Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Commissioner Gordan clarified the corrections to the SAPFO report in the following <br />memorandum: <br />MEMORANDUM <br />To: BOCC and Manager <br />From: Alice Gordon <br />Subject: Overview of Commissioner Cordon's Suggested Revisions to the Schools <br />Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO} Annual Report <br />Date: June 1.2004 <br />Copy to Craig Benedict <br />On May 25, 2004 I sent a rather informal fax to Craig Benedict giving my comments and <br />suggested revisions to the SAPFO report. His reply was given in the document, "Revisions <br />made in the SAPFOTAC report by the Orange County Planning Department in response to <br />Commissioner Cordon's May 25, 2004 Fax." Since my handwritten comments may not be <br />entirely clear, I am indicating below the basic issues that were addressed in my fax. There are <br />also some suggestions for the future. <br />I. 2004 SAPFOTAC Executive Summary <br />A. Five Year Comparison of Student Membership Projections <br />The "5 year out Snapshot Comparison," which is Item II.C on page I, needed to be <br />clearly labeled as an increase or decrease in projections between the prior year and the current <br />year. However, in the future, I think it would be more important to provide a summary chart <br />showing how many student seats are available (unused} and how many are needed. What we <br />need to highlight in the Executive Summary is the most basic data concerning whether there will <br />be a need to create more capacity during the next few years. Accordingly, I have made a chart <br />for the five-year planning period, and included it as page 3 of this memo. I thought it was <br />helpful to show the data in both chart and bar graph form. My suggestion for the SAPFO report <br />is that we should produce the same bar graphs for the current student projections that the <br />budget office has produced in the past. <br />B. Increase or Decrease in the Growth Rate <br />Item B on page ii deals with the direction of the growth rate for each level (Elementary, <br />Middle, and High School) and both school districts. The information was originally presented in <br />a confusing way, but now the report indicates that in five of the six cases, the growth rate was <br />positive (increasing), and describes the increase or decrease in the rate. In one case, Orange <br />County Middle Schools {OCMS), the four-year growth rate was negative (decreasing), though <br />the decrease has become more gradual. <br />II. 2004 Annual Report <br />A. Student Projections (pages 27-33} <br />My main suggestion far change was to correct the inaccurate language describing the <br />student projections for the Orange County Middle Schools. The report had originally indicated <br />that the projections showed a relatively slow but constant growth of about two classrooms per <br />year. However, as the chart for "OCS Student Projections (2003)" on page 32 shows, the <br />projections really show a decrease and some fluctuations. The actual number of students far <br />2003-2004 is 1671. Projections for the next year show 1627 students, a decrease of 44. The <br />projected number of students does not come back to 2003-2004 levels until 2009-2010 (1679 <br />