HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-13-1999 - 2ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Issues Identified by Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
DEPARTMENT: County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
As noted in "Background" section
Action Agenda
Item No. 2
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Neil Pedersen, 967 -8211
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
Chapel Hill
Durham
Mebane
732 -8181
968 -4501
688 -7331
336- 227 -2031
PURPOSE: To discuss issues of concern to the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board of Education.
BACKGROUND: As outlined in an August 21 memo (Attachment 2a) from Superintendent
Pedersen, the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board of Education requested that the following topics be
included on the September 15 work session agenda.
a) Acquisition of School Sites and Construction of New Schools
b) Communities in Schools
c) Proposal for School Board Taxing Authority
At the most recent monthly meeting between the Superintendents and the County Manager,
Superintendent Pedersen indicated that the CHCCS Board had recently adopted a resolution
supporting the concept of taxing authority for local school boards (Attachment 2b).
d) Capital Project Ordinance Approval — Glenwood Elementary Renovation
Included in the approved 1999 -2009 CIP was the Glenwood Elementary School Renovations
capital project. The project provides for major renovations at the school including replacement
of the HVAC and fire alarm system and upgrades to classrooms, restrooms, windows and
cafeteria. The Chapel Carrboro City Schools has requested that the Board of Commissioners
approve funding totaling $100,000 for the first phase of the Glenwood Elementary School
Renovations Capital Project Ordinance. This phase includes planning, architect and
engineering costs. Once this phase is complete and bids received, the school district will ask
the Board to approve construction - related costs for the project. At their December 7 meeting,
the Board deferred action on this capital project ordinance (Attachment 2c), pending discussion
with the CHCCS Board about plans to replace Glenwood Elementary at some point in the
future. A copy of the "Preliminary School Facilities Report" recently presented to the CHCCS
Board is included as Attachment 2d to provide some context to this discussion.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the discussion at this
meeting, other than formal appropriation of funds already planned in the CIP in the Glenwood
Elementary School Renovations capital project. However, decisions that may be made by one
or more of the elected boards at subsequent meetings are likely to have significant implications
for future capital and operating budgets.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards discuss the issues noted
and provide direction to staff, as appropriate; further, the Manager recommends if their
questions are satisfactorily answered, that the Board adopt the Glenwood Elementary School
Renovations capital project ordinance.
M +
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
. Telephone: (919) 967 -8211:
Neil Q. Pedersen
Superintendent
TO: Jobn Link, Manager
Orange County
FROM: Neil G. Pede
Superintendent
Ann Hwt Assistant Superintendent
For lnOucttonel Services
Chester Prayer, Assistant Superintendent
For Support Services
RE: Agenda Items for September 1S" Joint Meeting
DATE: August 21, 1999
The Chapel Bill- Canboro City Schools Board of Education is looking forward to
the joint meeting next month with the County Commissioners and the Orange County
School Board.
The Board requests that the following fonr�pto ics be placed on the agenda. They
are m priority order for inclusion. '
1. Acquisition of .school sites and construction � id..- new schools: The Board of
Education is eager to move forward with identifying and purchhsmg future sites for
new schools. The availability of sites in our district is becoming increasingly limited.
It also is necessary to consider a timetable for new school construction and to begin
plans for financing new schools.
2. School initiatives that could impact the 2OW01 budget: All parties
benefited from tbe'ongoing dliscnssion that preceded the presentation of budgets last
spring. This. meeting would be a good opportunity to share an initial list of expected
needs that must be addressed in next year's budget.
3. Value engineering: The Board would like to discuss the appropriate role for a value
engineer on school projects and the proposed mediation process.
4. Communities in Schools: The Board would like the County Commissioners to
consider supporting steps that would pat CS* on a framer financial footing.
Thank you for your consideration of these requested topics.
Cc: CHCCS Board of Education
Randy Bridges -
n
V
CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL NOV 2 2. 1999 ,
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road L 0-/
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 -2881
Telephone: (919) 967 -8211
Neil G. Pedersen Ann Y. Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent of Instructional Services
Steve Soroggs, Interim Assistant Superintendent
Of Support Services
TO: John Link, Manager
Orange County
FROM Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
RE: Resolution in Support of Taxing Authority
DATE: November 19, 1999
The enclosed resolution was approved by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Board of
Education at its meeting last evening.
Best wishes for a pleasant Thanksgiving.
NGP /asb
Resolution ion Support
of Taxing Authority
WFD REA,S, over 80 % of the boards of education in the United States are fiscally
independent; and
W + RRAS, North Carolina has a unique mcftd of finding public education by PUcin8
the control of educational policy with Ioaal hoards of education while requiring the
BOY erning bodies of local govern unrnts to appropriate funds for educational purposes; and
W MREA,S, the existing school funding atra ug mumt in North Carolina omen puts
elected members of the board of education at odds with the budgetary and taxing
deddonis of anotbw locally elected body elected by the .Same canstituency; and
WHMKL4S, the decisions concerning the local needs of an individual school system
shad be made by those who are the most kno wledgeatcte about school system needs;
and
WHEREAS, members of local boards of education are elected to be the educational
leaders and decision-makers in their communities and have the legal duty to provide "
adequate educational services to all children; and
WHMF AS, the North Carolina Suprem Court, under %eadro, has hell that students, in
North Carolina have a state constitutional right to a sound basic education; and
, aehool boards are not in a position to fulfill their ~on to provide a
sound basic fthumbon without the ability m raise necessary finds to provide these
educational service; and
WHEREAS, over recent years, the North Carolina Gene al Assembly and the State
Board of Education have made adnzinistratoaa, teachers and stun tents moue accountable
for the tonal progress of all school aged d9ldren in North Carolina, and
WHBREAS, until local boards of education are granted tax levying qty, they
ca mot reasonably be held accountable if their school systems are not Willing the needs
of the children in their districts;
TSER�'ORi�, BE IT RBSOLYED that the Chapel Hill- C.arrbaro City Board of
Education ruliy requests that the North Carolina General Assembly grant local
boards of education the authority to Levy taxes to provide for the locd educational needs
of the chddnen they serve.
Adopted by the Chapel Bill- Canfioro City . Board of Bducatim this .le day of November
in the year 1999. J�
i
TSER�'ORi�, BE IT RBSOLYED that the Chapel Hill- C.arrbaro City Board of
Education ruliy requests that the North Carolina General Assembly grant local
boards of education the authority to Levy taxes to provide for the locd educational needs
of the chddnen they serve.
Adopted by the Chapel Bill- Canfioro City . Board of Bducatim this .le day of November
in the year 1999. J�
Glenwood Elementary School Major Renovation 7
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
Capital Project Ordinance
Be it ordained by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13.2
of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following capital project is hereby
adopted.
Section 1. The project authorized provides funds for a major renovation of Glenwood Elementary
School that was constructed and opened in 1952,1954, and 1959. This project will be
financed with proceeds from the 1997 Local Bond Issue and savings from the Scroggs
Elementary School Construction and East Chapel Hill High additions construction projects.
Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the project within the budget
contained herein.
Section 3. The following revenue is anticipated to complete phase 1 of this project:
Section 4. The following amount is appropriated for this project:
Through FY
1998 -99
1999 -00
ApproWation
Through FY
1999-00
Sales Tax
$0
$0
$0
Impact Fees
$0
$0
$0
PSBF
$0
$0
$0
1992 Bond Funds
$0
$0
$0
1997 Bond Funds
$0
$100,000
$100,000
Savings on Construction Contracts
so
so
5D
Total Project Funding
$0
$1001000
$100,000
Section 4. The following amount is appropriated for this project:
Section 5. This ordinance supersedes all previous Glenwood Elementary School Major Renovations
Capital Project Ordinances.
Section 6. This ordinance shall remain in effect until June 30, 2000.
Adopted this 7' day of December, 1999.
T roug FY
1998 -99
1999 -00
Appropriation
Through FY
1999 -00
Plannin /Arch /En in
0
100,000
100,000
Land /Assoc Fees
0
0
0
Construction
0
0
0
Equipment/Furnishing s
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
Contingency
Q
Q
0
Total
0
100,000
100,000
Section 5. This ordinance supersedes all previous Glenwood Elementary School Major Renovations
Capital Project Ordinances.
Section 6. This ordinance shall remain in effect until June 30, 2000.
Adopted this 7' day of December, 1999.
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO . CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, .North Carolina 27516
Telephone: (919) 967 -8211
Neil G. Pedersen Ann Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent For Instructional Services
Steve Scroggs, Interim Assistant Superintendent
For Support Services
TO: Board of Education
FROM: Neil G. Pederse
Superintendent
RE: Preliminary School Facilities Report
DATE: November 24, 1999
Attached you will find a document called "Preliminary School Facilities Report." This
report represents an important first step in the process of developing a new Facilities Master
Plan for the school district. Preparation and adoption of such a plan is one of the Board's
objectives for the 1999 -2000 academic year.
The report pulls together different sets of population and student enrollment projections and
offers a "best guess" of student enrollment, by year and by level (elementary, middle, high
school) for the next 25 years. In the early years the vision is clear and reliable. The longer
the period of projection, the less reliable the projections become. Still, it is useful to be
considering 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 year probable needs.
The conclusion of the report is that we are likely to need several new facilities during this
period One or two elementary schools will be needed during the next decade to
accommodate growth and the reductions in class size to which the Board already has
committed. It also is anticipated that by the year 2025, two elementary schools will need to
be replaced because they will be approaching 75 years of age.
The district also will need additional capacity for its high school population by 2004. It is
suggested in the report that the Board consider securing a site for one or more alternative
schools or programs and/or add mobile classrooms to the existing campuses. A third high
school does not appear to be warranted at this time.
