Agenda - 09-23-2002 - 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

E t APPROVED 9119192 consensus that the Task Force will use November 1Z as the membership date upon which to forecast student projections every year. Craig walked through updated projection tables and graphs: Donna Dean pointed out where new schools are programmed to come on line in these tables. For CHCCS with two new elementaries, the only problem year is 2002-03 — buf if the ordinance effective date is 2/15/03, it will be OK to issue CAPs because new capacity will be available by August 2003 (because Elementary#9 will open then). For middle schools in CHCCS the average of 5 models exceeds LOS in 2007-08. For CHCCS the average exceeds high school LOS of 110% in 200405. For OCS middle schools, we are over LOS for 2002-03. Steve pointed out the precedent problem: if you change the LOS once because you can't afford schools, developers will come back later and point out that you changed it once, so why won't you change LOS again so they can build their developments? Lisa asked rhetorically"why have this ordinance if you seek to avoid its implications?" Dana asked if we can get a legal opinion to the effect that it is OK to start higher and then ratchet down the LOS. Steve pointed out that linear models are more forgiving of"blips", whereas the cohort . approach really hammers home on any "blips". He thinks you need to stay with the average of the models until we can determine that one works best. Dana would like to see, later, how numbers from three years ago would have been projected out using these models. She is very concerned that projections for OCS look low because of what they view as a "blip". Alice observed that the only question arising from these charts is when to build OCS middle school #3-for 2003 or 2008? There's also a question of impact on the County's debt capacity. It was noted that if we used 110% for OCS middle school level of service, that would provide enough latitude based on these updated projections to not exceed LOS. Steve noted that they are seeing more older kids, fewer five year olds coming in. John observed that these numbers show we have an issue with CHCCS high school and OCS middle school —the others are OK for 10 years. It is much easier to start with a higher number then go down later. This would mean if you tweak the LOS up to start, with plans to lower it later, then you don't have to have a moratorium. Perhaps we would need to consider whether approved 2001 bond funding would need to be allocated to new schools that are facing an LOS problem. Dana has a concern with what people think about when they think of capacity. If you start with a higher LOS, that may create impression that that's the level when you need to start getting concerned about crowding. She is concerned that may create political pressure to delay implementing a school project because there doesn't appear to be a capacity problem. If OCS can't continue to offer slightly smaller class size, that reduces their attractiveness since they don't have as much in financial resources.