recommendations are consistent with similar issues addressed by the Schools and DRAFT Land Use Councils in June and October 2002. The Schools and Land Use Councils and School Facilities Task Force have discussed the MOU and model ordinance in great detail during the past six months. Perhaps the issue that required the most discussion and scrutiny by all parties was how to initiate the Ordinance without inducing a defacto development moratorium while maintaining equity of standards between the two school systems. Any defacto moratorium would likely have only affected the Orange County School District because their Middle School segment presently exceeds the 107% Level of Service standard contemplated in the MOU (actual OCS middle school student membership is at approximately 111 % of capacity). The County Attorney has prepared proposed addenda to the MOU and proposed changes to the model ordinance that would address several concerns raised throughout the SAPFO review process, particularly the one noted above about avoiding a defacto moratorium at the middle school level in the Orange County Schools system. The Attorney will review the pertinent points on this subject that he outlined in his attached November 27 letter to the Planning Director. The Attorney has also suggested possible changes to the model ordinance on this subject, and can respond to questions on that point. However, it should be noted that the Board is not expected to act on the model ordinance until early 2003. The only Board action contemplated at this December 10 meeting is approval of the MOU. During numerous public meetings and from various items of correspondence that the County has received, many excellent questions have been raised about the mechanism and implications that would be involved in the implementation and administration of SAPFO. Staff have compiled a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) list that restates and answers many of these questions. Staff plan to use the FAQ list as an important component of the public education effort that will be essential to successful implementation of the ordinance. Additional questions (with answers to be developed) to be incorporated in the FAQ list are welcomed from the BOCC, other elected officials, and interested citizens and community groups. Questions have also been raised regarding the implications of delaying the implementation of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance system to a date other than the February 15, 2003 date established in the Memorandum of Understanding. A change is possible if the Memorandum of Understanding is appropriately modified by all parties. An implementation date of April 15, 2003 could be pursued with the understanding that the following implications of changing the date might be experienced: 1. School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance data would still be collected and analyzed as noted in the original schedule (Fall of each year); 2. School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance data would not be acted upon as early, meaning some data may become "old" as the student membership numbers are dynamic through the year. 3. Developments in the pipeline or in the concept stage may be able to proceed without being subject to the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance; 4. An important product of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance data is to use it as a tool to develop school Capital Investment Plan needs which are developed in the first part of the year. It is likely that even without 2 DRAFT an impending School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, informal School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance processes and data sharing would be pursued. 5. A delay in implementation of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, which at this time was projected to resolve five out of six school level capacity issues (or five out of five if the Orange County School District Middle School is deferred) could lead to other "un-"School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance changing conditions that are not as easy to resolve in future years. In summary, the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance implementation date can change with the same consensus process that has been used to arrive at our present status. However, the process has been choreographed to achieve the most responsive and user-friendly system as identified in its present timeframe. 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: The Manager recommends that the Board approve the proposed MOU and the addendum as outlined in the County Attorney's November 27, 2002 letter. It should be noted that there are two separate MOU agreements. One would be effective within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District, with parties to the agreement being the County, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill (see the Attorney's proposed addendum on pages 6-8). The other agreement would be effective within the Orange County School District, with the parties being the County, the Orange County Schools, and the Town of Hillsborough (see the Attorney's proposed addendum on pages 9-11, where one of two options should be chosen -the Manager recommends Option I I, which temporarily suspends the adequacy test for the middle school level). Inherent in this recommendation for approval is acceptance of the determined variables noted in the Decision Matrix such as Level of Service, Membership Date, Building Capacity, Capital Investment Plan, Student Growth Rates, Projections, Methodology and Generation Rates. Further, the Manager recommends that the Board provide guidance to the staff and Attorney regarding the form of the Ordinance to be brought back for adoption no later than February 4, 2003. LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 129 E. TRYON STREET P. O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2 7278 919.132.2196 FAX 919.732.7997 WEBSITE