Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Regarding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System, they are trying to site a third high <br />school. Recently, the school board determined that they needed to open a new high school in fall of <br />2006 rather than fall of 2005 that had been discussed previously. Regarding the elementary school <br />level, Elementary #9 is slated to come on board in August 2003, sa there are no capacity issues. Also, <br />Elementary #10 is slated for about three to four years later. The middle school level is in good shape for <br />the next five to six years. In the high school level, they are approaching capacity limits and there is a <br />two-year period that there are more students in the system than the process permits. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that in the information that was given out, there could be a <br />potential moratorium. All along it has been said that we would not start with a situation that would lead to <br />a moratorium. She asked about the staff recommendation far the CHCCS high school level since it is <br />coming on board a year later. <br />Jahn Link said that as is relates to the CIP, the County Commissioners have the funding in <br />place to fund both the middle school in Orange County Schools and the high school and Elementary #10 <br />in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. It is not a question of funding being available but how to <br />address expanding high school space. One alternative is to build a 1,000-student high school to come <br />online in 2006. From a capital improvement plan perspective, the County Commissioners are not <br />requiring a new high school to be built. Another option is to expand the present high school. He pointed <br />out that the decision should be made as quickly as possible. <br />Geoff Gledhill said that there is a difference between the OCS and the CHCCS and that is <br />that the middle school level is over capacity in the OCS and only with projections is the CHCCS high <br />school over capacity. There is not a de facto moratorium if you started the SAPFO in the CHCCS like <br />there would be in the OCS. <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to the annual student growth rate and asked that the <br />change from year to year be included with the percentage. She would also like to see the school-by- <br />school information. She also said that the use of different colors besides red and pink would make the <br />graphs easier to read. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if the projections have been taken and projected backwards to <br />see if they squared with what actually happened. Craig Benedict said that they analyzed last year <br />against what actually happened with about five different projections and there was no best-fit projection <br />model. He said that tonight na numbers would be certified. This is a preliminary look at the numbers, <br />asking the County Commissioners for some research direction. <br />Commissioner Jacobs would like to take the projections back a year or two and see what <br />actually happened. <br />Chair Brown asked to see other scenarios to accommodate the high school overcrowding in <br />the CHCCS. She said that one flaw in this whole thing is that our Board can project the money, but the <br />school system started their search over a year ago and there is not yet a site and there is nothing we can <br />do about that. <br />Geoff Gledhill said that if this program ever gets up and running, there is a lot of urgency to <br />avoid this. If there were a delay, then there would be short-term moratoria on permitting additional <br />development until the delay is resolved. <br />No action was taken on this item. <br />c. Legal Advertisement for February 24, 2003 Quarterly Public Hearing <br />The Board considered authorizing the legal advertisement for the scheduled February 24, <br />2004 quarterly public hearing. <br />Craig Benedict summarized the information in the agenda. The zoning text amendments <br />proposed for the public hearing include establishing outdoor lighting standards for public and private <br />property, increasing the ability to use soil and water maps for stream buffers, and new enforcement <br />procedures that will provide better notification for subdivisions. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked about #2 and if it was in response to a citizens' concern that he <br />had passed along. Craig Benedict said yes. He said that if there is a stream there and it is not shown on <br />the map, then it could be added to the map. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked about the outdoor lighting standards and if language would be <br />added about signage far subdivisions and the discouragement of lighting of subdivision signs. Craig <br />12 <br />