The report also points out the shortcomings of the Lincoln Center facility and suggests that
a new facility be sought or built to meet this need. This would allow the Lincoln Center
site to be used for an educational purpose, possibly the alternative high school
We recommend that the next step in this planning process take place on December 2nd with
the creation of a Facilities Master Plan Task Force. We recommend that this Task Force be
charged with responsibility for preparing a plan to be presented to the School Board no
later than the end of June, 2000. We recommend that the plan be structured along the lines
of the attached outline.
a
We recommend that the composition of the Task Force be as follows, with participation of
individuals to be invited and secured by the Superintendent over the next few weeks, so
that the Task Force can begin working in January, 2000:
• 2 School Board Members (including one who sits on.the Schools/Land Use Council)
• A County Commissioner
• County Planning Director
• Representative of Carrboro Parks and Recreation Commission
• Representative of Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission
3 Parents (elementary, middle, high school)
• 3 Principals (elementary, middle, high school)
• 3 Teachers (elementary, middle, high school)
• Representative from Shaping Orange County's Future
• Representative from Chapel Hill- Cantoro Chamber of Commerce
Board member Roger Waldon will chair the Task Force. The Assistant Superintendent of
Support Services and the Facilities Director will provide staff support.
Issues to be included, addressed in Long Range Facilities Plan
(Report to be Prepared by New Committee, Jan-May 2000)
1. Take Population, enrollment figures from Preliminary Report as a starting point.
2. Consider how to address issue of desired decrease in average class size; consider
options for average school size.
3. Consider useful life of existing facilities; recommend if any need to be phased-
out. Include discussion of mobile classrooms (31 at present).
4. Consider issue of new sites vs. expansion of existing facilities.
5. Discuss need for administrative facilities.
6. Identify possible sites for new facilities, adding to current list.
7. Consider possibilities for sharing facilities with other public bodies:
8. Consider, summarize costs of expanding, building facilities.
9. Recommend a Long Term Capital Facilities Plan; 25 year planning horizon, with
emphasis on the period 2000 -2010.
Preliminary School Facilities Report
2000 through 2025
Presented to the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board of Education
December. 2, 1999
This report is the -first step in a process to assess and plan for school facility needs for the Chapel
Hill- Carrboro School District in the early part of the next century. Included are historical
enrollment data, population and demographic projections, a projection of need for additional
school capacity, and a description of the condition and useful life of existing facilities.
The next step in this process will be preparation of a Facilities Master Plan. This plan will
recommend a facility construction program, for use by the community in anticipating future
funding needs and timing. The Plan also will identify potential locations for new facilities.
Numerous reports and memoranda were collected and used as the information base for this
report. Several of these are briefly described in the narrative that follows, and all are available
for review as an Appendix to this report. The contents of this Appendix are listed on the last
page, and the individual documents are available in the Superintendent's office.
HISTORICAL / PROJECTED POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT
Population Growth
Map 1 shows an area referred to as the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Urban Services Area. This area has
been drawn for land use planning purposes, as part of a Joint Planning Agreement among three
jurisdictions: the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County. The
planning concept is that, ultimately, Chapel Hill and Carrboro will extend their corporate limits
out to, but not beyond, this Urban Services Boundary. Thus the boundary becomes an important
feature in long range planning for these communities. Accompanying this boundary is an
agreement that urban services (e.g., water and sewer extensions) would not extend beyond the
Urban Services Boundary.
The boundaries of the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District are shown on Map 2. The area
includes the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro (those portions that are located within Orange
County), and- surrounding unincorporated areas. Please note that a portion of the Town of
1
' 1
t�
IN
`O's
-Cr ••� V U
J
•••• Urban Services Boundary
Urban Services Boundary
Map 1
2
,r-b----------------- - - - - -- — - — - — - — - — -
k.
A L '
C h a t h a m
i Y
C o u n t y
r ,
Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools
District Boundary Lines
Map
3
C-)
O
C
Pr
q
Chapel Hill extends into Durham County; this area is not part of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro
School District.
The two lines (school district boundary and urban services boundary) circumscribe similar, but
not identical, areas. The major population center is included in both areas and historical /
projected growth of the Urban Services Area is a close approximation of the growth of the school
district. (Note that the school district extends farther to the north and west than the urban area,
while the urban area extends fiuther east than the school district). For purposes of estimating
general population growth.in this report, the description of the Urban Growth Area population is
used as a surrogate to estimate historical and projected population growth in the school district.
Projected population growth in the urban area is shown on Table 1 and Figure 1. These have
been prepared as part of a regional transportation planning project, and are being relied on by
area local governments for purposes of anticipating future needs.
Student Enrollment Gro wth
Growth in student enrollment in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City . Schools does not necessarily
track population growth exactly, although trends will be mirrored. It may be, for example, that if
the driving force behind population growth is an influx of families with young children, the rate
of growth in student enrollment might exceed the rate.of growth in the general population.
Table 2 and Figure 2 show growth in student enrollment over the last 15 years in Chapel Hill -
Carrboro City Schools. Data are also shown in component parts of the student population:
elementary, middle, and high school. The annual rate of growth in overall student enrollment
has been 4.3% over the last decade.
In order to project future student enrollment, two methods were employed. The first is a 10 -year
projection provided by the consulting firm of Or/Ed Laboratories. (This firm has been employed
on three previous occasions to project or provide enrollment data for this school district, and is
familiar with the demographics of this area). The combination of good historical data and a short
planning horizon (10 years) leads to a reasonably reliable set of year -by -year projections for the
short term. These projections show an annual rate of growth in student enrollment of 1.4% over
the next decade. The full ORED report is provided here as Attachment 1.
The second projection technique is much more general and coarse, with a longer planning
horizon. The second set of projections takes the 25 -year projections for general population
growth, assumes constant demographic profiles, and yields a projection of student enrollment in
5 -year increments for the next 25 years. While these are less reliable than the first set of
projections, they offer a "ballpark" assessment of directions in which we are likely to be moving.
This approach yields a 1.2% annual growth in student enrollment over the next 25 years.
We also have State projections, prepared by the NC Department of Public Instruction. These
figures show annual growth of 1% in student enrollment for the next decade.
4
Table 1: Existing and Projected Population in the
Chapel Hill — Carrboro Urban Area
Year
Population
Year
Population
1995
60,987
2015
81,318
2000
66,257
2020
85,851
2005
71,522
2025
90,384
2010
76,420
Figure 1: Existing and Projected Population in the
Chanel Hill Carrboro Urban Area
Source: Draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
5
Table 2: Student Enrollment Since 1985
Year
Elementary
Middle
High
Exceptional
Total
85 -86
2280
1155
1837
78
5350
86 -87
2341
1187
1797
79
5404
87 -88
2505
1145
1718
81
5449
88 -89
2664
1235
1565
98
5562
89 -90
2797
1285
1572
96
5750
90-91
2872
1430
1576
0 **
6005
91 -92
6054
1519
1636
0 **
6350
92 -93
3273
1601
1801
0 **
6822
93 -94
3469
1651
1880
0 **
7133
94-95
3651
1747
1998
0 **
7509
95 -96
3838
1886
2087
0 **
7811
96-97
3850
1%9
2230
0 **
8049
97 -98
3875
2012
2294
0 **
8181
98 -99*
4040
2066
2384
0 **
8490
99-000
1 4167
1 2189
1 2637
0 *•
8893
* Denotes Principal Monthly Report data ** Ex. Ed. Data was kept by grade level starting 90-91
Other data from DPI Annual Report
Figure 2: Student Enrollment Since 1985
6
Finally, we have a set of projections that have been prepared by the Orange County Planning
Department. These were presented to the School Board on November 18, and project an annual
growth.rate of 2.6% over the next decade and a constant addition of 300 students per year over
the next 25 years. The full Orange County Report is provided here as Attachment 2.
All of these projections are shown in Table 3, and 'Figure 3, so that they can be compared.
Tables 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d show each set of projections broken down by elementary, middle, and
high school categories.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SCHOOL CAPACITY
This district is going to need more schools to accommodate the population growth that this area
will be experiencing. The projections described above allow us to anticipate what kind of school
capacity will need to be added when.
What We'll Need
The most rigorous and customized methodology of the three sets of projections is found in the
OR/ED Laboratory set. These projections have taken into account historical growth rates in
student enrollment, along with cohort projections, assumptions about changing demographics
and birth rates, and assumptions about general population growth in this area This yields the
most reliable 10 -year projection. However, OR/ED Laboratory does not project beyond 10
years.
Looking beyond 10 years results in a considerable decline in reliability of the projections. The
25 -year projection that is based on expected general population growth in the Urban Area
provides a reasonable extension of the OR/ED 10 -year projections. The reasonableness of this
approach is confirmed by general consistency between the Urban Area approach for the first 10
years and the OR/ED projections.
Taken together, then, these two data sets offer a "best guess" scenario for growth in student
enrollment in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District over the next 25 years. Table 4 shows
these "best guess" projections, broken out into Elementary, Middle, and High School subsets.
For purposes of estimating how many schools we will need to accommodate this expected
population, a general rule about optimal sizes of schools is being proposed as follows:
Elementary School ------------ 550 students
Middle School--------- - - - - -- 650 students
High School - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1500 students
The projections that follow do not take into account the School Board's recently adopted plan to
lower average class sizes. A discussion of the likely impacts of lowering class sizes on facilities
needs appears at the end of this report.
7
Table 3: Projected Total School Enrollment
Year
OWED
Iab
Urban Area
Method
DPI
Orange County
Planning
99-00
8893
8893
8893
8893
2005
9897
9746
9483
10406
2008
10181
10496*
9595
11242
2015
18,000
11240
13242
2020
1 1987
14742
2025
12734
16242
* Denotes 2010 data
Figure 3: Projected Total School Enrollment
8
17,000
- _
DPI O.C.P.
Or/Ed urban
O.C.P.
Urban
'
r
DPI
18,000
15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
OR/Ed.
8,000
N
8
- _
DPI O.C.P.
O.C.P.
