Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-02-2010 - 4i
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2010
>
Agenda - 03-02-2010 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 03-02-2010 - 4i
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2015 3:23:35 PM
Creation date
2/26/2010 8:53:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/2/2010
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
4i
Document Relationships
Minutes 03-02-2010
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3. Membership Data: <br />CHCCS total decrease from the previous year: (96) students <br />(83) Elementary School <br />11 Middle School <br />(24) High School <br />OCS total increase from the previous year: 85 students <br />46 Elementary School <br />64 Middle School <br />(25) High School <br />()denotes decrease <br />4. Capacity Data: <br />There were no changes to school capacities this year for either Orange County Schools <br />or Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. <br />5. Capacity Issues <br />SAPFO vs. DPI <br />The SAPFO is a local ordinance, independent of State Department of Public Instruction <br />(DPI) projections and rules regarding class size. The SAPFO, for instance, does not <br />count temporary modular classrooms as fulfilling the capacity level of service outlined in <br />the SAPFO interlocal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU requires `bricks <br />and mortar' instead of temporary facilities and also requires its own set of future student <br />projections to identify long-term capital school construction needs. <br />CHCCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service established in the SAPFO at this <br />time. However, projections show potential needs at all school levels within the 10-year <br />planning period. Projected needs are noted below. <br />OCS does not exceed the adopted levels of service and projections do not show a need <br />for new schools in the 10-year planning period. <br />6. Student Projection Analysis <br />Student membership projections show an increase at all levels in both school systems, <br />except for slight drops in 2015 through 2017 at the Middle School level and 2018-2019 at <br />the High School level for OCS. The projections are shown on pages 36-37 of the report. <br />7. Orange County Schoc <br />CHCCS <br />Projected needs: <br />New Elementary #11 <br />New Middle School #5 <br />Expanded High School <br />>I Systems; CIP Needs Analysis <br />2012-2013 (projected overage of 98 students; 106.9% LOS <br />2016-2017 (projected overage of 20 students; 107.7% LOS <br />2019-2020 (projected overage of 89 students; 112.3% LOS <br />OCS <br />Projected needs: <br />None for Elementary, Middle or High School in the next 10 years <br />However, the SAPFOTAC report notes that development approval activity within the <br />portion of the City of Mebane that lies within Orange County has been significant in <br />recent years. Because the City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO at this time, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.