www.cgandh.com November 27, 2002 Mr. Craig Benedic t Orange County Planning Director Orange County Planning Department Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough,. North Carolina 27278 RE: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Dear Craig: FROM THE DESK OF GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL E-MAIL: „enffrcygkdhillCri-c~andhxnm Enclosed is a revised addendum to the MOU among Carrboro, . Chapel Hill, Orange County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. This revised addendum adds additional language to the MOU requested by Carrboro in its approval of the MOU. When I first developed the addendum to the MOU I did not realize that the request by Carrboro for Town comment on the Board of Commissioners changes to projected student membership, growth rate methodology used to determine this rate and the student generation rate had not been incorporated into the MOU. I had understood that this requested change had already .been incorporated into a revised MOU. I discovered that it had not when I was crafting amendments to the MOU among Orange County, Hillsborough and the Orange County Board of Education. Enclosed too is an addendum to the MOU among Hillsborough, Orange County and the Orange County Board of Education to accommodate the fact that the Orange County School District middle school level is presently at 115°s of building .capacity. I have also enclosed a draft form of an Orange County ordinance which also accommodates this circumstance. This ordinance will create two overlay districts. One of these districts will be the portion of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District which is within Orange Count~*~s planning jurisdiction (outside of the Joint Planning Area): The other will be the portion of Orange County's planning jurisdiction that is within the Orange County School District. Changes to the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance `~ Mr. Craig Page 2 November Benedict 27, 2002 and Hillsborough Subdivision Regulations will also be necessary. I will craft the pro forma for these changes next week. I have included two options for handling the fact that school membership within the middle school level of the Orange County School District now exceeds 107% of building capacity. The first. option establishes an interim level of service of 115%. The second option suspends altogether, for an interim period, consideration of the percent school membership in the middle school level exceeds building capacity. Either option should allow the SAPFO to begin in February of 2003. The first option provides an interim level of service for the middle school level. The second option would allow school membership. in the middle school level to be at any percentage of building capacity during the interim period. Very truly yours, GEG/lsg Enclosures xc: Barry Jacobs Margaret Brown Moses Carey, Jr. Alice Gordor~ Steve Halkiotis John M. Link, Jr. Rod Visser Michael B. Brough, Ralph D. Karpinos, John G. McCormick, D. Michael Parker, ~, ~,, lsg:letters\benedictSAPFO#3.1t~~`- COLEMAN Esquire Esquire Esquire Esquire GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C. edhill ADDENDU;VI TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES NIENIORANDIJNI OF UNDERSTANDING This Addendum to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of , 20 , by and among the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education and Orange County. WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro, in a resolution approving the MOU, sought assurance that its recommendation would be received and considered by the Board of Commissioners prior to the Orange County Board of Commissioners changing the projected student membership growth rate, the methodology used to determine this rate or the student generation rate; and WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro, in a resolution approving the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding among the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education and Orange County (hereinafter the MOU), sought further clarification concerning the commitment it is making to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Program as expressed by the following language contained in the resolution of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approving the MOU: . Carrboro intends to remain committed to the MOU only as long as the County continues to execute the CIP as agreed in the MOU. If the Carrboro Board of Aldermen find the County is no longer in compliance with the CIP as outlined in the MOU, Carrboro will no longer consider itself bound by this MOU and may consider repealing the Ordinance referenced in Section 2 [of the MOU]; and WHEREAS, Chapel Hill, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education and Orange County concur with the stated Carrboro concerns being made part of the MOU; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Addendum to the MOU and to the MOU hereby agree that Section l.d. is amended to read as follows: Section l.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, in a timely manner, 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 and the Board of Commissioners shall provide an opportunity for those governing Boards to comment on the recommendation. In making its recommendation, the committee shall consider the following, and in making its determination, the Board of Commissioners shall consider the following: (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. and that Section 9 of the MOU is amended to read as follows: 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. The Town of Carrboro intends to remain committed to the MOU only as long as Orange County continues to execute the CIP as agreed in the MOU. If the Carrboro Board of Aldermen find Orange County is no longer in compliance with the CIP as outlined in the MOU, the Town of Carrboro will no longer consider itself bound by this MOU and may consider repealing the Ordinance referenced in Section 2 of this MOU. ~. ;;• This the day of :: , _ , 20_ TOWN OF CARRBORO SEAL Attest: Town Clerk SEAL Attest: Town Clerk SEAL Attest: Clerk to the Boazd of Commissioners SEAL By: Mayor TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL By: Mayor ORANGE COUNTY By: Chair, Board of Commissioners THE CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION By: Chair ATTEST: .