Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-05-07 Agenda with Backup
!"#$$ !"'!()$ "$ %&'!()!*+, --. !/ ) 0.- 1-2!3.4#5!67%8& 999)+ 1:;.- 1-)+1< *)) $+!,+)$-. ! "#$% & *"$-. 9!*. !:9!;86<66788!,*/"01!2)33 "$!4""5 !"#$$! %" &"!'$"( !)" &"*$ ! "( !)"( + , -". /"!'$"*$ ! "0 /$1$ /$ !"2,' -"* 3!4 ,!"5 .4/" &" 64+3!$$3"" "# /.)7"#.)"87"9:;<".!";;=::".>?>" "!'$"( + , -"@ 4A"2$33 "B ?".!"( !)"C.--7"9;D"E>" #,F $)"2!4$$!7"*$ ! 7"6$G.3".!"H' ,'"!'$"& -- H %" !$?3"H --"I$", 3 /$4$/= !"# $%&&'!( )%*!"+& 0*";<NO:<(.--"! " 4/$4J". + ,$"K+ 4+?J" !4 /+,! 3>"L;:"? +!$3M , 0*";<NO:Q - B$,$ P$"."4$1 4!". /"' -/"."/ 3,+33 "4$%.4/ %"!'$"/$? %4.1' ,3". /" $$/3" &"3!+/$ !3" . /"&.? - $3" "!'$"*$ ! "0 /$1$ /$ !"2,' -"* 3!4 ,!7"H !'". "$?1'.3 3" "!' 3$"H !' " !'$"( !)" &"*$ ! "- ? !37". /"/ 3,+33 " &"' +3 %" ?1- ,.! 37" ,-+/ %"' +3 %"!.G" ,4$/ !"/$P$- 1?$ !3>"L9:"? +!$3M !"#$ %&(4= > !&!0.<1?@#A= +!BA;# .!*# !%8&C 0*";<NO;: . B$,$ P$"."4$1 4!". /"' -/"."/ 3,+33 " "!'$"R.3!"S4 H!'"2,' -"( .- ! ". /" !3" $&& 4!3". /"-$% 3-.! >"L9:"? +!$3M !"#$ %&(4= > !&!DE/ !(+1-1< +!F<A#+ !G-#$ 5 5 (4= > !%!H@.5.- # 1- 0*";<NO;; / B$,$ P$"."4$1 4!". /"' -/"."/ 3,+33 "4$%.4/ %". "+1/.!$" "*$ ! "0 /$1$ /$ !" 2,' -"* 3!4 ,!"1-. 3"& 4"&+!+4$", 3!4+,! 7"-. /"1+4,'.3$37"I /"14 %4.?37" 4"&., - !)" ,'. %$3>"LT:"? +!$3M !"#$ %&(4= > !&!I1-;!H@1J.+ 5!H@.5.- # 1- 0*";<NO;T 0 B$,$ P$"."4$1 4!". /"' -/"."/ 3,+33 "4$%.4/ %"."4$,$ !".33$33?$ !" &"!'$"( !)" &" *$ ! U3"VK+.! ,3"* P 3 ". /"R., - ! $3". /"!'$"W !".%4$$?$ !"I$!H$$ "!'$"( !)" &" *$ ! ". /"*$ ! "0 /$1$ /$ !"2,' -"* 3!4 ,!"& 4"3'.4$/"+3$" &"!'$"X.!.! 4 +?>"LT:" ? +!$3M !"#$ %&(4= > !&!G?.-;#!F-:1@<# 1-!/=.. (4= > !%!H@.5.- # 1- (4= > !K!HLM/! 1-5N$ -?!L.A1@ 0*";<NO;\\ 1 B$,$ P$"."4$1 4!". /"' -/"."/ 3,+33 "4$%.4/ %"3,' -"3.&$!)7"!'$"2,' -"B$3 +4,$" Y&& ,$4"L2BYM"14 %4.?". /"#$? 4. /+?" &"Z /$43!. / %7"!'$"C$4 U3"C$-1 %" 14 %4.?7". /". )"14 %4.?3" 4"3$4P ,$3"I$!H$$ "!'$"*$ ! "\[ - ,$"*$1.4!?$ !". /" *$ ! "0 /$1$ /$ !"2,' -"* 3!4 ,!>"LT:"? +!$3M !"#$ %&(4= > !&!O!G?.-;#!F-:1@<# 1-!/=.. (4= > !%!O!*.<1@#-;N<!1:!B-;.@5 #-; -? '+,$ #-).$)/01023*4 ' (#)*) ! "#$% &*)) $+!,+)$-.*. !:9!;86< 0*";<N<:9* 3,+33". /"3$!"&+!+4$"?$$! %"/.!$37"! ?$37". /"- ,.! 3>"LD"? +!$3M 2 3 .!(4567'(8 9+%:& V>""Z /$4"2$,! "DD;>:\\9" &"!'$"6$G.3"Y1$ "#$$! %3"V,!7"4$31 /"! " K+ 4 $3"&4 ?"!'$"( !)"( + , -" 4"!'$"1+I- ,"H !'"31$, & ,"&.,!+.-" & 4?.! " 4"4$, !.! " &"1 - ,)7" 4".,,$1!"."14 1 3.-"! "1-.,$"!'$" ?.!!$4" "!'$".%$ /."& 4". "+1, ? %"?$$! %""VX*""Z /$4"2$,! "DD;>:\\;D" &"!'$"6$G.3"Y1$ " #$$! %3"V,!7"14 P /$"4$1 4!3".I +!" !$?3" &", ??+ !)" !$4$3!"4$%.4/ %"H' ,'" ".,! "H --"I$"!.A$ 7" ! " ,-+/$="$G14$33 3" &"!'. A37", %4.!+-.! 37" 4", / -$ ,$J" & 4?.! "4$%.4/ %"' - /.)"3,'$/+-$3J" . "' 4.4)" 4"3.-+!.4)"4$, % ! " &"."1+I- ," && , .-7"1+I- ,"$?1- )$$7" 4" !'$4", ! \]$ J"."4$? /$4".I +!" . "+1, ? %"$P$ !" 4%. \]$/" 4"31 3 4$/"I)"!'$"% P$4 %"I /)J" & 4?.! "4$%.4/ %"."3 , .-7" ,$4$? .-7" 4", ??+ !)"$P$ !" 4%. \]$/" 4"31 3 4$/"I)". "$ ! !)" !'$4"!'. "!'$"% P$4 %"I /)"!'.!" H.3".!!$ /$/" 4" 3"3,'$/+-$/"! "I$".!!$ /$/"I)"."?$?I$4" &"!'$"% P$4 %"I /)" 4". " && , .-" 4"$?1- )$$" &"!'$"?+ , 1.- !)J" 4". ". + ,$?$ !" P -P %". " ?? $ !"!'4$.!"! "!'$"1+I- ,"'$.-!'". /"3.&$!)" &" 1$ 1-$" "!'$"?+ , 1.- !)"!'.!"'.3".4 3$ ".&!$4"!'$"1 3! %" &"!'$".%$ /.> ("E"B"6"0"R"0"("V"6"E 0",$4! &)"!'.!"!'$".I P$" ! ,$" &"?$$! %"H.3"1 3!$/" "!'$"I+--$! "I .4/".!"!'$"( !)"C.--" &"!'$"( !)" &" *$ ! 7"6$G.37" "!'$"^^^^^^^^/.)" &"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^7"9:;<".!"^^^^^^^^ _,- ,A"L.>?>M"L1>?>M ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (06`"2E(BE6VB` XY6E=6CE"(06`"YR"*EX6YX"(06`"(YZX(0a"@YBF"2E220YX"BYY#"02"V((E2205aE"0X" V((YB*VX(E"@06C"6CE"V#EB0(VX2"@06C"*02V50a060E2"V(6>""6CE"(06`"@0aa"\[BYb0*E" 20SX"aVXSZVSE"0X6EB\[BE6EB2"RYB"6CE"CEVB0XS"0#\[V0BE*"0R"BEcZE26E*"V6"aEV26"\\<" CYZB2"0X"V*bVX(E"YR"6CE"2(CE*ZaE*"#EE60XS>""\[aEV2E"(Vaa"6CE"(06`" 2E(BE6VB`_2"YRR0(E"V6"T\\QN<T:Q"YB"Z2E"6EaE(Y##ZX0(V60YX2"*Eb0(E2"RYB"6CE" *EVR"L6**M"5`"(Vaa0XS";N<::NBEaV`N6d"2Y"6CV6"V"20SX"aVXSZVSE"0X6EB\[BE6EB"(VX" 5E"2(CE*ZaE*"6CBYZSC"6CE"(06`"2E(BE6VB`U2"YRR0(E> '+,$ #-).$)/01023*4 ' (#)2) City Hall City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 www.cityofdenton.com Legislation Text File #:ID 18-608,Version:1 AGENDA CAPTION Call to order; announce quorum; introductions. (10 minutes) City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/3/2018 powered by Legistar© City Hall City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 www.cityofdenton.com Legislation Text File #:ID 18-609,Version:1 AGENDA CAPTION Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the demographics and needs of students and families in the Denton Independent School District, with an emphasis on those within the City of Denton limits, and discussion of housing implications, including housing tax credit developments. (20 minutes) City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/3/2018 powered by Legistar© City Hall City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 www.cityofdenton.com Legislation Text File #:ID 18-610,Version:1 AGENDA CAPTION Receive a report and hold a discussion on the Fast Growth School Coalition and its efforts and legislation. (20 minutes) City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/3/2018 powered by Legistar© Fast Growth School Coalition Economic Impact Analysis: Fast-Growth School Districts in Texas January, 2018 Table of Contents 3 8 13 19 An Economic Comparison: Fast Growth vs. Non-22 28 33 127 132 Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |2 Executive Summary Executive Summary Introduction TheTexaseconomyisoneofthestrongestperforming economiesinthecountry.Somuchso,thatTexasis secondonlytoCaliforniaintermsofGDP,andifTexas th wereitsowncountry,itwouldbethe10largest economyintheworld. Thispositionofstrengthhasbeendubbedthe andjustifiablyso.growthisnotjust isolatedtopopulationandemployment,butextendsto 75 Fast-Growing Districts housingmarkets,retailspending,physicalinfrastructure, andindeed,Texasschools. Economicgrowthbestowsundeniablebenefitstopeople, places,businesses,andgovernments.However,growth Criteria for FGDs: doesnotcomewithoutitsownsetsofchallenges. Enrollment of at least 2,500 students Forschooldistricts,growthcomesintheformof during the previous school year; and increasedenrollment.Again,agoodproblemtohave,but onlywithpropermitigationofthespecificchallenges Enrollment growth over the last 5 facedbygrowingschooldistricts. years of at least 10%, or Foundedin1996,TheFastGrowthSchoolCoalition A net increase of 3,500 or more (FGSC)representsfast-growthschooldistricts(FGDs) students andeducatespolicymakersontheuniqueneedsofFGDs. InTexas,therewere75designatedFGDsduringthe 2015-2016academicyear.Thisrepresents7.3%ofall 7.3% of School schooldistrictsinthestate.However,FGDsenrolled Districts enroll 33.4%ofallstudentsstatewide,andineven starkercontrast,FGDsenrolled78.5%ofallnew 33.4% of students studentsduringthatyear. statewide and AngelouEconomics(AE)hasbeenretainedtobetter understandtheuniquenatureofFGDsandtheiroutsized 78.5% of all new impactcomparedtonon-FGDs.Theanalysisinthisstudy enrollment usesbothqualitativeandquantitativemeasurestodefine theeconomicimpactthatFGDshaveonthestateofTexas Sources: AE, FGSC, National Center for Education Statistics aswellaswithintheircommunities. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |4 Executive Summary Fast Growth School Districts Map of 2015-16 Fast-Growth School Districts by Category of Growth Aldine ISDCollege Station ISDFort Worth ISDLancaster ISDPasadena ISD Aledo ISDComalISDFrenshipISDLeander ISDPearland ISD Allen ISDConroe ISDFriscoISDLiberty Hill ISDPrinceton ISD Alvin ISDCoppell ISDGoose Creek CISDLittle Elm ISDProsper ISD Andrews ISDCrandall ISDGrand Prairie ISDLockhart ISDRoyse City ISD Anna ISDCrosby ISDHallsville ISDLovejoy ISDSchertz-Cibolo-U City ISD Aransas County ISDCypress-Fairbanks ISDHays Cons ISDLubbock-Cooper ISDSeminole ISD Barbers Hill ISDDenton ISDHouston ISDManor ISDSheldon ISD Bastrop ISDDickinson ISDHumble ISDMedina Valley ISDSouthwest ISD Belton ISDDripping Springs ISDHuntsville ISDMidland ISDTomball ISD Boerne ISDEagle Mt-Saginaw ISDHuttoISDMontgomery ISDWaller ISD Bridge City ISDEctor County ISDKaty ISDNeedvilleISDWillis ISD Burleson ISDEvermanISDKlein ISDNew Caney ISDWylie ISD (Collin County) Castleberry ISDForney ISDLake Travis ISDNorthside ISDWylie ISD (Taylor County) China Spring ISDFort Bend ISDLamar CISDNorthwest ISD Sources: AE, FGSC, Texas Education Agency Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |5 Executive Summary Key Findings Impact of Construction & Related Expenditures Total Economic Output: There are many positive economic benefits that school districts create for their communities. Among the most $70.5 Billion easily recognizable impacts are those associated with construction and capital investments. Average Jobs Impacted/Year: From2000to2014,approximately$33.1billion wasinvestedintoconstructionprojectsinFGDs.26,810 Asbillionsofdollarsareinvestedintoschool Labor Income: infrastructureandequipment,hundredsofdownstream $24.7 Billion vendorsandsuppliersseeincreaseddemandfortheir productsandservices.Theresultisthat26,810jobs Business Sectors aresupportedeachyear,$24.7billioninlabor incomeswerepaidout,andatotalof$70.5 Impacted: 500+ billioninincreasedeconomicactivitywas created,allofwhichoriginatedwiththedirect *Constructionresultsare15-yeartotalsandrepresent2017dollars. spendingfromfast-growthschooldistricts. ImpactofSchoolDistrictsonHousingMarkets Premium Paid on Homes Forfamilies,findingtherighthomeisallaboutfinding therightschooldistrict.Evenafull50%ofnon-family for the Right School District home-buyersopttolivewithinschooldistrictstotake advantageofstrongerappreciationofhomevalues 1%-5% Above associatedwithschooldistricts. Budget 23.6% Tobelocatedintherightschooldistrict,54%of 6%-10% Above 40.3% home-buyersarewillingtospendasmuchas Budget 20%beyondtheirstatedbudgets.Moreover,these 11%-20% Above 20.7% samehome-buyersarewillingtoforegoamenitiesin Budget ordertolivewithinapreferredschooldistrict. 9.0% Wouldn't Surpass Theimpactmagnifiesfordistrictswithhigh-performing Budget schools.Inthesedistricts,thepremiumpaidcanbe ashighas70%,or$50persquarefoot. Sources:AE,FGSC,Implan,NationalCenterforEducation Statistics,Realtor.com,Redfin, Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |6 Executive Summary Key Findings Fast-Growth vs. Non-Fast Growth Districts Population growth and school district enrollment are highly correlated. As such, fast-growth districts are located within regions that are synonymous with strong current and future economic development prospects.In total, 73 fast-growth districts are located within a county that has experienced positive employment gains since 2011. Furthermore, nearly every fast-growth district is located within or nearby a region that is forecasted to grow by at least 5.71% through 2022. Asmuchasregionalgrowthbenefitsschooldistricts,theschool districtsthemselvesarecriticaldriversoflocaleconomicgrowth. 1. They make Texas more competitive for businesses 2. They can better prepare students to enter the workforce 3. They make Texas more attractive for young families 4. They strengthen local housing markets 5. They improve the overall quality of life Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau, Tableau Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |7 The Texas Miracle: A Catalyst for Growth in Texas School Districts A Catalyst for Growth in Texas School Districts TheCaseforFastGrowingSchoolDistricts ThestrengthoftheTexaseconomyhasbeenwell Population Growth documented.Texashaseffectivelyestablisheditselfasa businessfriendlylocationwithgreatqualityoflife.Asa 3.0% result,businessinvestmentisstrongandtalent 2.0% recruitmentisrelativelyeasy. 1.0% Theimpactofrobustgrowthaphenomenon dubbedtheisfeltinallsectorsofthe 0.0% economy.TheTexasMiracleisresponsibleforgrowthin housingmarkets,retailsales,employmentlevels, population,GDP,andmanyotherkeyeconomic TexasU.S. indicators. TheTexasMiracleisalsoattributedwiththegrowthof Texasschooldistricts.However,inasmuchasgrowth Employment Growth benefitsschooldistrictsacrossthestate,the schooldistrictsthemselvesareaperpetuating 5.0% driveroftheTexasMiracle. 2.5% 0.0% Texashasbeengrowingbybetween1.5%and2.0% -2.5% annuallyforthepastdecade,whichstandsincontrastto -5.0% U.S.growth,whichhasbeenbetween0.7%and1.0% overthesametimeperiod. EmploymentgrowthinTexashasoutpacedtheU.S. TexasU.S. averageineveryyearforthepasttenyears,exceptforthe mostrecentyear.WhileTexasgrewemploymentby1.3%, thereductioninoilmarketsdidhaveaslowingeffecton theeconomy. 435 The Number of Jobs Created in Texas Per Day (2016) Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |9 A Catalyst for Growth in Texas School Districts TheOriginofEnrollment Inessence,thefoundationofeconomicgrowthcomes downtopeople.Morepeoplemeansmoremoneyinthe 2016 Texas Population Growth: formofwages.Thosewagesarespentinthelocal 430,000 economyandgeneratemoredemandforgoodsand services.Increaseddemandforgoodsandservicesleads tojobcreation,andjobcreationmeansformoneyinthe formofwages.Thisisthecircleoflifeforeconomies. Thisiswhathasledtosuccess;Texasisgoodat addingpeople.Economiesaddpeopleintwoways: Natural Population 1.Naturally,throughbirthsoverdeaths 2.Bymigration,bothdomesticandinternational Increase:Migration: 212,000 (49%)218,000 (51%) Texasdoesbothinequalmeasure.In2016,Texasgrewby 430,000people,49%originatedfromnetbirthsand51% originatedfrompeoplemovingintoTexasfromother areasofthecountryandabroad. 1,186 People/Day Texas Population Bothtypesofpopulationgrowthhaveimplicationsfor Growth (2016) Texasschools.Naturalpopulationgrowthisexpanding thepipelineforfuturestudents.Thistypeofgrowthcan beeasiertoplanforsincethisinformationisknownfor yearsbeforethechildenterstheschoolsystem.In- Population Projections migrationcanbehardertoplanforsincemigrationvaries yearbyyearandincomingstudentsneedtoenterthe 3512.0% 30.7 schooldistrictthatyear. 28.3 30 26.1 10.0% 23.8 25 8.0% AsTexascontinuestogrowandattractpeople 20 fromallaroundtheworld,Texasschooldistricts 6.0% 15 willcontinuetogrowandfacethechallenges 4.0% 10 thatareposedbyfastgrowingregions.Andthere 2.0% 5 isnoslowinginsight,projectionsshowthatpopulation 00.0% growthinTexaswillreach8.6%overthenextfiveyears, 2007201220172022 whiletheU.S.isonlyexpectedtogrowby4.8%. TexasTX GrowthU.S. Growth Thestoryofstronggrowththathasdefined pastisexpectedtosimilarlyshapethe Sources: AE, Census Bureau economicfutureforyearstocome. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |10 A Catalyst for Growth in Texas School Districts TexasHousingMarkets&SchoolDistricts Texas Housing Growth TheTexashousingmarketwasoneofthelasttoenterthe recessionandoneofthefirsttorecover.Since2011,both 400,000 salesandaveragehomepriceshavebeengrowingsteadily. 300,000 In2016,theaveragehomepriceinTexaswas$260,000. 200,000 Thestrengthofthehousingmarketcanfurthermorebe 100,000 seenintheappreciationoflandvalues.Texasproperties 0 havebeenappreciatingbyanaverageof6%peryearfor 20072009201120132015 thepast5years.Housingdemandfueledbyconstant growthandin-migrationwillsustainthistrendforthe SalesAvg. Price foreseeablefuture. Expectedly,themarketvalueoflandishighlycorrelated withthetaxablevalueofland.Themaintenanceand Land Appreciation in Texas operations(M&O)andinterestandsinking(I&S) propertytaxesareappliedtothetaxablevalue.On $310% average,thetaxablevalueoflandforM&OandI&S 8% purposesis79.2%ofmarketvalue.Thus,appreciating $2 6% landvaluesaregoodforschooldistrictstoanextent. 