Urban
'
r
DPI
8
Table 3a: OR/ED Lab. Projections of Student Enrollment by Grade Level
Year
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
99 -00 Actual
4167
2189
2637
8893
2000 -01
4177
2256
2749
9182
2001 -02
4217
2362
2812
9391
2002 -03
4219
2433
2914
9566
2003 -04
4247
2464
3032
9743
2004-05
4270
2485
3142
9897
2005-06
4242
2513
3281
10036
2006-07
4263
2526
3330
10119
2007 -08
1 4266
2551
3364
1 10181
2008 -09
4267
2525
3440
10232
Table 3b: Urban Area Method Projections of Student Enrollment by Grade Level
Year
Elementary
Middle
Higb
Total
99-00 Actual
4167
2189
2637
8893
2004-05
4548
2363
2835
9746
2009 -10
4899
2544
3053
104%
2014 -15
5245
2725
3270
11240
2019 -20
5594
2906
3487
11987
2024 -25
15943
3087
3704
1 12734
Table 3c: DPI Projections of Student Enrollment by Grade Level
Year
Elementary
Middle
Iflo
Total
99-00 Actual
4167
2189
2637
8893
2000-01
4021
2258
2637
8916
2001 -02
4057
2308
2729
9094
2002 -03
4030
2370
2846
9246
2003 -04
4055
2369
2950
9374
2004-05
4045
2415
3021
9481
2005 -06
4041
2383
3140
9564
2006-07
4011
2431
3141
9583
2007 -08
4001
1 2419
3174
9594
9
Table 3d: Orange County Planning Department Projections of
Student Enrollment, by Grade Level
Year
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
99-00 Actual
4167
2189
2637
8993
2000-01
4104
2162
2654
8920
2001 -02
4251
2234
2723
9208
2002 -03
4398
2306
2804
9508
2003 -04
4545
2378
2902
9825
2004,05
4692
2378
2902
9972
2005 -06
4803
2522
3081
10406
2006-07 `
4986
2594•
3162
10742
2007 -08
5133
2666
3243
11042
2008 -09
5231
2714
3297
11242
2009 -10
5329
2762
3351
11442
2010.11
5476
2834
3432
11742
2011 -12
5623
2906
3513
12042
2012 -13
5770
2978
3513
12261
2013 -14
5917
3050
3675
12642
2014 -15
6064
3122
3756
12942
2015 -16
6211
3194
3837
13242
2016 -17
6358
3266
3918
13542
2017 -18
6505
3338
3998
13842
2018 -19
6652
3410
4080
14142
2019 -20
6799
3482
4161
14442
2020.21
6946
3554
4242
14742
2021.22
7093
3626
4323
15042
2022 -23
7240
3698
4404
15342
2023 -24
7387
3770
4485
15842
2024 -25
7534
3842
4556
15932
2025 -26
7681
3914
4647
16242
2026 -27
7828
3986
4728
16542
2027 -28
7975
4058
4809
16842
2028 -29
8122
4130
4890
17142
2029 -30
8259
4202
4971
17442
2030.31
8416
4274
5052
17742
10
Table 4: "Best Guess" Total Student Enrollment Projections
Year
Elemestary
Middle
High
Total
99-00 Actual
4167
2189
2637
8893
2000 -01
4177
2256
2749
9182
2001 -02
4217
2362
2812
9391
2002 -03
4219
2433
2914
9566
2003 -04
4247
2464
3032
9743
2004.05
4270
2485
3142
9897
2005 -06
4242
2513
3281
10036
2006-07
4263
2526,
3330
10119
2007 -08
4266
2551
3364
10181
2008 -09
4267
2525
3440
10232
2014 -15.
5245
2725
3270
11240
2019 -20
5594
2906
3487
11987
2024 -25
5943
3087
3704
12734
Years 2000 through 2009 based on OR/ED projections
Years 2014 -15, 2019 -20 and 2024 -25 based on Urban Area Population
Projections
Table 5: Ages of Existing Facilities
Year Built
Facility
1950
Lincoln Center
1952
Glenwood Elementary
1957
Carrboro Elementary
1958
Estes Hills Elementary
1960
Frank Porter Graham Elementary
1962
Phillips Middle
1966
Chapel Hill High
1969
Seawell Elementary
1969
Culbreeth Middle
1972
Ephesus Elementary
1994
McDougle Middle
1996
McDougle Elementary
1996
East Chapel Hill High
1999
Scroggs Elementary
Taking the data on Table 4, and projecting the numbers of elementary, middle, and high school
students we are likely to have in the district by year, and taking the optimum size of each type of
.school above, the need for facilities can be estimated.
It appears that one additional elementary school is needed as soon as possible. Smith Middle
School will accommodate growth in the middle grades: Some additional capacity will be needed
for our high schools. This might be accomplished through an alternative school and/or mobile
classrooms on our existing campuses.
Impact of Reducing Class Size
The School Board has adopted a plan to advocate for a series of steps to lower average class
sizes throughout the district. The plan calls for the following reductions over the next four years:
Year/Reduction
2000 -2001 Reduce Grade 3 from 26 to 23
2001 -2002 Reduce Grade 4 from 26 to 23
2002 -2003 Reduce Grade 5 from 26 to 23
2003 -2004 Reduce Grades 6 -12 from 26 to 25
The ultimate Class size reduction goal will be the following:
Grades K-3
15 students
Grades 4-5
18 students
Grade 6
20 students
Grades 7 -9
23 students
Grades 10 -12
25 students
The projections for needed new facilities described above do not take into consideration the
possible impact of reduced class sizes. The near term reductions would necessitate the
construction of one new elementary school or its equivalent.
If average class sizes can be reduced, there are two possible alternative impacts on facilities.
Alternative one would be to aim to keep the optimum number of students for each level of school
constant, but to increase the number of classrooms in each type of school. However, it should be
noted that most of our elementary schools would be hard pressed to find the space for the
constriction of very many classrooms. Alternative two would keep the elementary schools at
their present size, thereby necessitating the constriction of a new elementary school
Re leg Older Facilities
A principle used in planning for school facilities is to assume a life expectancy of 50 years. This
district has facilities that are approaching that age no". and some are in a condition where
13
replacement becomes a necessary consideration. Table 5 lists the district's facilities, with the
year of initial construction.
Three of the district's oldest facilities are in this category: Lincoln Center, built in 1950;
Glenwood Elementary, built in 1952; and Estes Elementary, built in 1958. These facilities are
not likely to continue to be viable through to the year 2025, and replacement should be folded
into consideration. The fourth of the district's facilities built during the 1950's, Carrboro
Elementary (1957), is in better condition and may continue to be viable throughout this 25 year
planning Period
Compounding the age of facilities, Estes and Glenwood Elementary Schools are also constrained
by being on small sites. Glenwood is on a 10 -acre, highly constrained site. Estes sits with
Phillips Middle School on a 33 -acre site, but 30 acres is approximately what is desirable for a
middle school alone. (Culbreth sits on 35 acres, McDougle Middle on 28 acres.) Carrboro
Elementary sits on a 20 -acre site.
Lincoln Center is both a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that it is a 50 -year old
facility with multiple physical problems. It is time to begin planning for a new home for the
district's central administrative functions. The opportunity is that Lincoln Center sits on a
centrally located 12 -acre site. The possibility of constructing a new administrative building, as a
major civic focal point for the community should be discussed. Possibilities include building an
administrative facility on the Lincoln Center site, or building elsewhere (freeing up the Lincoln
Center site for school use).
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
The Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District will need additional facilities in the near -term and
long -term future to accommodate expected population growth, reduce class size and replace
aging structures. The needs may be summarized as follows:
• 1— 2 additional elementary schools for growth and reduced class size in the next ten
years.
• Replacement of two elementary schools between 2010 and 2025.
• No immediate plans for another middle school.
• Expansion of high school capacity through a combination of mobile classrooms and
alternative school settings.
• Relocation of the central administration offices.
The Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board has indicated intent to prepare a Facility Master Plan. A
task force is to be convened to prepare this plan, which is to include initial discussion of possible
sites for new school facilities. A report is expected from the task force by the end of this school
year. Prudence and wise planning would suggest beginning to identify and acquire at least some
of the 5 sites that will be needed early on in this upcoming decade.
14
15
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1, Figure 1:
Historical and Projected Population Growth in the Chapel Hill
Carrboro Urban Area
Table 2, Figure 2:
Student Enrollment During Last 15 Years Showing Elementary
Middle and High School Enrollment Based on DPI Data
Table 3, Figure 3:
Four Sets of Projections of Student Enrollment, 2000 -2025
Table 3a:
OR/ED Laboratory Projections of Student Enrollment, by Elementary,
Middle and High School
Table 3b:
Urban Area Method Projections of Student Enrollment, by Elemen-
tray, Middle and High School
Table-3c:
State Projections of Student Enrollment, by Elementary, Middle and
High School
Table 3d:
Orange County Planning Department Projections of Student Enroll-
ment, by Elementary, Middle and High School
Table 4:
"Best Guess" Projections of Student Enrollment, by Elementary,
Middle and High School
Table 5:
Ages of Existing Facilities
15
Preliminary School Facilities Report
APPENDIX
The following documents provide background information and analysis on the topic of
school facility needs.
•
November 18, 1999
School Adequate Public Facilities Report
•
November 1, 1999
OR/ED Laboratories Annual Update Study, 1999 -2000
•
September 29, 1999
Memorandum describing 1995 and 1998 projections
•
September, 1999
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Facilities Notebook
•
August 31, 1999
10`h Day enrollment figures for 1999 -2000 school year
•.
January 14, 1999
Chapel Hill Data Booklet
•
December 16, 1998
High School Facility Construction Standards '
•
March, 1997
Facilities Guidelines
•
May, 1996
School Facility Construction Standards
•
November 12, 1990
Long -Range Facility Plan for the Nineties
•
December 14, 1987
Long Range School Facilities Plan
Attachment One
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
Annual Update Study
1999 -2000
November 1,1999
Prepared By:
OR/Ed Laboratories
Chapel Hill -- Carrb.o'ro City
Schools
Integrated Planning for School and Community
Annual Update Study, 1999 -2000
November 1, 1999 owFeLaswamne,
Contents of a standard sou nal update
Transmitted with this report are several documents, charts and naps. These parts of a standard update
are provided to school systems which have contracted for update sery ices and have undertaken a full
IPSAC study within the last five years with annual updates every year since.