~ ,;. Secretary :~ , tsg:orangecounty~[oU addendum revised 11-27-02 ~ ~ ADDENDUP'i TO SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES NIENIORANDUNI OF IJNDERSTANDiNG This Addendum to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of , 20 , by and among the Town of Hillsborough, the Orange County Board of Education and Orange County. WHEREAS, school membership within the middle school level in the Orange County School District for the 2002-2003 school year is 115% of building capacity; and WHEREAS, a third middle school for the Orange County School District is in the planning stage, on the Orange County 10-year CIP and funding has been committed to this school by Orange County as a result of an approved bond issue; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the third middle school in the Orange County School District will be completed and middle school students will begin attending this school when the 2005-2006 school year begins; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and to the citizens of Orange County that the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Program be implemented for the Orange County School District in 2003 in tandem with the implementation of the Program for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Addendum to the MOU and to the MOU hereby agree that Section 3.g. of the MOU is amended to read as follows: Section 3.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. OPTION I For th`~ period of time beginning the effective date of the ordinances referred t~o~in Section 2 of this MOU and terminating on the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, the determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist IU shall be made only if projected school membership within each school level does not exceed the following: Elementary School 1.05% of Building Capacity Middle School "115% of Building Capacity High School 110% of Building Capacity On and after the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist shall be made only if school membership within each school level does not exceed the following: Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity Middle School 107% of Building Capacity High School 110% of Building Capacity OPTION II For the period of time beginning the effective date of the ordinances referred to in Section 2 of this MOU and terminating on the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, the determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist shall be made without regard to whether or not school membership within the Middle School level exceeds 107% of Building Capacity. On and after the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist shall be made only if school membership within each school level does not exceed the following: Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity Middle School 107% of Building Capacity High School 110% of Building Capacity This the day of SEAL _, ;;. Attest: 20 By: TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH Mayor Town Clerk ~i Attest: Attest: SEAL ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION By: Chair Secretary ORANGE COUNTY SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 1sg:orangecounty~IVtOU bboro etc addendum By: Chair, Board of Commissioners ti•~~ Icy Approved by Schools ands aft completed bylstaff 2/48/002 SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBERSTANDING S MEMORANDUM OF UND This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of _~ ,the Town of ,Orange 200_, by and between the Town of (the "School District"). County, and the 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 g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final t3 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 t five 5 schooldays after No ember p5 rties to this agreement no later than ( ) b. For purposes of this Memorandum, building capacity" will be determined b reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines Y (consistent with CIP School Construction Guidelines/policies develope 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: g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 2 ~~ Approved by Schools anDraft completed bylstaff 2/4802 (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. 3 g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final ~~ Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11114/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 b. School membership c hlculations made on February 15t" (utilizing the previous November 15 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 15t" of one year to February 15t" 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 15~' 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 g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 4 (b Approved by Schools anD aft completed by staff 2/48/002 likely to be occupied. Notwithsuaisdicgion approving 1 thep deve opine t the applicant, the planning ~ 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; g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 5 !