1	"Citizens" Citizens’ Facilities Planning Summation Committee Final Report February 19, 2007
2	Committee Background Nov. 14, 2006 a large group of community members gathered at Waller High School where WISD Superintendent Richard McReavy shared the results of a demographic study done by Population and Survey Analysts (PASA). Following the meeting, three citizens’ committees were formed to discuss: Financial Planning Committee Existing Facilities Planning Committee Capacity (enrollment, growth, and grade structure) Planning Committee During the months of Nov., Dec. and Jan. the committees met a total of 8 times and had multiple conversations with architectural and financial consultants.
3	Committee Background Each committee was made up of WISD parents, community members, administrators, teachers, board members, and consultants; they were chaired by community members with the assistance of a WISD facilitator. Capacity (enrollment, growth, and grade structure) Planning Committee – 10 WISD representatives, 19 community members and parents, and 2 consultants Co-chairs – Brandi Gregg and Kathy Wachtendorf; WISD facilitator – Danny Twardowski Existing Facilities Planning Committee – 17 WISD representatives, 12 community members and parents, and 2 consultants Chair – Herb Thomas; WISD facilitator Ray Stelter Financial Planning Committee – 6 WISD representatives, 15 community members and parents, and 2 consultants Co-Chairs – Jerry Nickerson and Jimmy Henderson; WISD facilitator – Mike Marcus
4	"Citizens" Citizens’ Capacity Planning Committee (Enrollment, Growth, Grade Structure & Capacity) Final Report February 19, 2007
5	Committee Background This Citizens’ Committee was charged with studying and evaluating: Projected Enrollment Growth Rate Grade Structure Capacity Targets/Optimal School Size
6	Grade Structure The Committee challenged itself to: Keep the conversations child-centric Recommending a grade structure that afforded every student the opportunity to achieve success
7	Current Grade Structure
8	Grade Structure Evolution Since 1976, WISD has modified its grade structure seven (7) times, primarily to address facility capacity issues.
9	Grade Structure Evolution 1976 – 1980: K-6, 7-8, 9-12 1981 – 1984: K-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 1985 – 1989: Information Not Available 1990 – 1992: PreK-5, 6-7, 8-12 1993 – 1998: PreK-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 1998 – 2002: PreK-3, 4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 2002 – 2006: PreK-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12
10	Grade Structure Configurations Considered Option 1: K-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 Option 2: K-5, 6-8, 9-12 Option 3: K-5, 6-8, 9, 10-12 Option 4: K-6, 7-9, 10-12
11	Current Enrollment vs. Capacity
12	Student Population Forecast Current Grade Structure
13	Grade Structure Survey
14	Grade Structure Considerations - Narrow Influence/impact that frequent student transition/turnover has on school and sense of community Influence/impact that frequent student transition/turnover has on parent involvement and participation Imposition of additional stress on students as a result of the frequent school transitions Degradation of student achievement during each transition year they experience (Note: Students typically gain back the achievement loss in the year following the transition year.)
15	Grade Structure Considerations - Broad Nature of the role model younger students receive from older students Capacity of facilities
16	Proposed Grade Structure
17	Student Population Forecast Proposed Grade Structure
18	Impact of Recommendations High School: No impact until 2016 Middle School: No impact until 2016 Elementary School: 2009 – 1 new school needed 2012 – 1 new school needed 2016 – 1 new school needed ***According to PASA, if grade structure is NOT realigned, WISD will need: 2009 - 1 new school 2011 – 2 new schools 2016 – 1 new school
19	Optimal School Size Elementary: 700-750 students Middle School: 900-1050 students High School: 2100-2250 students
20	Summary of Recommendations Realign grade structure to K-5, 6-8, 9-12 This will better align with state curriculum Provide a better sense of community and parent involvement at campuses Reduced the need for two new schools in 2011 to one new school
21	"Citizens" Citizens’ Existing Facilities Committee Final Report February 19, 2007
22	New Elementary School
23	New Elementary School (Example 800-Student Capacity)
24	Schultz Middle School
25
26	Waller High School
27	Waller Junior High West Campus
28	Waller Junior High East Campus
29	Umland Building
30	Umland Building - Option A (Install covered walkway and renovations)
31	Umland Building - Option B (Remove Umland Building; construct new entry, corridor, & classrooms)
32	Fields Store Elementary
33	Holleman Elementary
34	Jones Elementary
35	Roberts Road Elementary
36	Transportation Department
37	Transportation Continued (needed buses, routes, etc.)
38	Technology Addition
39	Technology Addition
40	Technology Continued (needed improvements)
41	District Stadium Improvements
42	Construction/Maintenance Totals
43	"Citizens" Citizens’ Financial Planning Committee Final Report Feb. 19, 2007
44	Estimate of Taxable Value
45	Estimated Tax Rate Analysis ($35 million bond issue)
46	Estimated Tax Rate Analysis ($45 million bond issue)
47	Visualization I&S Tax Rate
48	Visualization M&O Tax Rate
49	Visualization of Tax Rate
50	Tax Impact for Average Homeowner (home valued at $100,000)
51	Financial Planning Committee Summary This is the optimum time for a bond program due to multiple elements: The retirement of old bonds Moody’s AAA Bond Rating Bond sales rates Increased value of property M&O rate decreasing due to state mandates
52	Attachments
53	Houston Area Elementary School Cost Comparisons
54	Attachment 2
55	Attachment 3
56	Attachment 4 - TEA Education Code § 45.001 (Bonds and Bond Taxes)