The components of an update are:
a. A seven to lea year system wide cohort survival forecast based on the 2& day enrollments for the
present year and be 20n day eamUmeats for the past nve years. This forecast is disaggregated to
elementary, middle and high school grades, and grades within each level. The system -wide
forecast provides control totals for several of the more specific forecasts discussed below.
b. The disaggmgmu m of the demealary, middle and high school forecasts to a set of building -level
forecasts. The dlsagpegadon spreadsheets are for technical r &MM only. Mat of the relevant
data from these sheds reappears on Use color 60- eftapadly cowl.
c. Revisions b the capacities of schools as provided by the school system will tde development of a
new color o tof-capacily dram. This don compares apwd with Wreastod cudlmnats
Green cells show adequate capacity ad wed edt show inadequate capacity. Yellow is a two -year
wansing that a schod is going old of capacity.
d. Color coded 1202 maps showing tine above capacity-forecast relationships. Note that a map is
generated only when the colors change, thus some maps are for multiple years. The apphcalle
years ore clearly shown on the face of the map.
e. Segment details and a corresponding 36x36 "dud cad segment' map. The value of this report
relates to the exploration of minor boundary changes to relieve overcrowding and is briefly
described on the cover abed of the segment detail
I Four 2404 demographic naps: student count K -12, race distribution, density of studonts K -12,
art! chungc in counts suite the prior update or full IPSAC study
g Vcnfiwuon of par recommendations made by us for the location of new schools, if relevant.
This is only done d there have been radical shift in demographics that were unsaid paled when
the original recommendation was made.
Please rote that studies include several components that do not appear in the annual updates.
Tbese include a lard use study, attendance boundary studies, tmnbhple scenarios for the location of new
schools, =Wu* medings at the dieWs site. sad conthmod support throughout the academic year for
All imam related to the IPSAC packsix
Ma_ilinLS
In most cases, annual updates arc sent in two packages ten to fourteen days apart The first P:mclwge
includes all the items listed above, but without segment details and maps. This gives the client school
system an opportunity to review and question the material before the relatively high cost of napping is
expended by the lab. This process reduces the bmg -term cost of update projects for all clierus.
Peadlhee
We have an excellent record of completing these projects several days before an agreed -upon dead Inc.
We cannot always, however, agree to the deadline desired by the client, especially in the Fall when %%c
have many projects open simultaneously. Note also dot there are two causes of project delays that
occur on the client's side — providing TIMS data in a timely fashion, and changing the school capacity
statistics after the project has been started
it Ch
We will, of course, fix any errors dash we have made in our work. If the client suspects that a forecast
is unreasonable or is considerably different than it was in the immediate prior year, such discrepancies
should be brought to our atlention. We will either provide an explanation of sire dif erenccs and/or
recheck our work for errors. Plc= understand that a lakes about Duce years of studies (an original
study plus one or two updates) before most of the oscillations in building level forecasts settle down.
Even than, some attendance areas remain highly unprodictable, especially those that comprise a
relatively large number df mobile home parks.
C211in
Our client school systems want argwhere from three or four copies of this report to one hundred or
more. In order to work at a fixed price for update studies we have adopted a "standard package" which
includes three collated and stapled copies of the small format report and one set of segment details and
reaps. In addition, the best copy of the small format report is also included (unstapled) for local
copying-
0
� a
R
to
O
O $
CO)
V
L �Q
i
t.%
1
Z
a
N
o�
-000
1=02i
RAM
o.-
�oSogo�
��gssssgs�
°s.
s
o�
�000
�000
��ga�aass�s�.
I'llsea
CS
��qqe���
. = 000
�2Sti
°o
SS
3
7i�3s9
c�
oo
Si��38g�g��8s�
o.-
�gg
-o0
;doo
�oa$2S2Si3gi383e�
g�Q��QQ�qq
coo
o��
a
5
a
N
Chapel Hill' Carrboro City Schools
KtoS -8to8 9to12
soon
I
Iwo I
I000
r
3500
3261
3330 361
3112
3000 3032 I
2911 i
27 2912
� 19 I
250 i
2500 2199 ��18D —2913- 2626--- 2551-
2363
2270
2152 2132
2000
1500 i.
lo00
19W96 199566 199697 1997.00 low-" 1999-00 2000 -01 2001-02 2002-03 200101 2001-05 2005-06 2006-07 200746 2006.(
4267
3110
2525
System Disaggregation Spreadsheet
-
Page 1
— --
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
— _._. _-
2000
_ _ -_ Midde
_ -- - - 4177 2255
- - 42 91
Continued on next page
>>>
Fi1d DM, Nwmrdw 1 1998
-01
-
Tahl _
Elsm
2001
fNidda
!
total
2002-03
Elan . Midde _ Hi0 Total
_
am
Midde
mah
ITOW
Cahortforooaet
- --
4135
21s4
2645
.8944
2749
9181
4217
2350
2812
9380
4219
2433
2914
9566
INoanlind
>as
>aa>
as>
sa
104
Z37
10
0.010
_ 95
0.042
64
0.023
199
0.022
1
- O.00D
83
OA36
102
0.038
186
0 02C -
Anmnkod%
_-
»s
>sa
s>»
s »a
-
- _ --
- '-
- 0.010
0.042
0.039
0.026
First Lewl of Disa tion ographkAreas)
ggreW ( Ge
199840
19994)0
Allocation of Gain
200001
Midde—
High-
Told
Elam
2001.02
Midda _ Hl�lr Tula)
2002-03
Elan Made Hi Total
Berm
Midde
Elam
Midde
Told
Elam
Mld -
_
_
.
_
_
-
LAL-2 , I 89M
�%yea2�
�__.. _
_4177
._. -
2255
- - -- -
2749
- - --
9181
--
--------
_ 4217
2350 2812 8380
4219 Mill 2_914 9566
0-
-0
0
0-
- --
0 0 -- -11
0 O 0 0
- -o
- — o
- -•_ -._ ii
_ .__ . 6 .. 0 ._....o
- . 6 0 0 0
(Area 5) _ . 0
0
0
0
0
. . _. 0 -b _ 0
... _ . 0 - 0 0 0
INea6) __ _0
__. 0
0
0
0
.
0
0 O 0
0 0 O
,11,e• 71 , !•. ` - 0
y, 0
0
0
.. 0-
0
0 -' 0 0-
_0
O 0 O 0
_
a..b1�. • .. L. .. .:•.' Q
.24ri
.0 •:i.:i ...'.: 0
+1.000
0
0
0
0
0 0 '- 0
.. 0 0 O 0
L�U�', hw.,• Awl 41MI 2164 2645 8944
1000 1.000 4177
2255
2749
9161
4217
2350 2812 9380
4219 2433 2914 9566
la:.t Ht1•AN(1 0 0 0 0
- -. -. .__ 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
System Disaggregation S llshoot
-
— —
-
Paps 2
Chapel
MN - Carrboro Schools
—
FkW a.n. Howmbu 1.1999 -
_ - --
_
-
—
--
200;3.0!_
Eliin_ -- Middy.
_
--. Talai
2004-06
Elam _ Middy
20p6
06 — -
Trial
200607
EMm MWda
Taw
2007
-W
EMm _
200609
MWdN
_
Trial --
_
Ta4d —
Elrn
MWda
EMm
MWda
Tad
4217
0.007
2464
• -30
0.012
3032
._.118
0.011
9743
... 177
0.01!
4270
.. -- _.73
0.006
2485
21
" 0.008
3112
110
"' 0 -096
9M7
154
0.016 54
4242
-27
-0.006
2313
28
3291
139
— o.ON
10037
140
j.0-
1263
m
:
2626
_ 13
0.006
3370
,9
10119
92
000s
4286
3
2561
25
3391
----28-76
10191
1267
2523
-0.Olo
3i110
—o -at2
10232
— 1
0.01
0.016
0.001
0.010
0.010
0006
0.000
0.006
2003.01
ENm Middy .. Mgt!. Talal_ -_
12 7 _ _ 2464 _ _3032 _ -9713
000
_ 0 0 __
0 0
0
—' "o —
ii
° °-
- _3012
0 0 0
2004.06
2006M
200607
2007-09_
2006-09
Trial
EMm
MWda
Tod
—
MWOa _
HWh --
Tad
EMm
MWda
Tad
EMm
MWOa
M
Tod
Elam
MWOa
-_
i_ 1270
-- 2195
--
-_ 3142
_Elam
9697
1212
2513
—3291
10037
1283
2526
0
3330
0
__10119
0
4260
2551
3364
10191
127
.2523
3110
10232
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—_ o
0
0
0
0
_0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
__ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Til:
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
°
°
=
0
0
0
_ o
0
0
0
0
0
o
12u
0
- - -°
- 2$19
- - -°
32e1
—
10037
4161
2526
3330
10119
3110
10x!2
0
2185
0
3112
0
9997
4289
2561
3361
10191
1267
2325
0
-
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•�iI
�
��
�$i�ll
�
�
�r
l
�
Ii1ir1=9I�
I
�I
a YNra
f�Ij1
O
pmlV
m a
N{
�
P +�
YN
rOlp
V
mm a
W NI
A m
II
IL'I
I
i
�I!IIII�III
;!�
a
im,
nlsr
idi.
lid
INlm
i
ii)
II
II�
IIII�II!!IIiIII
I
IIII
fll!
OItfLI
I
411
�
�I
01
I�'�. Y
1
ii:11
O mrl +I
��O
N
aI YI
01
l I
el
oil e
OI
oil
r1�gb01
a(��
Ol �lo ml W141.
Y1. iv rl ' e
I81�
I
��i
! �
I+
(SI
(
I �
I !