~ Approved by Schools anDraft completed bylstaff 248/02 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 Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 11-27-02 revisions Exhibit A AN ORDIi~IAi~iCE AMENDING ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDIlY_ANCES TO REQUIRE THAT THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ACCOIVIiN10DATE NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County served by the Chapel Hill/Carrboro school system and the Orange County school system, have 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 HilUCarrboro School Board and Orange County School Board, with funding provided by Orange County; and WHEREAS, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill/Cazrboro School District on the one hand and Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District on the other hand have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School Districts occur at a pace that allows Orange County and the School Districts to provide adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; and WHEREAS, to implement the Memoranda of Understanding among Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel HilUCarrboro School Boazd and among Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School Board, the Board of Commissioners. of Orange County 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 adding a new Development Ordinance is amended by 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 Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 11-27-02 revisions expected that adequate public school facilities will be available to accommodate such new development. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District and the Orange County School District are each declared an overlay district in order to implement Schools Adequate Public Facilities as prescribed in this [article]. Within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District Overlay District and within the Orange County School District Overlay District, provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Orange County Subdivision Regulations which implement the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance are applicable. 2. Certificate of Adequacy of Public Schools 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 a Certificate of Adequacy of Public Schools 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 among Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District or among 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 Memoranda of Understanding among Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education and among Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County Board of Education (MOU or MOUs), adequate service levels for public schools shall be deemed to exist with respect to a Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14;01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 11-27-02 revisions 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 MOU, projected school membership for the elementary schools, the middle schools, and the high school(s) within the Chapel Hi1UCarrboro School District and within the Orange County School District will not exceed the following percentages of the building capacities of each of the following three school levels: Elementary School Middle School High School NEW OPTION I 105% of Building Capacity 107% of Building Capacity 110% of Building Capacity For the period of time beginning the effective date of the ordinances referred to in Section 2 of the MOU among Orange County, Hillsborough and the Orange County Board of Education and terminating on the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, the determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist shall be made only if projected school membership within each school level will not exceed the following: Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity Middle School 115% of Building Capacity High School 110% of Building Capacity On and after the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist shall be made only if school membership within each school level does not exceed the following: Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity Middle School 107% of Building Capacity High School 110% of Building Capacity NEW OPTION II For the period of time beginning the effective date of the ordinances referred to in Section 2 of the MOU among Orange County, Hillsborough and the Orange County Boazd of Education and terminating on the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, the determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist shall be made as prescribed above but without regard to whether or not projected school membership within the Middle School level exceeds 107% of Building Capacity. On and.: after the day on which the third middle school within the Orange County School District is first attended by middle school students, determination by the Orange County School District that adequate service levels for public schools exist shall be made only if projected school membership within each school level will not exceed the following: 3 ~~ Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 11-27-02 revisions Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity Middle School 107% of Building Capacity High School 110% of Building Capacity For purposes of this ordinance, the terms "building capacity" and "school membership" shall have the same meaning attributed in the N10U among Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education and in the MOU among Orange County, Hillsborough and the Orange County Board of Education. 4. Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools 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, minox.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. 4 c~°~' Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14101; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 11-27-02 revisions (c) The Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners is delivered to the applicant and every other party who has filed. a.written request for such copy with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners at the time;'of its hearing on the application for a special exception. The written copy of the decision `of the Board of Commissioners may be delivered either by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested. 