4% $1 2% TheI&Spropertytaxrateiswhatisusedtofundaschool infrastructure.However,fast-growthregionsare $00% thesameregionsthatarealreadyatornearthe50-cent 201120122013201420152016 ratecap.FGDsareskewedtowardsthehigherendofI&S Market Value rates,withthemajorityat$0.30per$100ofvaluationor Taxable Value higher.Allotherdistrictsareskewedtowardsthelower Market Value Growth endofI&Srates. Schooldistrictsarenotabletocontrolgrowthintheir communities,theycanonlyrespondtogrowthbyadding oradjustingfacilities.The50-centI&Sratecapand thedecreaseinIFAandEDAallotments artificiallyconstrainschooldistrictfacilitiesand makethemunabletorespondtogrowth.The impactisultimatelyfeltbyTexasstudents,whoare subjecttoinadequatelearningenvironments,specifically: overcrowdedclassrooms,deterioratingbuildings,andthe Sources:AE,FGSC,TexasA&MRealEstateCenter,Texas useofportablebuildings,amongothernegativefactors. Comptroller Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |11 A Catalyst for Growth in Texas School Districts TexasVitalityIncreasesDemandforSchoolQuality Asstatedpreviously,therobustgrowthinTexasisprimarily drivenbyeconomicopportunityandhighqualityoflife.The Aggregate Incomes implicationisthatthosewhomovetoTexaseitherhaveor $1,50015% areinpursuitofhigh-qualityandhigh-payingjobs.Since wagegrowthhasbeenrelativelystagnantacrossthecountry, $1,20010% totalwagesinaggregateareusedtoanalyzethegrowthof $9005% economicopportunity. $6000% InTexas,aggregatewageshavebeengrowingandoutpacing $300-5% theU.S.growthratewithonlyafewexceptions.Aggregate $0-10% wagegrowthfrommigrationisaconsiderablefactoras51% ofpopulationgrowthiscomprisedofdomesticand internationalmigrants. Aggregate WagesTX Growth ThesepeoplearecomingtoTexasandbringingtheirwealth US Growth andwageswiththem.In2016,migrationaccountedfor $10.1billioninadditionalwagesearnedinTexas,$5.8 billionfromdomesticmigrantsand$4.3billionfrom internationalmigrants. High-qualityjobstypicallyrequirecertainlevelsof education.Highlyeducatedparentstendtoplaceahigh importanceoneducationfortheirchildren.Therefore,as in-migrationofhighlyeducatedpeoplecontinues, moreemphasiswillbeplacedonthequalityof schoolsacrossthestate. TheDouble-EdgedSwordofGrowth Schooldistrictsareintrinsicallytiedtoeconomic Sources: AE, Bureau of Economic Analysis vitalityandthepositivebenefitsareaccumulatedinboth directions.However,growthdoesnotcomewithoutitsown setofconsequences.Forschooldistricts,thechallengeisto continuallykeeppacewithever-growingeconomy. Evenso,theTexasMiracleisagoodproblemto have,thealternativewouldbemuchworse. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |12 Economic Impact of School District Construction & Related Expenditures Impact of School District Construction OverallImpactofSchoolDistrictConstruction Direct Spending Ofthemanypositiveimpactsthatschooldistrictsbestow (2000-2014) upontheircommunities,theimpactsofconstructionand $3.0 Billion $0.7 Billion capitalinvestmentareamongthemostrecognizable.The purchaseofland,constructionofnewfacilities,renovation $1.5 Billion ofexistingfacilities,andthepurchaseofequipmentallfuel localeconomicconditions. $27.9 Billion Theimpactsmeasuredinthisstudyinclude: 1.Construction 2.AcquisitionofFixedAssets 3.InstructionalEquipmentExpenditures Construction 4.OtherEquipmentExpenditures Fixed Assets Thedataforthesemeasureswasobtainedfromthe Instructional Equipment NationalCenterforEducationStatisticsthroughthe Other Equipment Elementary/SecondaryInformationSystem.Thesefigures representthedirectspendingtotalsofFGDsacrossTexas. Sources: AE, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics However,theseexpenditureshaveimpactsfarbeyond schooldistricts.Asbillionsofdollarsarespenttoerectnew Total Economic Output: facilitiesandpurchaseequipment,jobsarecreatedinthe $70.5 Billion constructionandwholesaleindustries.Moreover,hundreds ofdownstreamvendorsandsuppliersseeincreased demandfortheirproductsandservices,whichoriginate Average Jobs withthedirectspendingfromschooldistricts.** Impacted/Year: Intotal,15yearsofdirectFGDspendingin 26,810 constructionandrelatedactivitiesgenerates: $70.5billionintotaleconomicactivity Labor Income: 26,810jobssupportedeachyear $24.7 Billion $24.7billioninlaborincome 500+industrysectorsimpactedacrossTexas AsFGDsexpandtomeettheneedsofgrowingenrollment, Business Sectors notonlyarestudentsprovidedwithmoreadequate Impacted: 500+ learningfacilities,butbillionsofdollarsofeconomic activityaregeneratedandtensofthousandsofjobsare *Resultsare15-yeartotalsandrepresent2017dollars. supportedeachyear. **SeeAppendixIIformoreonthemethodologyusedtocalculatethe economicimpactsassociatedwithconstructionandrelatedexpenditures. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |14 Impact of School District Construction ImpactofConstruction Direct Spending At84%,constructionaccountsforthelargestportionof (2000-2014) spendingdetailedinthissection.Asdefinedbythe NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,construction spendingincludesexpendituresfortheconstructionof fixedassets. Inthepast15years,from2000to2014,FGDshave investedapproximately$27.9billionintothe constructionoffixedassets.Statewide,thetotal $27.9 Billion, investmentintofixedassetsduringthatsametimeperiod 84% was$48.7billion.FGDs,or7%ofallschool districts,comprise36%ofallschoolconstruction expendituresinTexas. Intotal,15yearsofdirectFGDspendingin Construction constructiongenerates: $64.0billionintotaleconomicactivity 25,880jobssupportedeachyear Total Economic Output: $64.0 Billion $23.8billioninlaborincome 380industrysectorsareimpactedbygreaterthan Average Jobs $1million Impacted/Year: 25,880 7% of Districts Comprise 36% Labor Income: of All School Construction $23.8 Billion Spending Business Sectors Impacted by Greater than $1 Million: 380 *Results are 15-year totals and represent 2017 dollars. Sources: AE, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |15 Impact of School District Construction ImpactofAcquisitionofFixedAssets Direct Spending Acquisitionoffixedassetsaccountsfor4%ofspending (2000-2014) detailedinthissection.AsdefinedbytheNationalCenter forEducationStatistics,acquisitionoffixedassetsincludes $1.5 Billion, allexpendituresusedtoacquirealreadyexistingfixed 4% assets,suchaslandandexistingbuildings. Inthepast15years,from2000to2014,FGDshave investedapproximately$1.5billionintotheacquisitionof fixedassets.Statewide,thetotalinvestmentintothe acquisitionoffixedassetsduringthatsametimeperiodwas $2.1billion.FGDs,or7%ofallschooldistricts, comprise41%ofallacquisitionoffixedassetsin Texas. Intotal,15yearsofdirectFGDspendingin Fixed Assets acquisitionoffixedassetsgenerates: $2.1billionintotaleconomicactivity 475jobssupportedeachyear Total Economic Output: $2.1 Billion $422.1millioninlaborincome 120industrysectorsareimpactedbygreaterthan Average Jobs $1million Impacted/Year: 475 7% of Districts Comprise 41%of Labor Income: All Acquisition of Fixed Assets $422.1 Million Business Sectors Impacted by Greater than $1 Million: 120 *Results are 15-year totals and represent 2017 dollars. Sources: AE, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |16 Impact of School District Construction ImpactofInstructionalEquipmentExpenditures Direct Spending Instructionalequipmentexpendituresaccountfor2%of (2000-2014) spendingdetailedinthissection.AsdefinedbytheNational CenterforEducationStatistics,instructionalequipment includesexpendituresforallinstructionequipment $0.7 Billion, recordedinthegeneralandoperatingfundsunder 2% lineitem. Inthepast15years,from2000to2014,FGDshave investedapproximately$782.7millionintothepurchaseof instructionalequipment.Statewide,thetotalinvestment intoinstructionalequipmentduringthatsametimeperiod was$2.1billion.FGDs,or7%ofallschooldistricts, comprise27%ofallspendingforinstructional equipment. Instructional Equipment Intotal,15yearsofdirectFGDspendingon instructionalequipmentgenerates: $914.8millionintotaleconomicactivity Total Economic Output: 95jobssupportedeachyear $914.8 Million $100.1millioninlaborincome Average Jobs 35industrysectorsareimpactedbygreaterthan$1 million Impacted/Year: 95 7% of Districts Comprise 27%of Labor Income: All Instructional Equipment $100.1 Million Expenditures Business Sectors Impacted by Greater than $1 Million: 35 *Results are 15-year totals and represent 2017 dollars. Sources: AE, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |17 Impact of School District Construction ImpactofOtherEquipmentExpenditures Direct Spending Otherequipmentexpendituresaccountfor9%ofspending (2000-2014) detailedinthissection.AsdefinedbytheNationalCenter forEducationStatistics,instructionalequipmentincludes allothercapitaloutlayexpendituresandequipment. $3.0 Billion, Inthepast15years,from2000to2014,FGDshave 9% investedapproximately$3.0billionintootherequipment purchases.Statewide,thetotalinvestmentintoother equipmentduringthatsametimeperiodwas$5.8billion. FGDs,or7%ofallschooldistricts,comprise34% ofallspendingforotherequipmentandcapital outlays. Intotal,15yearsofdirectFGDspendingonother equipmentgenerates: Other Equipment $3.5billionintotaleconomicactivity 360jobssupportedeachyear Total Economic Output: $378.6millioninlaborincome $3.5 Billion 90industrysectorsareimpactedbygreaterthan$1 million Average Jobs Impacted/Year: 360 7% of Districts Comprise 34%of Labor Income: All Other Equipment $378.6 Million Expenditures Business Sectors Impacted by Greater than $1 Million: 90 *Results are 15-year totals and represent 2017 dollars. Sources: AE, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |18 School District Impacts on Housing Markets School District Impact on Housing Markets SchoolDistrictImpactsonHousingValues Itshouldcomeasnosurprisethatschooldistrictshave influenceoverhousingvalues.ParticularlyinTexas,where Importance of School schoolsarefundedprimarilybypropertytaxes.Finding therightschooldistrictisallaboutfindingtherightplace District Boundaries tolive. 