I I I
Isis '�•�
O
NIO
N �%'
.p'
INI
�I IOIO
0,0
I I 0
+!
� NISI
l
Ia!
VIO
OI O,
OI OI
OI OINI
VI
I i�laii ��
NI pI i V• +• .r is
{ I
�IiII
IIII
UIS'vi1
m,oiol
IOIOIOIOi�dlYlmlallolIV
Ip'�' r
Iplai
ypp
N: i
ry
O �lu:
INTO
I Ni
NI lai j�$lI
TAI
l
I I
�10 OI OIODr
I IrI I
101
map ill
IeI N1
1v
a
I�I
Ij!
Vf0
I I 1 ial ml �1i Vl� l±•i
I f I I I I 01 VI y. Qi al=ij 1
0 010 0101e IJI vI OI 'm. N1 IOI Iv'
:
Il�l�, i
+I i.
S
I41I
tOmi
J
OIOOOION
Y•. +• O
8 I 1
eI V I V
IIy�y y f. I OIi
NIl �!i $ mI l
� yy N+ II I
Iu0 W1 { O1 I OI
II+r I I 11!
IlVaI' i
IiYxI l I
e1 l 0
,
; ; I OI�a1�1l;11yl1�1�alI•,Yi: ; : aN l
I
I 1 00I0II 1 0 1
NISI �i pI Vli Ni Wi �i �� !N�
I �'
� I I I ! II
I
I � ' , '
I ! I I
I � '
� i
-I ! I
! I
SS
! I i I I { ! I• ! ' 'al :A
I
'
I
}� IV:
I I am$ {aa Iml
O fill
111;:1 air;
i O� l OI 010I
1 01
O OIN
I l
I I
I I I � � {
� l
I
i l
O rlr,
i l
tl.I e•
111
I
i
I i II :V N • ,IN!r 4N�1
I
11' I O; 010 IV VIVr
: olol
Oi
I ai � 1 OI 1 I O,: O.I ' I OII ! O
1 i V
I O' " : lap a 1I • + :!
•1�ii'T •m
• INyINyI
b�1� r'
•v10
I�' 1 i ' ♦p mN a' '(aJ1 Y' •N�$
lid
1.!,;: NIiA
iNl
141.
m
15!
I t
le'e, gym.
r•el el ol 91 o'er IN• .plfw O• +,Iri1.
870
870
870
825
858
572
589
597
802
808
812
818
811
732
732
732
809
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City
Schools
580
587
Out of Capacity
578
Worksheet
587
581
708
708
708.
719
749
859
879
887
893
701
705
712
O"d Laboratories, November 1999
0
0
732
Ca a Ales
0
Actual
593
801
-
Pr ' cted Enrollments
.818
822
.816
Na
F1999
F2000
F2001
1999 -00
2000 -01 2001 -02
2002 -03
2003 -04 2004 -05
2005 OB 2006 -07
2007 08 2008 -09
Canboro
583
583
583
479
475
471
471
488 �
488
488
468
488
488
Ephesus
472
472
472
559
583
587'.
587
570
572
570
572
.572
572
Estes Hips
549
549
549
548
548
544
544
542
541
543
542
541
541
FPG
570
570
570
533
538
540
540
542
544
542
543
543
544
Glenwood
445
445
445
401
410
419
419
428
431
425
429.
430
430
McDouple Elem
588
598
598
-803
809
815
818
820
823
819
822
823
823
Scropps
510
510
510
420
439
457
458
470
481
488
478
.479
480
Seawell
498
498
498
580
588
592
593
597
owl
NCMH K -5
Total
Culbreth
McDougle Mid
Phillips
Smith
NCMH 6-8
Total
CHHS
ECHHS
NCMH 9-12
Total
8yatan Total
9346
.10076
8
9
93921
9566
8697
1003
101191
11811111111
10232
L�
Adequate catty
L —J Two -year waminp
Out of capacity
870
870
870
825
858
572
589
597
802
808
812
818
811
732
732
732
809
839
543
580
587
572
578
581
587
581
708
708
708.
719
749
859
879
887
893
701
705
712
705
0
0
732
0
0
578
593
801
808
813
.818
822
.816
Na
Na
Na
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
2106
2108
2840
2186
2286
2362
2433
2484
2468
2813
2826
2681
2826
599
600
800
Na
Ns
Na
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
4203
4203
4203
4136
4177
4217
421!
4247
4270
4242
4263
4266
4267
870
870
870
825
858
572
589
597
802
808
812
818
811
732
732
732
809
839
543
580
587
572
578
581
587
581
708
708
708.
719
749
859
879
887
893
701
705
712
705
0
0
732
0
0
578
593
801
808
813
.818
822
.816
Na
Na
Na
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
2106
2108
2840
2186
2286
2362
2433
2484
2468
2813
2826
2681
2826
1520
1520
1520
1477
1503
1519
1544
1574
1801
1838
1848
1857
1878
1515
1515
1515
1158
1234
1282
1358
1447
1529
1833
1870
1885
1752
Na
Na
Na
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
' 12
3038
3038
3036
2646
274!
2612
2814
3032
3142
3261
3330
3364
3440
Attachment Two
Orange County Planning Department
SAPFO
November 18,1999
Prepared By:
Orange County
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(1) SAPFO Definition
(2) SAPFO Purpose and Intent
(3) Major Policy Issues
(a) Level of Service (Capacity)
(b) Adequacy Test Timing
(c) First Come - First Serve (Housing Allocation)
(d) Vesting
(e) Certificate Validity Timeframe
(f) Interlocal Agreement
(4) SAPFO Memorandum of Understanding
(5) Hypothetical SAPFO Scenarios
(a) Assumptions
(b) 1. 2000 -2030 Capacity and New School Projections EMH (Color Graphs)
2. Color Key of Graphs
(c) 2000 -2030 Enrollment and Capacity Projections (Tabular Statistics)
(d) 2000 -2030 Abridged Version of New School Needs (Table)
(6) SAPFO Policy and Implementation Steps
g- \Cndgl38pf0ooa411- 18 -994
ITEM (1)
DEFINITION SAPFO
A school adequate public facilities ordinance ( SAPFO) is a zoning and/or land
development regulation with the goal of synchronizing development with the availability
of public facilities needed to support that development. The location, amount, type or
mix of development is a product of the county and town's comprehensive and zoning
plans. The SAPFO does pace growth by affecting the timing of development to ensure
that it is matched with the availability of public facilities as noted by a jointly prepared
Capital Improvement Plan.
CIP - SCHOOLS = NEW CAPACITY = ENROLLMENT = STUDENT GENERATION
= HOUSING GROWTH
g : \ccaig\sapfoWetine111- 18 -99Wg
ITEM (2)
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
(a) PURPOSE AND INTENT
(1) To ensure that Public Facilities needed to support new development meet
or exceed the Level of Service standards established herein.
(2) To ensure that no applications for development approval are approved
which would cause a reduction in the levels of service for any Public
Facilities below the Adopted Level of Service established in this Section;
(3)''
To ensure that adequate Public Facilities needed to support new
development are available concurrent with the impacts of such
development;
(4) To establish uniform procedures for the review of development
applications subject to the standards and requirements of this Section;
(5) To facilitate implementation of goals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and any applicable Area Plan relating to adequacy of
Public Facilities and Level of Service standards; and
(6) To ensure that all applicable legal standards and criteria are properly
incorporated in these procedures and requirements.
(b) SECONDARY BENEFITS
(1) Provide reasonable student enrollment projections.
(2) Regulate student enrollment growth 'spikes.'
43) Act as a school needs projection tool.
(4) Create a stronger link between the School Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and facility needs.
(5) Assist in identifying growth patterns and attendance zones.
(6) Provide short and long -range facility projections so funding sources can be
identified in advance.
(7) Estimate when new schools need to be built and'come on line.'
(8) Permit changes in DPI/rules to be included in long -range capacity figures.
(9) Further regional communication and cooperation and information
exchange.
SAcraiglsapfo\spA11- 18 -991dg
ITEM (3)
Schools and Land Use Councils
NOVEMBER 10, 1999
AGENDA ITEM
Abstract: A School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) is
comprised of various policy elements. At the meeting of October 13, 1999,
these elements and possible alternatives were reported at length. The draft
ordinance included an attached bolded section where the decisions regarding
policy were to be made.
The decision outcome of the various elements clearly affect the scope and
implementation of the ordinance. The original (Oct. 13) `Policy
Questionnaire' noted the approximate 12 areas of decision with comment
regarding the alternatives. Based on discussion and comment the primary
issues have been reduced to 6 which are*the topic of this agenda
The objective of this survey is to give each member an opportunity to
evaluate each decision area and make notes for discussion. The decision
alternatives are elaborate and I will further explain them at the meeting. If
you have questions prior to the meeting please feel free to call my office at
245 -2592.
Recommendation: The compilation of the survey can occur at the meeting
as we discuss each item to arrive at consensus and provide direction to staff.
G Acraig\sluc -5a\ 11- 5 -99\jb
AGENDA ITEM #5a
SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SAPFO)
POLICY QUESTIONNAIRE
1. LEVEL OF SERVICE
THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WILL BE ACHIEVED AND
MAINTAINED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATE.
