Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
i- <br /> i <br /> I <br /> 0020 <br /> Page 2 <br /> certificates. However, this idea was not incorporated into <br /> the documents because of a concern about the risk of <br /> vesting or other due process claims associated with time <br /> limiting the certificates. These issues. could arise because <br /> of the fact that preliminary plan approval typically is a <br /> "green light" for development infrastructure to be <br /> constructed by the development applicant. If a development <br /> receives preliminary approval and receives a certificate <br /> from the Board of Education, the development applicant will <br /> be prompted to construct infrastructure and to begin other <br /> development activities. A certificate expiring thereafter <br /> raises the vesting/due process question. On the other hand, <br /> the MOU and Ordinance provide that if the development <br /> approval lapses, the certificate from the Board of <br /> Education lapses with it. The work group thought that the <br /> lapsing of certificates should be linked to the development <br /> lapse and not independent from it. <br /> The work group also refined the documents to make <br /> clear the methodology for determining building capacity and . <br /> the process for applying student membership information to <br /> determine whether a certificate should be issued by the <br /> Board of Education. Particularly, the work group <br /> recommends, consistent with the recommendation of the <br /> School Facilities Task Force to the Board of Commissioners, <br /> that school membership be the benchmark for calculating <br /> school capacity. The MOU selects November 15 as the date to <br /> determine school membership because it was deemed to be far <br /> enough into the school year to be reliable. Further, the <br /> MOU envisions that agreement would be reached on a <br /> projected growth rate for student membership within each <br /> school district' s three school levels and agreement would <br /> be reached on the methodology for determining the projected <br /> growth rate for student membership. Once agreement is <br /> reached on the projected growth rate and the methodology <br /> for determining the projected growth rate, maintenance and <br /> recalibration of those indicators would become a staff <br /> function with regular reports to the governing boards. Any <br /> concern about the -results of staff maintenance or <br /> recalibration could be addressed as needed by the governing <br /> board parties to the MOU. <br /> The work group also developed alternatives to <br /> this staff approach. One alternative would make this <br />