7.4% Ofhomebuyersthatindicatedschoolboundarieswill 2.0% Important or impacttheirdecisioninanyway,thevastmajority,91%, Somewhat Important statedthatschoolboundarieswillbeanimportantor somewhatimportantconsideration. Neutral Withsuchemphasisontherightplacetolive,housing 90.5% pricesincreaseinschooldistrictboundariestoreflectthe Unimportant or Very increaseddemandinthoseareas.Astudyconductedby Unimportant Redfinfoundthatidenticalhomeslocatedashortdistance apartbutseparatedbyaschooldistrictboundarycould varyinpricebyasmuchas$130,000. ThestudylookedathomesonMultipleListingServices stst (MLS)thatsoldbetweenMay1andJuly31,2013to Premium Paid on Homes calculatemediansalespriceandpricepersquarefootfor for the Right School District homessoldwithinschooldistrictboundaries.Thestudy sampleincluded10,811schoolzones,57metroareas, and407,509homesales. 1%-5% Above Budget Thisishowschooldistrictsimpacthomeprices: 23.6% 6%-10% Above 40.3% Budget 24%ofhomebuyersindicatedtheywouldspendup to5%abovetheirbudgettobeintherightschool 11%-20% Above 20.7% district. Budget 9.0% Wouldn't Surpass 21%ofhomebuyersindicatedtheywouldspendup Budget to10%abovetheirbudgettobeintherightschool district. Source: Redfin 9%ofhomebuyersindicatedtheywouldspendupto 20%abovetheirbudgettobeintherightschool district. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |20 School District Impact on Housing Markets ImportanceofSchoolsforHousingDecisions Willingness to Forego ARealtor.comsurveyfoundthathomebuyerswillnot Amenities for the Right onlypaymore,buttheywillforegocertainamenitiesto beintherightschooldistrict.Homeslocatedwithinhigh School District performingschooldistrictsarenotnecessarilybigger, 80% betterquality,ormoreconvenientlylocated.Forhome 62.4% buyersthatconsiderschoolboundariestobeimportant, 60% 50.6% 44.0% 42.0% theyarewillingtogiveupamenitiestobeintheright 40% schooldistrict,including:pools,accesstoshopping,a bonusroom,orcloseproximitytonearbyparksand 20% trails. 0% Thequalityofschoolsisalsoanimportantfactor.The Pool orAccess toBonusProximity RedfinstudylookedatTexasneighborhoodsandfounda SpaShoppingRoomto Parks & strongpositivecorrelationbetweenhousingvaluesand Trails schoolperformance.Insomecasesthatdifferencein housingpricescouldbeasmuchat70%whencomparing exemplaryschoolstolowperformingschools.On average,thecorrelationequatesto$50morepersquare footforhomeslocatedintop-rankedschoolscompared 70% or$50/SF toaverage-rankedschools.Moreover,areaswithhigh performingschoolswerenothisashardduringthe Premium Paid on Homes in recessionandrecoveredfaster. High-Performing School Interestingly,itisnotjustfamilieswithschool-age Districts childrenthatbendthecostcurve.Aroundhalfofhome buyersthatdonothavechildrenanddonotintendto havechildrenstillprefertobewithinaschooldistrictto enjoytheappreciationinhomevaluesassociatedwith schooldistricts. 1/2 Itisworthnotingthattherearemanyotherfactorsin Non-Parent Home Buyers That play.Itisnotentirelyclearifhighhomevaluesleadto betterschools,orifschoolsimpactlocationdecisionsand Prefer to Live within School subsequentlyincreasehousingvalues.Likely,bothforces District Boundaries areatplay,butthemagnitudeofeachdependsonthearea inquestion. Sources: Realtor.com, Redfin Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |21 An Economic Comparison: Fast-Growth vs. Non-Fast Growth School Districts Fast-Growth vs. Non-Fast Growth Districts FGDvsNon-FGDComparison Giventhatgrowthindistrictenrollmentishighlycorrelatedwithpopulationgrowth,itshouldcomeasnosurprise thatfast-growthdistrictsarelocatedwithinregionsthatexemplifytraitsthataresynonymouswitheconomic development.Thefollowingsectionexploresthesetraitsgraphicallyandillustratestheconnectionbetweenfast- growthdistrictsandpositiveeconomicdevelopmentindicators. Sources: AE, National Center for Education Statistics, Tableau Note: Each map in the following section includes 74 of the 75 fast-growth districts. This is due to the fact that the South Texas Independent School District is a magnet school district and therefore not included in Census Bureau Shapefiles Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |23 Fast-Growth vs. Non-Fast Growth Districts PopulationGrowthForecast Oneoftheprimaryconditionsforfast-growthdistrictsisdistrictenrollment.Therefore,regionssurroundingfast- growthdistrictshavebeenidentifiedasthefastestgrowingareaswithinthestate. Lookingtowardsthefuture,fast-growthdistrictswillremainsomeofthefastestgrowingpopulationcentersin Texas.Themapbelowillustratesforecastedpopulationgrowthbycensusblockthrough2022. Nearlyeveryfast-growthdistrictislocatedwithinornearbyaregionthatisforecastedtogrowby atleast5.71%through2022. Sources: AE, Census Bureau, Tableau Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |24 Fast-Growth vs. Non-Fast Growth Districts TexasEnterpriseFund(TEF) TheTexasEnterpriseFundisaprimarydriverofeconomicdevelopmentandemploymentthroughoutthestate.The TEFisacashgrantprogramthatisusedasafinancialincentivetoolforprojectsthatofferasignificantamountof capitalinvestmentandjobcreationprospects.Toqualifyforanaward,aTexassitemustbecompetingwithanother viableout-of-stateoption.Sinceitscreationin2004,TEFhasawardedover140grantstotalingnearly$600million acrossthestate.Intotal,theseprojectshaveinvestedmorethan$27billionandcreatedmorethan80,000jobs. Unsurprisingly,fast-growthschooldistrictsareclusteredaroundsiterecipientsofTEFawards.In total,70fast-growthdistrictsarewithindirectproximityofatownorcountythathasreceiveda TEFaward. Note: Each X represents an city or county that has received a TEF award. Sources: AE, Texas Office of the Governor, Tableau Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |25 Fast-Growth vs. Non-Fast Growth Districts EmploymentGrowth Fast-growthschooldistrictsareheavilyconcentratedwithinTexascountiesthatarecreatingjobs. Intotal,73fast-growthdistrictsarelocatedwithinacountythathasexperiencedpositive employmentgainssince2011. Note: Each star indicates the location of a fast-growth districtSources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Tableau Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |26 Fast-Growth vs. Non-Fast Growth Districts PropertyTaxRevenue InTexas,propertytaxesaresetandcollectedbylocaljurisdictions,whichrelyonpropertytaxrevenuestofund localservices,includingschooldistricts.HomeownershipplaysacrucialroleforTexasschooldistricts,asitisa primarydriverofschooldistrictrevenues. Owner-occupiedhousingunitsareonewaytoassesshomeownershiplevelsinTexas,andthus,serveasaproxyfor propertytaxflows.Themapbelowillustratestheprevalenceofowner-occupiedhousingunitsthroughoutTexas. Overwhelmingly,regionswithhighconcentrationsofowner-occupieddwellingsoverlapwithfast- growthdistricts. Sources: AE, Census Bureau, Tableau Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |27 Implications for Economic Development Implications for Economic Development AProblemWithNoEasySolution,butDireCosts I&S Eligible Purchases ThestateofTexaspridesitselfonitsinnovativeand forward-thinkingapproachtoeconomicdevelopment. Thetermeconomicdevelopmentreferstoa Construction of New Buildings effortstoimprovethequalityandwell-beingofthe region.Thisisaccomplishedbyattractingandretaining Renovation of Existing Buildings businesses,andcreatingjobsandeconomicopportunity. Howdoschooldistrictsplayintotheframeworkof