ALT. A 100•h
ALT. B 1083% (i.e. 650 students at 600 capacity school)
ALT. C 110%
ALT.D 11
ALT. X YES; NO
INCLUDE DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR DIFFERENT SCHOOL FACILITIES (I.E.,
ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, HIGH)
DISCUSSION SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SAPFO) SYSTEMS THAT WOULD
MAINTAIN A LOG OF THE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES. ( THE LOG WORKS LIKE
THE CHECK BOOK, WITH DEPOSITS OF CAPACITY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND
WITHDRAWALS OF CAPACITY FOR EACH IMPROVED DEVELOPMENT.) NO CHECKS
(CERTIFICATES OF ADEQUACY) COULD BE WRITTEN UNLESS CAPACITY WAS IN THE
BANK
RECOMMENDATION
G:\cmig \ques \11 -5 -99 \fib 1
2. ADEQUACY TEST TIMING
ALT. A TEST AT LAND USE
ALT. B TEST AT REZONING
ALT. C TEST AT ZONING PERMIT
ALT. D TEST AT SUBDMSION
ALT. E TEST AT SITE PLAN
DISCUSSION A ZONING PERMIT VERIFIES THE USE OF THE LAND AND IT'S DENSITY. IF A SPECIFIC
DEVELOPNIENT APPROVAL ACCOMPANIED A REZONING THE "PACKAGE- COULD BE
TESTED FOR ADEQUACY. KEEP IN MIND THE NATURE Of THE APPROVAL WHETHER
LEGISLATIVE OR QUASI - JUDICIAL WHjCH IN SOME STATES VARY. EXEMPT PLATS
WOULD REQUIRE A ZONING PERMIT
RECOMMENDATION
G: \craig\ques\ 11- 5 -99 \jb
3. FIRST COME-FIRST SERVE RESERVATION
ALTERNATIVE THE DIRECTOR AND /OR SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL PERFORM THE ADEQUACY TEST IN
THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PRIORITY:
ALT. A APPLICATIONS FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS SHALL BE TESTED IN THE SAME
ORDER AS THE APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED , BY THE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE.
ALT. B APPLICATIONS FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS SHALL BE TESTED IN THE
ORDER THE APPLICATIONS ARE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR TO BE
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE AND SUFFICIENT FOR THE ADEQUACY TEST.
ALT. C THE DIRECTOR SHALL PERFORM THE ADEQUACY TEST FOR THE EARLIEST
APPLICATION REVIEWED AND APPROVED. SUBSEQUENT TESTS WILL BE CONDUCTED
IN THE ORDER OF COMPLETION OF REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS
SECTION IS TO ENABLE APPLICANTS WHO ARE READY FOR APPROVAL TO RECEIVE
THE CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES, EVEN IF THEIR APPLICATION
WAS SUBMITTED AFTER AN EARLIER APPLICANT. THE OPERATION OF THIS SECTION
MAY REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR TO ENCUMBER CAPACITY BEING HELD FOR AN
APPLICANT WHO IS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW PROCESS. IT IS THE CITY'S
COUNTY'S) INTENT TO TREAT APPLICATIONS ON A " FIRST- COME, FIRST- SERVED"
BASIS, BUT TO USE THIS SECTION TO AVOID THE DELAYS IN DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL CAUSED BY APPLICANTS WHO ARE UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW
PROCESS AS A RESULT OF THEIR OWN ACTION (OR INACTION).
THESE ALTERNATIVES ALLOW THE JURISDICTION TO AVOID LONG DELAYS BY
APPLICANTS FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT WHO MAY NEED TIME TO PERFORM
SPECIAL STUDIES AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. `PROVISIONAL
ADEQUACY' DMUZ41NATION WILL NOT CREATE VESTING BUT MAY ASSIST IN THE
TIME- SENSITIVE APPROVAL ISSUE.
RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATIVE C
G: \craig \ques \11- 5 -99 \jb 3
4. VESTING
VESTING CAN BE BRIEFLY DEFINED AS A RIGHT A PROPERTY OR PROJECT HAS TO BE
SUBJECT TO A CERTAIN SET OF REGULATIONS BASED ON CERTAIN ACTIONS OR
APROVAL DATES.
ALT. A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS VESTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE
IS EXEMPT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR WHICH VESTED STATUS
ACHIEVED BY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
ALT. B VESTING AT TIME OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL (MANY .
SUBDIVISIONS.ARE EXEMPT AND THEREFORE AN APPROVAL WOULD NOT OCCUR).
ALT. C VESTING AT THE TIME OF ZONING PERMIT APPROVAL. ALL EXISTING UNDEVELOPED
SUBDMSIONS WOULD BE ISSUES ZONING PERMITS INCLUDING AN ALLOCATION OF
UNITS OVER TIME. UNUSED UNITS WOULD LOSE VESTING AFTER SIX YEARS UNLESS
CONTROLLED BY OTHER ZONING DOCUMENTS SUCH AS SPECIAL USE APPROVAL
WITH LONGER TIME APPROVALS.
DISCUSSION THIS ALT. A TAKES A LESS AGGRESSIVE POSITION REGARDING VESTED RIGHTS BY
EXEMPTING ANY DEVELOPMENT AFTER IT INITIALLY VESTS. ALSO, VESTING FOR ONE
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY CREATE VESTING FOR
SUBSEQUENT PERMITS FOR THE SAME PARCEL.
ALT. X
RECOMMENDATION C
G: \cmig \ques111- 5 -99 \jb
4
m
5. CERTIFICATE VALIDITY
ALTERNATIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES SHALL BE VALID FOR
THE FOLLOWING PERIOD OF THE TIME:
ALT. A 6 YEARS
ALT. B a YEARS
ALT. C 10 YEARS
ALT. D
FILL IN
(SIX YEAR EXPLAINED BELOW)
A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ISSUED WITH A FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHALL BE VALID FOR THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME AS
THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. 1. ADEQUACY MUST BE ACHIEVED NO
LATER THAN SIX YEARS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.
2. A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ISSUED WITH A
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHALL BE VALID FOR THE SAME
PERIOD OF TIME AS THE' PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. ADEQUACY
MUST BE ACHIEVED NO LATER THAN SIX YEARS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, EXCEPT THAT AN APPLICANT CAN
EXTEND THE PERIOD OF TIME BY WHICH ADEQUACY MUST BE ACHIEVED NO
LATER THAN SIX YEARS AFTER OCCUPANCY, AND USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDED THE APPLICANT PROVIDES A FINANCIAL GUARANTEE TO PAY FOR
ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR PORTION THEREOF, FOR WHICH THE
COUNTY IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN OTHER RESOURCES BY THE SIXTH YEAR
AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
DISCUSSION THIS ALTERNATIVE PROVIDES A MORE TAILORED APPROACH TO THE TIMING
OF ADEQUACY BY RECOGNIZING THAT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
APPROVALS MAY REQUIRE MORE TIME, AND BY REQUIRING SUCH
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS TO PROVIDE ASSURANCES IF THE TIME HORIZON
EXCEEDS THE JURISDICTION'S FOCUSED Pt BLIC INVESTMENT PLAN (OR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OR PUBLIC FACILITIES PROGRAM).
RECOMMENDATION:
G :\craig\ques \11- 5 -99 \jb 5
6. COUNTY AGREEMENTS
ALT. A ADD THIS PROVISION
ALT. B DELETE THIS PROVISION
DISCUSSION SECTION 10 CREATES NO NEW AUTHORITY FOR CITIES TO ENTER INTO
AGREEMENTS. IT SHOULD BE OMITTED IF THE CITY DOES NOT INTEND TO USE
ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS. ITS PURPOSE IS TO INDICATED THE POTENTIAL
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCOPE OF THE ADEQUACY REQUIREMENT.
THE FRAGILITY OF A SAPFO LIES IN THE COMMITMENT OF VARIOIUS ENTITIES
PROVIDING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS AND CIP FUNDING WITHIN A SCHOOL
DISTRICT. SINCE THE SAPFO PROGRAM IS COMPREHENSIVE AND
CUMULATIVE ALL PARTIES MUST BE COMMITTED TO THEIR ROLE.
RECOMMENDATION ALT. A
G:\craig\ques\11-5-99\jb 6
-ITEM (4)
�oxnxnrnaioFOrmExsT.�rm�ra DRAFT
This Memorandum of Undmstanding is-entered into this day, of 1999, by and
between the Town of'CWboro, the Town of Chapel Hill, Orange County, mad the .Chapel Hill
Cazrboro School District (the "School District" ).
WHMMAS, Southern Orange County, which includes the Towns of Chapel Hill and
Cazrboro, has for the past decade been experiencing rapid population gm th; and
WF]�RRSe, , and
�. this rapid growtb, and shat which is anticipated, creates -a 'demand for
additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments;
and
WgER.FAS, .the res;=d1btiity for planning for and constricting now school facilities lies
primarily with the Chapel Hill Carrboro School Board, with funding provided by the Orange
County Board of Commissioners; and
VT MEAS, Chapel Hill, Cazrboro, Orange County and "the School District have
recognized the need to work •together, to ensure that new growth within 'the- School District
occurs at apace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school
facilities to serve the children within such new developments; .
NOW, TIEREFORE, the parties to this memorandum hereby agree as follows:
1. The parties will work cooperatively to develop a realistic capital facilities program for
the constriction of schools such that, withii three years from the effective date of this
Memorandum, no school within the School District is operating at more than of its
building capacity. The term "building capacity" as used herein refers to permanent buildings, not
mobile units or bailers. The capital facilities program shall Will a projected growth rate agreed
upon by the parties, which growth rate may differ from one attendance ;Done to another.
2. The towns and the county will adopt amendments to their respective ordinances, in -
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. to limit the approval of major residential
developments within the School District to those that can adequately be served with existing or
proposed school facilitieL
3. The School District will establish an administrative process to receive and take action
Upon applications for Certificates of Educational Facilities C CEF'sJ submitted by developers
who are required by the ordinance attached as Exhibit A to have such certificates before
Obtaining development permission from the towns or the county. The School District will issue a
CEF for a proposed development if it concludes that, given the number of school age children
projected to reside in that development, and considering all of the factors listed immediately
below, the number of students projected to attend the Chapel Hill Cairboro elementary school,
middle school, and High school that serve the corresponding attendance districts where the
DRAFT
development site is located will not exceed. of the building capacity of each of those
schools. Factors to be considered by the School District in making this determination include the
following:
a. The number of students attending the elementary school, middle school, and
high school that. serve the cosesponding attendance districts where the
s
developmeal site is located, as well as the building capacity of each of those
chools,
b. Projected or ongoing const raction of new schools. If the completion of such
school construction is necessary for a CEF to be issued for a particular
development project, then there must be a reasonable -expectation that such
construction will be completed in time to be of benefit to such project A
Imasonable expectation" of a proposed completion date _requires, - at the very
least, that construction of'a proposed new school has received all necessary
govermmmtal approvals and that funding is in .place, or that such approvals
and funding appear reasonably certain.