5 ~~ Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14;01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 11-27-02 revisions (e) The chair of the Board of Commissioners or any member temporarily acting as chair may, in his or her official capacity, administer oaths to witnesses in any hearing before the Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners. Any such appeal shall be heard by the Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners not brought before the School District, or (3) issue a CAPS. The Board of Commissioners 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 Board of Commissioners. A decision of the Board of Commissioners 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 MOU among Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education or the MOU among Orange County, Hillsborough and the Orange County Board of Education. An applicant for a CAPS special exception or an applicant appealing a CAPS denial by-the School District shall submit to the Board of Commissioners all information reasonably deemed necessary by the Board of Commissioners 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 maybe made by personal delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective ;;. The foregoing ordinance; hiving been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this day of , 200_. Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01; Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 11-27-02 revisions Ayes: Noes: Absent or Excused: Isg:orangecounty\sapfo ord rev 11-27-02 owl ~~ ~~ ., c >, ~ ~ ~ ~rnno~.~ ~ ~`U a~ ~ o _ O UL L. N C"a C~ C ~ N ~. C Q•- O N~~ O O ~ a~L ~ a~Uo~j°- U ~~"~ o° .o V~o°c-a ~;~~ ~~ ~~.+ °os~a~~ rn oNC~ L >> L L L U -p N O ~~ 'O ~ U s ~+ O O ~ (0 U L •U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O~ ~ C O O a N c~ (B N~ O N v Z > ~ c6 v- (6 ~ N O C ~ L ~_ (6 ~ ~ O L ~ Q. O O N .- co ~ ~ O O - U ~ OL C >, _C ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ LO N ~' `~- fA U LL rn_ •~ N X ~ O O ~~ (0 i >' N O Q C ~~ O L ~ ~ U ~ C ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ~ N ~ LL ~ to N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ N W ~ ~ °o n. ~o -au°ia~~a~~ ~ °~NO° c n..~ .,.. • o ~ a~ L O F-H c ~'° ~uvi o-a~°o~ o ~ ~ voi3o°~ V) J Z ° v -~ ~ -a ~ c •o .o c. a .L ~ ~ cn E ~ W N ~ oN o~ -°c~°Ocn Q ~ o ~c'x~-a ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ rna ~ O L ~ c •~ ~ N ~ 2 QW Zw °~ °~ ~~~~~~ aoi L ~ °~a-ao O V ~ c °- a ~= ~~~~ o ~ ~ L N c W N o cn ~ ~ ~ a~ . co C ~ o .~ ~. ~ Qc~au.U o a~i o ~ o o~.a?M v~ V Jpo O Lo ~~ c.~c~ooQL ,~ ° ~ boo ~ LL m O N (,~ ~ :~ cn fl.•Q •~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ D a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O p~0 ~~-a~ a~ Q-Ucnc -ov c Z ~cooc~ ~n ~.~.. p a LL. r m ca a~ ~ ~ ~ a rn a~ a, `~ o o a~ Q rn _T ~ _E v>i ~ W O ~ ~ ~~ a~ a~ c U~~ ~U ~ ~ ~ `n .L'~ ~ o 0 Q aX~ ~o~o aid `~o.~~U~ ~n M -°~rn~~ ® O p ~ ~ a~ a n ~ ~ c -~ ti 00 L ° .- N ~ ~ ~. ca cn ~ c~`-o ~~ rn-acc ~ ca ~ o o'~-o° o ~. p~ -a ~ ~o Lc~~rn.S~ ~ >o~~L p ~Z o E~ ~v°i ~c.oc`-°~ ° z ~ ~a~~~~ O c 'o }, ~, ~ a~ V to o~,~rn ca co o~~coc ~ 'in a, ca~~c ° W QV c ~~~ rn,~ a,c Qo... ~ 'rn c ~, ~~ rn°~ C') 2W N~~NN~O c°o>+NCa ~ c aci> ~ •~.--'~ c~ a~L~cn ~~~•~cQ > _O Ica °~ acio ~p ~ O °~ a~~ ° ~c °a o ° T ° N~ ~ ~U~ 3 aria ~ ~ c~~ -° ~ o c~ ~ ~ .o ~ ~ ~ a~U ~ Sri o ° r . ° ca O -ati~ °~ ~m ~ ` cn o c c~ a~ a ~' c ~~L--v°o COO >'C C.L ..~'~ ~.N Vj ~ (6 In NJ ~-'ate-' ~ ON ~ ~.c a~i o~ ~ U ° o~ ~ coo ~ ~ ~n'c N 3 ~ N aim ~~~ co v~F-~ I- n~cA~ o Q Q fin- ~~ ° GHQ ~ a~ a~ Z ~ c ~ ~ c c o ~ ~ p ~ ~ a i o o :~- a V ~ U ~ ~ U U ~ O Z Z Q ~ ~ O •O ~O ~ ~ ~ O ~ N U ~ U a ~ o U ~ N o ~ rn c c c -v o c c ~ V _ ~ i a - i a a i a~ a i W o ~ a .QC o ~ ~~ ~ a; a ~ ~ m U a v~ v~ in ~ in ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ~i'~~T SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SAPFO) OUTLINE OF FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. GENERAL QUESTIONS B. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) QUESTIONS C. MEMBERSHIP AND BUILDING CAPACITY QUESTIONS D. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) QUESTIONS E. STUDENT GROWTH RATE, STUDENT PROJECTIONS, AND STUDENT GENERATION RATE QUESTIONS 1 ~-7 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ~i~~~r SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SAPFO) A. GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Q. What does a SAPFO do? A. A SAPFO is a requirement that: 1. Specifies that necessary public facilities and services: • are available • and are adequate • at the adopted level of service • at the time the impact of development will be felt • so that adopted levels of service are maintained 2. Promotes that new residents receive all necessary public facilities and services. 3. Ensures that the provision of those services to new residents does not cause a reduction in the level of service provided to existing residents. 4. Ensures that the County government is fiscally prudent and responsible. 2. Q. What does a SAPFO not do? A. 1. A SAPFO does not require developers to finance public facilities. 2. A SAPFO does not place an undue burden on developer/new residents. 3. SAPFO requirements take "property rights" • Does not require dedication of land • Does not require dedication of fees 4. Does not require enabling legislation • Authority under NCGS regarding subdivision and zoning ~~ ~i.A~r 3. Q, Can a SAPFO be used for other public facilities? A. Yes, Schools are the focus in Orange County because of the dominant funding requirements and proportion of the overall budget. Other SAPFO areas are not being considered at this time but can include: • Streets Public Sewer • Law Enforcement • Public Water • Fire Protection • Solid waste disposal • Greenways Stormwater management • Parks 4. (~. What is the impact area (affected area) of a SAPFO? A. The geographic area affected by a proposed development • Defines the areas within the adopted level of service must be met which is the districts. In Orange County housing development affects the overall districts, so two areas will be regulated by two separate agreements. 5. Q. Are there exceptions to a SAPFO? A. Commercial or non-residential development and senior housing does not create students and is exempted. 