Land economicdevelopment?Strongperformingschool districtsareatthetopofthelistforfamilieslookingto relocate.Ajobistypicallytheinitialdecisionfactor,but Program-Specific Equipment givenachoicebetweentwolocations,schooldistrictswill factorheavilyinthefinaldecision.Inotherwords,ifa communityisnotinvestinginitsschooldistricts, Technology thenitcannotexpectpeopleorbusinessesto investinthem. School Buses Theproblemisthis:FGDsareincreasinglyunableto respondtotherapidgrowthwithintheircommunitydue totheI&S50-centratecap,oftenreferredtoasthe50- 50-CentDebtTest centdebt. The50-centdebttestisameasurethat Fordistrictsalreadyupagainsttheratecap,schoolsfind showshowcloseaI&Srateisto themselveslackinginwaystofundfacilityimprovements, additions,andrenovations.Thosedistrictsareleftlooking theratecapof50centsper$100of forother,lesseffective,meanstofundbigticketitems. valuation.TheI&Srateistheportionofa propertytaxratethatfundsdebt Inreality,FGDseitheruselesseffectivefunding repaymentforthepurchaseofmajor alternatives,likecapitalappreciationbondsthatleave items,suchasfacilitiesandinfrastructure. theminaworsefinancialpositioninthelongrun,orthey settleforshort-termsolutionsthatdonotactually Topassthe50-centdebttest,districts addresstheneeds. mustshowtheabilityforprincipleand interestpaymentsonproposedand Byforegoingadequatefacilitiesandequipment,students existingdebtstobemetwitharatethat areprovidedasub-optimallearningenvironmentwhich doesnotexceed50centsper$100of impactsoverallstudentperformance.Asmanystudies show,studentperformanceinK-12islinkedtolifelong valuation. skillsattainmentandearningpotential. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |29 Implications for Economic Development The50-CentDebtTestUndulyImpactsFGDS Thefastestgrowingschooldistrictsthedistrictsmostin needofnewfacilitiesarethesamedistrictsthatareleast I&S Rate by Growth likelytobeabletofundthoseprojects.TheaverageI&S 41.00 45 rateforFGDsis$0.3086per$100ofvaluationcompared 37.45 40 to$0.2501fornon-FGDs. 35 29.53 27.06 30 25.63 24.73 Thecorrelationissignificant;thefasteraregion 25 isgrowing,themorelikelyitisthattheregionis 20 atornearthe50-centratecap.Comparedtothe 15 non-fast-growthaverageI&Srateof24.73cents 10 5 per$100ofvaluation,allcategoriesofFGDshavehigher 0 I&Srates. Tofurtherexacerbatetheproblem,theStateisinvesting fewerdollarseachyeartowardsschooldistrictdebt payments.Stateaidpeakedat44.6%inthe2000-2001 academicyear.Sincethattime,stateaidhasfallentoonly 5.0%inthemostrecent2016-2017academicyear. Rising Enrollment vs. State Aid for School Debt 650% 5 40% 4 30% 3 20% 2 10% 1 -0% '99 - '00 - '01 - '02 - '03 - '04 - '05 - '06 - '07 - '08 - '09 - '10 - '11 - '12 - '13 - '14 - '15 - '16 - '00'01'02'03'04'05'06'07'08'09'10'11'12'13'14'15'16'17 Texas ISD Enrollement% of State Aid for All Debt Sources: AE, FGSC Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |30 Implications for Economic Development StateSupportExists,butwithAntiquatedTerms TheTexasLegislaturehasacknowledgedthedifficulties Theproblemwiththeseprogramsdoesnotlie thatschooldistrictsfacewhenfinancingisneededto withtheirformorfunction,butratherwith erectorupgradeinfrastructure.Inparticular,two theirlackofmodernity.Theseprogramshaveseen programsexisttooffsetthegrowingburdenoflittle,ifany,updatesintwentyyears. infrastructurefinancing: Thecruxoftheproblemisthattheawardswerecreated 1.InstructionalFacilitiesAllotment(IFA)asfixedamountsthatarenotproportionaltoa 2.ExistingDebtAllotment(EDA)needs.Therefore,aspropertyvaluesincrease,the sharefordebtservicereliefdecreases.Theendresult IFA-AuthorizedunderHB4inthe1997legislative isthatthetaxburdenshiftsincreasinglytoward session,districtscanapplyforIFAawardstopayfor schooldistrictsandtheirlocaltaxpayers. future debtserviceobligationstocovernew instructionalfacilities,additions,orrenovations.TheGiventhatnomeaningfuladjustmentshavebeenmade awardsarebasedonwealthperstudent,however,intotheseprograms,thepercentofstudentsenrolledin recentyears,theapplicationsforfundshaveexceededschoolsthatreceivestatebenefithasdecreasedfrom theappropriationsmadebytheState.Theeffectisthat91%to43%inthepast16years. fewerdistrictsqualifyforfundingeachyear. FGDsareparticularlyvulnerabletothis EDA AuthorizedunderSB4inthe1999legislative decreaseinIFAandEDAfundingbecausethey session,districtscanapplyforEDAtohelpdistrictspay tendtobedistrictswithrisingpropertyvalues. debtserviceon existing debt.EDAwascreatedtocoverOnly36%(27of75)FGDsreceiveStatesupport thegapfordistrictsthatdidnotqualifyforIFA.throughIFAorEDAprograms. IFA & EDA Funding vs. Total State Debt Service $7 $6 $5 $4 Financing gap that must be $3 met by local taxpayers $2 $1 $0 Total State Debt ServiceTotal State Aid for Debt Service (EDA & IFA Programs) Sources: FGSC, Texas Education Agency Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |31 Implications for Economic Development SchoolDistricts:AToolForEconomicDevelopment ThemostobviousreasontoinvestinTexasschoolsisbecauseitis aninvestmentintostudents,andthus,thefutureofthestate. However,therearemanyotherreasontodoso,andeconomic developmentorganizationsarewisetounderstandthepotential thatschooldistrictsholdforcommunitygrowth. EnhancedfundingoptionsforTexasschoolscandrive localeconomicgrowthinfiveprimaryways: 1. Making Texas more competitive for business investment 2. Preparing students to enter the workforce 3. Making Texas more attractive for young families 4. Strengthening local housing markets 5. Improving the overall quality of life Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |32 The Local Impact Aldine ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 70,417 11.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,489 $231,418,332$605,019,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 3,858 $219,522,313$682,323,231 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 7,347 $450,940,645$1,287,342,231 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 15.1% $61,928 $54,200 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.69 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,044 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 83,434 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $91,400 $39,459 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |34 Aledo ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,249 12.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 914 $60,606,749$158,450,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,010 $178,695,406 $57,491,270 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,924 $337,145,406 $118,098,019 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.9% $61,928 $54,280 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.5 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,795 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 7,326 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $254,600 $114,354 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |35 Allen ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 20,822 10.2% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,108 $206,126,059$538,895,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 3,436$607,750,463 $195,530,185 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 6,544$1,146,645,463 $401,656,244 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.3% $61,928 $54,760 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.96 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,891 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 30,422 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $219,800 $112,038 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |36 Alvin ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 22,183 27.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 2,466 $163,529,593$427,531,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 2,726 $155,123,383$482,157,309 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 5,192 $318,652,976$909,688,309 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 27.7% $61,928 $55,143 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.39 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,943 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 32,995 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $154,800 $75,843 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |37 Andrews ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,976 22.