C. I.dcely increases in enrollment due to residential growth, including.
(i) All single - family residential building lots that have received final plat ;
approval but that do not contain a completed dwelling;
(n) All single- family residential building lots for which preliminary
subdivision plat approval has been granted and all multi- family
residential developments for which a site plan has been approved, so
long as such approvals have not expired;
(iu) All conditional use rezonings and approvals of master land use plans
for mixed use or planned unit developments which have a valid CEF,
if and to the extent that subdivision preliminary plat or . site plan
approvals for portions of such developments have either been
approved or applications : for the same have' been submitted to and
accepted; .
(iv) All developments for which subdivision preliminary plat or site plea
approval applications have been submitted but not yet granted, so long
as CEF's for such projects have been issued and remain unexpired;
d. Lr&dy'changes in attendance district boundaries that may affect the project;
e. Any other factors deemed relevant by the School District in determining
whether the schools that will serve the proposed project will meet the level of
service described herein if the proposed project is constructed.
2 •
DRAFT
4. The towns and the co unty. will provide to the School District all information
reasonably requested by the School District to assist the District in malting its det=2bntion as to
whether the CEP should be issued, including without limitation all won the other parties
to this agreement have regarding the matters specified in paragrapba 3.e.(i) through Crv) above,
5. -The School District will use its. best efforts to construct schools in accordance with
the capital haties program referenced in paragraph 1 above.
6. Orange County will use its best efforts to provide fire Rending to carry out the capital
' facilities program refer in paragraph labove.
7. •The parties aclmowledge that this Memorandum of U is not inteaded to
and does not create legally binding obligation on any of the parties to act in accordance with its
provisions. Rather, it constitutes a good pith statement of the hdmt of the parties to cooperate
in a manner desigaed to meet the mutual objective of all the parties that the childYm who reside
within the School District are able to attend schools that sad* the level of service standards set
• forth berefio.
ITEM (5a) ,
Assumptions/Disclaimers:
L Present school capacities were assumed fixed at the following rates:
A. Elementary 600 students
B. Middle 900 students OR 700 students
C. High 1200 students
2. Future school construction and capacities were assumed at the following rates
A. Elementary 600 students
B. Middle 900 students OR 700 students
C. High 1200 students
3. Over capacity was gauged at the total capacity of each school level:
A. Elementary (E) 108.3% 600 to 650 students
B. Middle (Ivn 108.3% 900 to 975 students
(700 to 758 students)
C. High 108.3% 1200 to 1300 students
4. Flex space required at maximum over capacity of each school level:
A. Elementary Two 25 student classes
B. Middle Three 25 student classes
(Two 29 student classes ?)
C. High Four 25 student classes
5. New students were added at a constant rate to the year 2030:
A. 300 students per year in CHCSD
B. 150 students per year in OCSD
6. New students were distributed to different school levels at constant rates:
A. Elementary 490/6 of total new students
B. Middle 24% of total new students
C. High 27% of total new students
New students were distributed equally among all of the elementary, middle and high schools.
7. Shaping Orange County's Future projections assume a constant growth rate of 1.45% per year.
8. High schools are assumed to serve a capacity of 1200 students. If high schools can expand to eventually
serve a capacity of 1500 students, new high schools will be required later than these projections show.
I
Table SC. Projected school enrollments and capacities and the timing of new school construction
given a fixed number of students per year for Orange County and Chapel Hill- Carfboro school systems.
Middle school capacity s 700 students.
Orange County School Capacities and Enrollments, 2000 -2030
300 New Dwelling Units
per Ye-w-> 150 New
Students per
Yea
Year"
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
Capacity
Enrollment % Over
Capacity
Enrollment
% Over
Cape ' Enrollment
% Over
Capacity Enrollment
% Over
Capacity
Enrollment % Over
Elementary
3820
3200 -16.23
3820
3274
-14.29
3820 3348
- 12.36
3820 3422
- 10.42
3820
3496 -8.48
(with new sdmp
4545 8.14
4803 4692
-2.31
Middle
1522
1499 4.51
1522
1535
0.85
1522 1571
3.22
1522 1607
5.58
1522
1643 7.95
2.56
2108
2234
5.98
2108 2306 9.39
2808
2378 -15.31
2808 2450
New
School Needed
High
1520
1705 12.17
'1520
1745
14.80
2720 1785
-34.38
2720 1825
-32.90
2720
1865 -31.43
High
3035
2642
-12.95
3035
New School
- 10.28
3035 2804 -7.61
3035
2902 - 4.38
IChapel Hill- Carrboro School Capacities and Enrollments, 2000 -2030
600 New Dwelling
Units
per Year a 300 New
Students per
Year"
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Capacity
Enrolment
% Over
Capacity
Enrolment
% Over
Enrollment % Over
Capacity
Enrollment % Over
Capacity
Enrollment
% Over
Elementary
4203
4104
-2.36
4203
4251
1.14
4203 4398 4.64
4203
4545 8.14
4803 4692
-2.31
New
School Needed
Middle
2108
2162
2.56
2108
2234
5.98
2108 2306 9.39
2808
2378 -15.31
2808 2450
-12.75
New School Needed
High
3035
2642
-12.95
3035
2723
- 10.28
3035 2804 -7.61
3035
2902 - 4.38
3035 3000
-1.15
1 New elementary schools are assumed to enroll 600 students: new middle schools. 700 students: new high schools, 1200 students.
2 Time scensdos assume that a new school is bulk when the capacity for that level of school exceeds 108.3 %.
3 Assuming that 49% of new students are elementary school skxWft, 24% are middle school students and 27% are high school students.
H
--I
M
3
C
n
Orange County
Chapel Hill-Carrboro
2005
Capacity Enrollment
% Over
Capacity
2006
Enrollment
% Over
Capacity
2007
Enrollment
% Over
Capadty
2008
Enrollment
% Over
Capacity
2009
Enrollment
% Over
Elementary
3820 3570
- 6.54
2008
3620 3644
4.61
3820
3718
-2.67
3820
3792
-0.73
3820
3866
1.20
Middle
2222 1679
- 24.44
4803 4986
2222 1715
- 22.82
2222
1751
- 21.20
2222
1787
-19.58
2222
1823
-17.96
High
2720 1905
-29.96
2720 1945
-28.49
2720
1985
-27.02
2720
2025
-25.55
2720
2065
-24.08
Chapel Hill-Carrboro
2006
2008
21107
2008
2009
Capacity
Enrollment %Over
Capacity
Enrollment
%Over
Capacity Enrollment
%Over
Capacity Enrollment %Over
Capacity Enro
0.75
4803 4986
3.81
4803
5133
6.87
4803 5231 8.91
5403
5329
2
llment
°k Over
Elementary
4803
4839
0.75
4803 4986
3.81
4803
5133
6.87
4803 5231 8.91
5403
5329
New School Needed
Middle
2808'
2522
-10.19
2808 2594
-7.62
2808
2666
-5.06
2808 2714 -3.35
2808
2762
-1.64
High
3035
3081
1.52
3035 3162
4.18
3035
3243
6.85
3035 3297 8.63
4235
3351
-20.87
New School Needed
2
Ch"al HUWAnborO
2010
Capacity Enroknott
% Over
2011
C49adty Enrolment
% Over
2012
Capacity Enrollment
% Over
2013.