2 c~ 1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ~,~~~~r SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SAPFO) B. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) QUESTIONS Q. What does level of service (LOS) mean? A. LOS means the amount (level) of students that can be accommodated (serviced) at a certain school system grade group [i.e., Elementary Level (K-5), Middle Level (6-8), High School Level (9-12)] 2. Q. How is LOS measured? A. LOS is illustrated as a percentage of the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) rated capacity of schools of a certain level added together. 3. Q. How is LOS used in the countywide Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)? A. LOS is assigned for each school level grade group: 105% of capacity for the combined total of elementary schools, 107% of capacity for the combined total of middle schools, and 110% of capacity for the combined total of high schools. 4. Q. What does it mean when the LOS is greater than 100%? A. If the 100% capacity was 4302 students at eight elementary schools, then 4517 students could be accommodated at 105%. 5. Q. Is any individual school held to the specific LOS standard? A. No, each school district will be responsible for the specific constraints of each individual school and the SAPFO using a combined total for each school level. g. Q. What happens when the LOS is exceeded? A. The LOS is the standard that is evaluated in school level projections to ascertain the needs for future school construction. If the LOS is not achieved in a given year, then housing approvals must be delayed or deferred until the new school is scheduled to be built. ~,~~~~r 7, (~. Why is LOS calculated at school levels vs. each school? A. The membership may vary between schools in a level from under capacity to overcapacity. To be fiscally prudent, it is not necessary to build another school district wide if rebalancing can be done by redistricting. g, Q. Are mobile classrooms used in the capacity derivation? A. No, the SAPFO Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) excludes mobile classrooms as permanent but they may be used to house temporary individual school overcapacity situations. In this manner, the need for new schools is not `masked' by the use of mobile classrooms. g. Q. How many students do the LOS standards equate to in the two school districts? A. CHAPEL HILL/ CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 100% ca acit 4302 3820 105% ca acit 4517 4011 ELEMENTARY Difference 215 / 10' 191 / 9' # per school 215=82=273 191=62=323 100% ca acit 2840 1466 107% ca acit 3039 1569 MIDDLE Difference 199 / 9' 103 / 5' # per school 199=4Z=503 103=2Z=523 100% ca acit 3035 2518 110% ca acit 3339 2770 HIGH Difference 304 / 12' 252 / 10' # perschool 304=22=1523 252=22=1263 This also roughly indicates how many mobile classrooms would be necessary in the school level before the LOS is reached if no other interior capacity changes were made. z Number of schools in the level. 3 If overcapacity students were equally distributed amongst available schools. 2 ~i ~i~.A~r 10 11 12 Q. Is the LOS standard different in the two county school districts? A. No, the SAPFO MOU and the implementing ordinances of the local governments are consistent between both districts. Q. Why were the LOS standards of 105%, 107% and 110% chosen? A. Both school districts provided information about their existing schools and their functional ability to handle overcapacity situations. There was discussion that included: ^ The age of the school. - Older schools which comprise over half of the total school capacity were built with less square footage per pupil. In addition, the core facilities such as the cafeteria, media center, etc. have limitations on usability and/or expansion. These facility constraints lead to less flexibility to handle any mid-level degree of overcrowding. However, as new schools come on line with newer and more flexible square footage, the system-wide constraints become less significant. ^ The number of schools in a particular school level acknowledging that the fewer the schools the greater the statistical impact. ^ The number of overcapacity students and the impact of a new school. ^ The concern for more restricted LOS standards at earlier years to protect the education environment. Q. If new schools open, what is roughly the actual percent of LOS that is achieved (i.e. the lower range of the LOS)? A. The impact varies at each school depending on the redistricting pattern but the following school level percentage reductions could be achieved: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District Orange County School District Elementary 92% 91 % Middle 86% 72% High 83% 79% Assuming 1000 capacity school is added. 3 3~- ,j.~ ~r 13. Q. Around the nation that have a SAPFO, are the LOS standards comparable to what is proposed? A. There is a range of LOS that has been used depending on area circumstances. The range has been approximately 105% to 175%. Most LOS's that are high are because present conditions of student membership are at or near those levels and the district did not think it prudent to start with a `defacto moratorium' but wanted to pursue an organized program [Capital Improvement Program (CIP)] of reducing that LOS to more `reasonable' numbers. Districts on the low end of the range were more proactive with their standards because overcapacity conditions were more under control with along-term school CIP commitment. Throughout the range, SAPFO's are used as an important growth management tool to pace growth and maintain quality education. 14. Q. Can the LOS standard be changed? A. Yes, but only after all parties agree. A LOS standard revised upward is usually easier than the opposite because a reduction should not be used to create a moratorium. The LOS is an important variable in the triad of CIP timing, capacity and LOS standards. 4 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ~ i~~ ~ ~r SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SAPFO) D. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM QUESTIONS ~ . Q. How does a SAPFO rely on the Capital Improvements Program (CIP)? A. SAPFO relies on the CIP to accommodate the districts reasonably anticipated growth over the planning period using various student projection methods. 1 3`~ Chapel Hill Carrboe~o am er 104 S. ESTES DRIVE • POST OFFICE BOX 2897 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27515-2897 November 19, 2002 Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair Barry Jacobs Government Services Center 200 S. Cameron St. Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Deaz Commissioners: Every day, we here at the Chamber heaz two messages loud and cleaz from our members: We love our schools, and it's getting more and more expensive to live in Orange County. These are competing concerns of which you aze well awaze. We applaud your dedication to funding a quality education for Orange County's children because exceptional schools are a cornerstone of economic success for our community and a key to attracting high- qualitybusinesses and ahigh-quality workforce. We understand that the principle behind the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) is based on this notion of balancing school growth needs with othei community needs, but we worry about the unintended consequences of the ord~nance- Chamber members, like Chris Moran of the Inter-Faith Council, aze concerned about whether this ordinance will drive up the cost of housing to the point where many of our employees will be unablesv~fwd-hams 'fie lack of "workforce" housing is a critical need in this community. We aze concerned that this ordinance will constrain the market even more than it already is, forcing employees making the same amount as teachers, firefighters and police officers to live in Alamance, Chatham, Durham and Wake counties. The Chamber also has technical concerns about the ordinance. If the Level of Service recommendations stay the same, the ordinance could place a de fay+^ **~^*atn~+nm on development as soon as1lext year if growth in the Chanel Mill-Cazrboro fLl~ schools Beeps on its steady pace. We also aze concerned that future Boards of Commissioners could, by cutting fundin¢ of the Capp+a? Improvement Program- usP this ordinance to intPntionaily stop gr~wtfi-. You have shown your dedication to funding school construction through your support of bonds last yeaz to ouild two elementary schools in the towns and a middle school in the county. But by placing these restrictions into code, you leave open the door for future Commissioners to further their political agendas in a way that could dramatically damage Orange County's future. ~ (919) 9E7-7075 • (919) 968-6874 FAX ~.~ htt~alwww.chapelhillcarrbo•o.org • E-MAIL: chamber@chapelhillcarrecrc.org ~~ _ 2 _ November 19, 2002 Other technical concerns we have center on how the ordinance would work in practice. Could a large developer, like the university, monopolize all available Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools (CAPS) so that other smaller projects would be shut out? We would like to be able to support an ordinance that ties school construction to growth. However, we are not convinced that the ordinance that has been drafted responds satisfactorily to the needs of our community, which are to maintain a high level of excellence in our schools while making the community - and by extension, the schools - available to all, regardless of income. Thank you for your time and consideration of our requests. Sincerely, G vt vrginiaUKnapp Director of External Affairs Enclosure (1) 3 t~ POSITION STATEMENT SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE Adopted by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Position Statement: The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce fully supports the Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County schools. Strong schools are critical to the success of our community and are a large component of our valued quality of life. Consistent with the Chamber's adopted mission statement, the Chamber supports proactive measures that will ensure that our local schools continue to be recognized for their outstanding quality and that they continue to serve as an example of superior education for the state and nation. The Chamber is supportive of the goals of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and associated MOU, and supports an ordinance linking school construction with the growth of our community including a strong commitment to, and requirement for, the public funding necessary to achieve that end. While supportive of a Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, the Chamber does not support the current MOU and Model Ordinance as drafted. The Chamber believes that a well crafted MOU and SAPFO can be of community benefit, and will work with community leaders to craft the best SAPFO possible. The Chamber has some concerns about the current drafts. Once adopted, both the MOU and SAPFO will be very difficult to modify. Concerns and Suggestions: 1. The funding of the Capital InvestrnendImprovement lan (C1P) remains unclear. The MOU makes mention of a CIP, but is not sufficient specific about how it will be funded or that it must be sufficiently funded. The CIP has' not been produced for public comment or discussion. iecommendation: llefine the CIP to include a Capital Funding Plan or create an additional subsection to Section 1(c) of the draft MOU requiring the parties to agree on, and publicly commit to, implementing a Capital Funding Plan. No action should be taken on the MOU until the CIP and Capital Funding Plan have been made available to the public and elected leaders for consideration. The requirement for the County to appropriately fund school construction is not sufficiently specific. Section 7 of the draft MOU says the County "will use its best efforts" to provide funding to carry out an adopted CIP. Recommendation: Strengthen the language in Section 7 of the MOU with regard to County funding and planning responsibilities by striking "will use its best efforts" and insert "shall" in Section 7 of the MOU. 3. The Chamber remains very concerned about how SAPFO and potential delays will impact affordable housing proposals and subsidized projects' ability to secure and maintain resources with their often-complicated funding mechanisms. The Chamber is also concerned about how delays caused by SAPFO will impact the affordability of 3~ existing single and multifamily housing as demand from working families, students, university staff and others continues to grow. Recommendation: Exempt housing that meets strict affordability standazds and exempt the affordable components of other developments from the requirement to secure Certificates of Adequate School Capacity (CAPS). 