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 461 $30,559,265$79,894,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 509 $28,988,372$90,102,182 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 970 $59,547,637$169,996,182 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 16.5% $61,928 $61,171 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.67 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,903 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 5,476 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $111,600 $81,889 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |38 Anna ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,072 33.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 606 $40,170,666$105,022,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 670 $38,105,700$118,440,826 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,275 $78,276,366$223,462,826 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 18.5% $61,928 $48,635 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.47 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,567 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,009 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $151,000 $70,413 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |39 Aransas County ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,405 10.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 374 $24,822,949$64,897,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 414 $23,546,929$73,188,992 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 788 $48,369,878$138,085,992 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 18.7% $61,928 $49,744 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 13.44 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,479 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 8,955 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $143,800 $51,724 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |40 Argyle ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 2,243 21.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 352 $23,343,448$61,029,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 389 $22,143,482$68,826,771 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 741 $45,486,930$129,855,771 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.6% $61,928 $58,267 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.34 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,297 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 2,838 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $361,800 $112,420 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |41 Barbers Hill ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,085 20.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,141 $75,648,086$197,774,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,261 $71,759,409$223,043,895 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,402 $147,407,495$420,817,895 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.8% $63,100 $61,928 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.84 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $6,274 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 5,307 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $201,900 $98,504 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |42 Bastrop ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 10,278 13.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,145 $75,934,959$198,524,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,266 $72,031,536$223,889,724 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,411 $147,966,495$422,413,724 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.0% $61,928 $51,694 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.08 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,196 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 15,252 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $139,700 $66,231 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |43 Belton ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 10,862 17.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,118 $74,160,170$193,884,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,236 $70,347,979$218,656,864 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,354 $144,508,149$412,540,864 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 28.6% $61,928 $45,549 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.24 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,729 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 16,059 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $149,500 $70,037 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |44 Boerne ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 7,902 19.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,009 $66,908,780$174,926,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,115 $63,469,346$197,276,571 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,124 $130,378,126$372,202,571 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.4% $61,928 $53,457 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.99 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,856 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 13,955 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $328,300 $99,990 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |45 Bridge City ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 2,887 11.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 195 $12,913,120$33,760,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 215 $12,249,323$38,073,568 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 410 $25,162,443$71,833,568 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.5% $61,928 $46,427 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.83 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,637 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,990 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $144,000 $68,019 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |46 Bullard ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 2,487 17.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 317 $21,028,955$54,978,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 351 $19,947,965$62,002,626 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 668 $40,976,919$116,980,626 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.9% $61,928 $42,329 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 13.33 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,879 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,316 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $165,900 $74,657 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |47 Burleson ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 11,385 13.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,870 $124,032,888$324,271,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 2,068 $117,656,999$365,703,616 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,938 $241,689,887$689,974,616 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 23.3% $61,928 $47,701 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.92 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,538 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 20,226 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $141,400 $80,077 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |48 Castleberry ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 4,046 10.