Capacity Enrollment % Over
Capacity
2013
Capacity Enrolment % Over
2014
Enrolment
% Over
Elementary
3820 3940
3.14
3820 . 4014
5.08
3820 4088
7.02
3820 4162 8.95
5403 5770
4420
4236
-4.16
6003 6064
1.02
New School Needed
New School Needed
Middle
2222 1859
- 16.34
2222 1895
-14.72
2222 1931
- 13.10
2222 1967 -11.48
3.49
2222
2003
-9.86
High
2720 2105
-22.61
2720 2145
-21.14
2720 2185
-19.67
2720 2225 -18.20
2720
2265
-16.73
Ch"al HUWAnborO
3
CWadly
2010
Enrolment
% Over
2011
Capacity Enroftedt
% Over
C
2012
Enrolment
% Over
2013
Capacity Enrolment % Over
Capacity
2014
EnroWnent
% Over
Elementary
5403 5476
1.35
5403 5623
4.07
5403 5770
6.79
5403 5917 9.51
6003 6064
1.02
New School Needed
Middle
2808 2834
0.93
2808 2906
3.49
2808 2978
6.05
2808 3050 8.62
3508 3122
-11.00
New School Needed
High
4235 3432
-18.96
4235 3513
-17.05
4235 3594
-15.14
4235 3675 - 13.22
4235 3756
-11.31
3
4
Orange County
Ca Enrollment
%Over
Capacity
Enrollment
%Over
Capacity
Enrollment
%Over
Ca Enrollment
%Over
Ca Enrollment
%Over
Elementary
4420 4310
2016
6003
2016
-0.81
2017
4458
2018
4420 4532
2019
4420 4606
Chapel Hill- Carrboro
Ca Enrollment
%Over
Capacity
Enrollment
%Over
Capacity
Enrollment
%Over
Ca Enrollment
%Over
Ca Enrollment
%Over
Elementary
4420 4310
-2.49
6003
4420 4384
-0.81
4420
4458
0.86
4420 4532
2.53
4420 4606
4.21
Middle
2222 2039
- 8.24
2222 2075
.-6.62
2222
2111
-5.00
2222 2147
-3.38
2222 2183
-1.76
High
2720 2305
-15.26
3508
2720 2345
-13.79
2720
2385
-12.32
2720 2425
-10.85
2720 2465
-9.38
Chapel Hill- Carrboro
2016
Ca Enrollment
% Over
Capacity
2016
Enrollment
% Over
Capacity
2017
Enrollment % Over
Capacity
2018
Enrollment
% Over
2019
Capacity Enrollment
% Over
Elementary
6003 6211
3.46
6003
6358
5.91
6003
6505 8.36
6603
6652
0.74
6603 6799
2.97
New
School Needed
Middle
3508 3194
-8.95
3508
3266
- 6.90
3508
3338 -4.85
3508
3410
-2.79
3508 3482
-0.74
High
4235 3837
-9.40
4235
3918
-7.49
4235
3999 -5.57
4235
4080
-3.66
4235 4161
-1.75
5
Orange County
Chapel HM- Carrboro
2020
Capacity Enrollment % Over
2021
Capacity Enrollment % Over
2022
Capacity Enrollment % Over
2023
Capacity Enrollment % Over
2024
Capacity Enrollment % Over
Elementary
4420 4680 5.88
4420 4754 7.56
5020 4828 -3.82
5020 4902 2.35
5020. 4976 -0.88
New School Needed
2021
Middle
2222 2219 -0.14
2222 2255 1.49
2222 2291 3.11
2222 2327. 4.73
2222 2363 6.35
High
2720 2505 -7.90
2720 2545 -6.43
2720 2585 4.96
2720 2625 -3.49
2720 2665 -2.02
Chapel HM- Carrboro
2020
2021
2022
3023
2024
Capacky EnroWnent
% Over
Capacity
Enroliment
% Over
Ca aci
Enrollment % Over
Capacky Enrollment % Over
Capacity
Enrollment % Over
Elementary
6603 6946
5.19
6603
7093
7.42
6603 7240 1 9.65
New School Needed
7203 " 7387 2.55
7203
7534 4.60
Middle
3508 3554
1.31
3508
3626
3.36
3508
3698 5.42
3508 3770 7.47
4208
3842 -8.70
New School Needed
High
4235 4242
0.17
4235
4323
2.08
4235
4404 3.99
4235 4485 5.90
4235 4566 7.82
New School Needed
Orange CoUnty
IChapel HHI- Carrboro
Elementary
2028
Capadty Enrolkneent % Over
5020 5050 0.60
Capacity
2026
Enrollment
5020 5124
% Over
2.07
Capacity
5020
2027
Enrollment
5198
% Over
3.55
2028
Capacity Enmllmnt
5020 5272
% Over
5.02
Capacity
5020
2029
Enrollment
5346
% Over
6.49
Middle
2222 2399 7.97
2922 2435
- 16.67
2922
2471
-15A3
2922 2507
- 14.20
2922
2543
-12.97
High
New School Needed
2720 2705 -0.55
2720 2745
0.92
2720
2785
2.39
2720 2825
3.86
2720
2865
5.33
IChapel HHI- Carrboro
Elementary
Capacity
7203
2028
Enrollment
7681
% Over
6.64
Capacky
2026
Enrollment % Over
7203 7828 8.68
2027
Capacity Enrollment
7803 7975
% Over
2.20
Capacity
780.
.2028
Enrollment
8122
% Over
4.09
Capacity
7603
2029
Enrollment
8269
% Over
5.97
New School Needed
Middle
4208
3914
-6.99
4208 3986 -5.28
4208 4058
-3.56
4208
4130
-1.85
4208
4202
-0.14
High
5435
4647
- 14.50
5435 4728 - 13.01
5435 4809
-11.52
5435
4890
-10.03
5435
4971
-8.54
501- 2404 405 1 461H
L4•l 4LZ4 9024 OIPPIN
POPOON 10042S A"
991 9149 COOL kLWuN13
0m
einwrwuu Ndmm
09'9 5062 OZLZ y6lH
4L' L V 6L9Z ZZ6Z orm
P"PNN 1oo1*9 m"
L6'L OZ49 O909 fimpmumG
JOAO % Wa4pju3 Apedwo
OCOZ
LWnoo o6mO
.. 2
ITEM (5d)
New Schools Needed In Chapel Hill - Carrboro, 2000 - 2030
Based on a scenario of 300 new students per year
Year
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
Cost
2000
8
3
2
13
25
2001
8
3
2
13
2002
8
3 +1
2
14
2003
' 8 +1
4
2
15
2004
9
4
2
15
2005
9
4
2
15
2006
9
4
2
15
2007
9
4
2
15
2008
9+1
4
2 +1
17
2009
10
4
3
17
2010
10
4
3
17
2011
10
4
3
17
2012
10
4
3
17
2013
10+1
4
3
18
2014
11
4
3
18
2015
11
4
3
18
2016
11
4 +1
3
19
2017
11 +1
5
3
20
2018
12
5
3
20
2019
12
5
3
20
2020
12
5
3
20
2021
12
5
3
20
2022
12 +1
5
3
21
2023
13
5
3
21
2024
13
5
3 +1
22
2025
13
5
4
22
2026
13 +1
5
4
23
2027
14
5
4
23
2028
14
5
4
23
2029
14
5 +1
4
24
2030
14+1
6
4
25
Total New Schools Needed
12
ITEM (6)
SAPFO
Policy & Implementation Steps
(1) Create consensus of SAPFO concept among all jurisdictions and districts.
(2) . Research development activity and school enrollment trends.
(3) Examine various SAPFO policy issues (e.g., Level of Service, CIP, Vesting, etc.)
(4) Review of SAPFO by attorneys and planning directors for ordinance integrity.
(5) Develop SAPFO assumptions and scenarios for presentation purposes.
(6) Forward and decide on SAPFO basics noted in a Memorandum of Understanding
by all jurisdictions and districts.
(7) Discuss the implications of a SAPFO with the general public and development
community.
(8) Formulate agreed upon enrollment projections and facility needs to be the base of
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
(9) Create drafts of implementing SAPFO for eventual incorporation into local
government land development codes.
(10) Develop dialogue on CIP planning and financial'feasibility of SAPFO scenarios
and match CIP and needs assessment.
(11) Present findings of SAPFO implications to general public and development
community.
(12) Create a computer spreadsheet based SAPFO management system.
(13) Verify subdivision and building data and develop base SAPFO program.
(14) Adopt interlocal agreements and SAPFO and determine effective date concurrent
with adopted CIP.
&AOzig\"gfO\ t P \11.184N8
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 -2881
Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Telephone: (919) 967 -8211
Fax: (919) 933 -4560
Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Services
William J. Mullin, Director of Facilities
Management
Neil G. Pedersen
Bill Mullin
Glenwood Elementary School
$1.5 Million Renovation Project
December 10, 1999
Glenwood Elementary School is located in the southeast section of the school district
near the intersection of NC 54 and 15 -501. The property is a 10 acre site on Prestwick
Road located behind a commercial shopping center. 54,412 square feet of space exist
in buildings constructed in 1952, 1954, 1959, and 1986. Four mobile classrooms are
also located on site. In addition to the buildings, a play field exists. The facility has a
student capacity of 445 and present enrollment is 408.
Prior to the development of the renovation project's scope of work, consulting engineers
analyzed the facility and assessed the building's structure and mechanical systems.
The structure was determined to be viable provided certain corrections are
implemented and future maintenance is performed. The HVAC units were identified as
needing upgrading. These recommendations are included in the renovation project's
scope of work. Overall, the engineers stated that the facility needs upgrades and
maintenance and, with the work performed, can be viable for another 15 to 25 years.
The renovation project addresses deficiencies highlighted by the consulting engineers.
The $1.5 million project improves the building infrastructure thereby increasing the life
expectancy of the facility. The project includes HVAC upgrades, structural repairs,
bathroom renovations, window replacements, and cafeteria improvements.
Additionally, 10 classrooms are targeted for new lighting, ceilings, and casework. The
building fire safety system will also be upgraded. A copy of the project's scope of work
and budget is attached. The Board of Education approved this plan on October 21,
1999.
The long term viability of Glenwood beyond 15 to 25 years is questionable. Educational
program requirements will change. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
school standards are continually undergoing revision and will most certainly be
different. Orange County school standards will undoubtedly also be modified. Special
education programs already require space and facilities not commonly part of older
buildings and present challenges to implement. Future building codes and regulatory
requirements will be different. Accessibility issues, indoor air quality requirements,
energy efficiency regulations, and technology demands will certainly require
modifications to the school.
Glenwood's acreage and buildings are limited. Expansion possibilities on the site are
also restricted. The facility may not have the flexibility to address future needs.
The renovation project is recommended in order to extend the useful life of Glenwood
Elementary School for at least another 15 years. The viability of the school beyond
that will be determined as future requirements become known.
C: Steve Scroggs
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
GLENWOOD RENOVATION PROJECT
PROJECT TOTAL 1,500,000
Activity
Description
Estimate
1
HVAC
30 unit ventilators at $9,000 per
270,000
unit plus required patching,
connecting, required material
10,000
2
Toilet Rooms
1,000 sf of bathroom area
150,000
in old section of school,
work to include new fixtures,
partitions, tile, lights, ceilings
at $150 per sf
3
Classrooms
upgrade remaining classrooms
350,000
to inc.:lighting, ceiling, electrical,
millwork, and flooring
Approximately, 11,640 sf of
classroom space at $30 per sf
4
Cafeteria
2,000 square feet of space
150,000
(seating area only)
lighting, ceiling, flooring,
HVAC, electrical, data
at $75 per sf
6
Windows
replacement cost based on recent
200,000
window system installation at
Estes Hills Elementary
7
Structural
repair /replace mortar,
150,000
subgrade compactions,
pointing, expansion joints,
foundation drain,
8
Fire Alarm
replace existing system with new
50,000
System
installation meeting current code
requirements
9
Misc.
electric, painting, flooring
25,000
10
Professional
structural and mechanical
100,000
Fees
engineering, architectural
6.6% of project
11
Contingency
at 3%
45,000
PROJECT TOTAL 1,500,000