4. Under the draft MOU and Model Ordinance, the County will be given the ultimate authority to regulate growth and development in the municipalities. It would be unfortunate for well-planned projects, approved by municipalities, to be prohibited from proceeding because of poor funding, poor planning or political decisions made the County level. Recommendation: Strengthen the language in Section 7 of the MOU so that the County must plan for and fund adequate school construction. 5. The Model Ordinance indicates that in the event that multifamily units aze destroyed, voluntarily demolished or condemned that the property owner may rebuild, but only on that site (the ability to reconstruct is attached to the land and not the property owner). The Model Ordinance does not address the availability of CAPS if the property is not reconstructed or if its reconstruction is delayed by years. For example, if a housing complex was destroyed or demolished, could the capacity created by the destruction of such a complex be portable allowing the property owner to take it to a new site and build without having to apply for and secure CAPS? Would the increase in capacity available from a multifamily unit being taken offline become available to the next project in the queue if the owner made no plans to rebuild? Recommendation: Clarify the procedures for assessing capacity and issuing CAPS in the event that housing units aze destroyed, demolished or condemned. It is cleaz that in the event of such a loss, the capacity would remain with the property, but not cleaz for how long. The possibility of portable capacity in such a case should be investigated further. 6. The Chamber is concerned about how the queue for CAPs will be handled when capacity is not available. Recommendation: Establish regulations for governing the queue of delayed projects including: 1. Construction time limits on a project should begin after CAPS have been issued. 2. If the queue includes projects needing 100 CAPS, 75 CAPS, and 5 CAPs waiting in that order, and only 5 CAPS are judged to be available, should provisions be made for the project with 5 CAPs to be allowed to proceed forwazd, rather than all projects remaining in the queue. 7. If SAPFO is adopted at a time when no capacity is available, a moratorium on new housing construction will result. Recommendation: If adopted, SAPFO should not take effect until such a time when school capacity is projected to be available for at least two consecutive years. 8. Before adopting the draft MOU or Model Ordinance, the ten-year capacity projections and ten-year funding projections should be made public and reviewed by all of the adopting bodies and the public. 38 Recommendation: The school systems and County should make public their current ten-year capacity projections (using all methodologies) and the County should produce projected funding scenarios that will pace school ~o*+s+rvct~on with projected growth over the next ten Year. 9. Section 1(d) of the draft MOU allows the County Commissioners to chance the counting methodology without input from elected municipal officials. The M(7U also provides no specific means for the resolution of conflicting opinions between municipalities and the County on the methodology for projecting student growth. Recommendation: Town Council Members and Aldermen should be given an opportunity to review proposed changes to methodologies and projected student counts. Any decision to change methodologies should not be made until it is commented on by the municipalities and the public. 10. The processes and deadlines for the period between November 15 and February 15 are not fully specified nor do the specified deadlines provide sufficient time for elected official and public discussion and comment. For example, Section 1(d) of the draft MOU provides that changes made to methodologies and the projected student growth rate require only a 15-day notice (from February 1 to February 15) to the schools for them to produce new projections. Recommendation: Descriptions of processes and their deadlines between November 15 and February 15 should be fully specified. Section 1(d) of the MOU should provide for a longer period of time in advance of February 15 for distribution of modifications made by the County for new student counting and projecting protocols. The CIP and a Capital Funding Plan should be adjusted annually between November 15 and February 15. In Section 1(e) of the MOU, the phrase "annually or otherwise" should be replaced with "upon its annual review," and the date for that adjustment should be set. 11. The definition of a CIP is unclear as it is refereed to as a "Capital ~ast~stm.~nt flan" in the fifth "Whereas" clause of the draft MOU and a "Capital Improvement Plan" in Section 1 of the draft MOU. Recommendation: The definition of CIP should be clarified. 12. The MOU and Model Ordinance should include a "sunset" clause in the event that the County's commitment is not realized and capital funding is not made available. Recommendation: The drafts should include a provision that if CAPs are not available for a period of three consecutive years, then the Ordinance and MOU become void until adequate school construction funding is restored by the County.