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 480 $31,860,140$83,295,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 531 $30,222,375$93,937,733 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,011 $62,082,515$177,232,733 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 15.0% $61,928 $48,967 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.27 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,768 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 6,394 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $77,100 $45,109 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |49 China Spring ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 2,604 11.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 270 $17,901,271$46,801,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 298 $16,981,060$52,780,837 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 568 $34,882,331$99,581,837 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 33.1% $61,928 $47,028 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.83 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,525 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,311 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $164,000 $82,300 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |50 Clear Creek ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 41,226 7.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 4,736 $314,138,417$821,282,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 5,237 $297,990,186$926,218,495 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 9,973 $612,128,602$1,747,500,495 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.6% $61,928 $52,942 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.87 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,884 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 83,074 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $180,300 $98,320 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |51 Cleveland ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 4,140 7.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 317 $21,037,752$55,001,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 351 $19,956,310$62,028,564 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 668 $40,994,062$117,029,564 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 16.3% $61,928 $52,350 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.14 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,468 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 6,427 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $73,400 $44,144 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |52 College Station ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 13,021 23.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,610 $106,790,660$279,193,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,780 $101,301,105$314,865,929 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,390 $208,091,765$594,058,929 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 37.7% $61,928 $49,596 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.59 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,107 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 38,713 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $190,100 $71,662 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |53 Comal ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 21,163 22.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,689 $244,696,737$639,734,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,079 $232,118,144$721,473,821 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 7,768 $476,814,881$1,361,207,821 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.5% $61,928 $46,040 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.53 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,402 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 39,606 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $240,100 $86,915 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |54 Conroe ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 58,239 13.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 6,439 $427,065,869$1,116,519,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 7,119 $405,112,621$1,259,178,391 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 13,558 $832,178,490$2,375,697,391 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.3% $61,928 $53,177 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.61 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,633 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 100,123 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $192,900 $87,496 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |55 Coppell ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 11,881 16.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,129 $74,850,961$195,690,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,248 $71,003,260$220,693,620 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,376 $145,854,221$416,383,620 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.1% $61,928 $61,539 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.95 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,840 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 16,152 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $303,800 $131,806 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |56 Crandall ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,453 21.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 375 $24,872,673$65,027,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 415 $23,594,098$73,335,602 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 790 $48,466,771$138,362,602 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.3% $61,928 $49,119 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.19 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,385 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,207 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $133,700 $71,385 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |57 Crosby ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,680 11.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 457 $30,334,739$79,307,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 506 $28,775,387$89,440,180 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 963 $59,110,127$168,747,180 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.8% $61,928 $49,581 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.24 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,045 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 9,262 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $123,800 $64,876 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |58 Cypress-Fairbanks ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 113,936 7.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 11,313 $750,364,339$1,961,749,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 12,508 $711,791,989$2,212,404,759 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 23,821 $1,462,156,328$4,174,153,759 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 18.3% $61,928 $51,719 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.70 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,704 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 180,049 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $157,200 $82,315 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |59 Del Valle ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 11,559 7.2% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,272 $84,345,699$220,513,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,406 $80,009,923$248,688,293 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,678 $164,355,623$469,201,293 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 18.6% $61,928 $52,221 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.32 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,381 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 20,222 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $114,100 $42,222 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |60 Denton ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 27,559 14.9% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 4,225 $280,221,587$732,610,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,671 $265,816,845$826,216,734 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 8,896 $546,038,432$1,558,826,734 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 28.1% $61,928 $56,858 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 13.86 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,431 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 59,834 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $169,200 $78,412 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |61 Dickinson ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 10,953 20.