Agenda - 04-03-2002 - 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Schools and Land Use Councils—Meeting Summary for March 13, 2002 (See the March 13 minutes for the full report of the meeting) Agenda Item 4—School Membership The Council received,as a report,data for both school districts concerning the school membership for the current year as well as the school membership for last year. Agenda Item 5—Memorandum of Understanding Elements. The Council discussed the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding,with particular attention to the following four elements: Agenda Item 5a. Student Generation Rates The Council discussed the two methods for determining student generation rates,but did not make a recommendation. The two options were: 1. The Tischler report conducted for the school impact fee study(based on 1990 census data) 2. Year 2000 census data for children/dwelling unit The staff recommendation was to"use option 1 since presently it is the most statistically valid analysis available." (See the agenda packet for a more complete description of the two options.) Agenda Item 5b. Membership Method The Council discussed the following four methods for determining membership: 1. 20`h day membership 2. 40`h day membership 3. Highest monthly average membership of first two months Note: The highest monthly average has been consistently used by the State Department of Public Instruction for funding 4. Membership as of November 15 Note: This method is the one specified in the MOU. MOTION: It was moved by Teresa Williams,seconded by Jim Ward,to accept Option#4 "Membership as of November 15"to calculate school membership VOTE: UNANIMOUS Agenda Item 5c. Capacity Levels The Council discussed the importance of capacity levels,but did not make a recommendation. The recommendation in the agenda packet is that the method for joint determination of capacity should be established by the Board of County Commissioners and School Districts as soon as possible. Agenda Item 5d. Growth Projection Method The Council discussed the following five growth projection methods: 1. Tischler Linear(both districts similar) 2. Orange County Planning Linear Wave 3. 10 year growth 4. 5 year cohort survival 5. 3 year cohort survival MOTION: A motion was made by Teresa Williams,seconded by Jim Ward,that the growth projection method be the average of the five projection methods listed in agenda item 5d(above)with the provision that the Tischler method will use the same linear model for both school districts. Whether that will be the linear method or the linear extrapolation method will be determined later. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Agenda Item 6. Schools APFO Procedure The Council received an explanation concerning the flowchart that showed the timeline for how the Schools APFO would be implemented. The flowchart will be revised to make it conform to the MOU. Agenda Item 8. Status of the Schools APFO The Council discussed the status for each jurisdiction. Craig Benedict will prepare a timetable of the items that need to be addressed prior to the final local government adoption of the ordinance.