Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
o Perdita- discussion at the SAPFOTAC about how that needs to be <br /> incorporated. <br /> • Bonnie brought up how Mebane is not included in SAPFOTAC. States <br /> SAPFOTAC is not working due to one school is 20% over-capacity, and wants <br /> relief. <br /> • Cy talks about how all issues are included in the SAPFOTAC discussions, <br /> discussion is focused on reviewing peers for their successful models. <br /> o Jean states peer review not part of initial scope of workgroup's concerns. <br /> • Jean notes that SAPFO will continue as public process can be very long and tough, <br /> but county can make decisions not based on that, as the intent of the program was <br /> to restrict development, which has not occurred. Intent is to make sure community <br /> is informed and the schools need to have data regardless of SAPFO. <br /> o Perdita - SAPFOTAC wants to present recommendations to replace <br /> SAPFO, which is why they are doing peer review. Recommends removing <br /> ordinance and MOUs. <br /> o Cy- the intent is to show replacement program when removing SAPFO. <br /> • Bonnie asks what OCS need to do in the meantime, as OCS will not be requesting <br /> a new school in the near-term <br /> o Cy - SAPFO exists and CAPS program exists until removed by ordinance <br /> or MOU is removed. Report will still be provided annually, which will <br /> include language on EC and Charter School impacts. <br /> • Rani asked how we ensure that developers come to table with information after <br /> SAPFO without burdening staff. SAPFO also has a long history, which has <br /> credibility, even if it has incorrect assumptions. <br /> • Patrick asked if peer reviews had complexity of Orange County, multiple <br /> municipalities and districts. Make sure district projections match county. <br /> o Travis -Buncombe is part of peer analysis. Asks if county can create a new <br /> projection model, and cleanup land ordinance. <br /> ■ Perdita- ordinance language includes specific model, so that would <br /> need to be updated. <br /> o Travis-Intent is not to push work onto school staff,to work collaboratively. <br /> • Jean thanks Perdita, Cy and the SAPFO team. States we still want to make a model <br /> that help make decisions, irrespective of current system. <br /> • Perdita states committee is meeting once a month, including this Friday. Timeline <br /> requires consensus with all peers. <br /> 4. Discussion and Group Next Steps <br /> • Jean asked what if we want to continue meeting as a workgroup. <br /> o Patrick has appreciated the workgroup as a measure to get together. <br /> Recommends every other month. Wants to have consultant to talk to group <br /> about next steps. <br /> • Bonnie requests monthly progress report from consultant.Requests continuation of <br /> conversation on funding needs. <br />