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,652 $109,557,265$286,426,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,826 $103,925,493$323,023,101 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,478 $213,482,759$609,449,101 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.6% $61,928 $51,964 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.75 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,678 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 20,045 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $132,400 $76,856 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |62 Dripping Springs ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,619 25.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 843 $55,944,103$146,260,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 933 $53,068,306$164,947,871 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,776 $109,012,409$311,207,871 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.0% $61,928 $49,893 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.56 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,335 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 8,689 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $345,300 $118,508 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |63 Eagle MT-Saginaw ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 19,203 14.9% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,837 $254,481,792$665,316,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,242 $241,400,199$750,324,473 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 8,079 $495,881,991$1,415,640,473 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.9% $61,928 $55,447 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.99 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,817 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 29,167 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $137,000 $76,959 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |64 Ector ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 31,791 13.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,306 $86,612,763$226,440,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,444 $82,160,449$255,372,595 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,750 $168,773,211$481,812,595 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.2% $61,928 $54,873 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.52 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,451 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 50,868 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $103,200 $64,450 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |65 Elgin ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 4,321 8.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 537 $35,586,432$93,037,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 593 $33,757,117$104,924,484 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,130 $69,343,549$197,961,484 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.7% $61,928 $51,387 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.57 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,923 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 6,641 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $114,600 $70,259 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |66 EvermanISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,621 10.9% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 528 $35,047,110$91,627,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 584 $33,245,519$103,334,326 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,113 $68,292,630$194,961,326 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 24.8% $61,928 $58,668 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.77 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,353 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 7,460 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $81,900 $49,366 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |67 Forney ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 9,386 15.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,791 $118,779,666$310,537,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,980 $112,673,818$350,214,802 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,771 $231,453,483$660,751,802 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 25.3% $61,928 $50,245 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.17 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,095 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 10,546 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $166,300 $91,697 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |68 Fort Bend ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 73,115 6.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 5,844 $387,613,151$1,013,374,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 6,461 $367,687,964$1,142,854,392 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 12,305 $755,301,115$2,156,228,392 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 25.8% $61,928 $56,270 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.18 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,778 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 116,963 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $177,400 $92,284 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |69 Fort Worth ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 87,080 6.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 6,773 $449,251,496$1,174,521,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 7,489 $426,157,801$1,324,591,398 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 14,262 $875,409,297$2,499,112,398 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.2% $61,928 $61,414 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.21 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,973 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 171,285 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $97,400 $49,552 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |70 FrenshipISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 9,173 21.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,156 $76,648,700$200,390,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,278 $72,708,586$225,994,146 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,433 $149,357,286$426,384,146 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 29.5% $61,928 $49,377 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.27 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,370 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 17,009 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $137,100 $74,343 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |71 Frisco ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 53,300 43.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 9,551 $633,476,123$1,656,157,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 10,560 $600,912,393$1,867,766,788 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 20,111 $1,234,388,516$3,523,923,788 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.1% $61,928 $53,965 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.09 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,764 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 65,700 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $254,600 $118,560 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |72 Georgetown ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 10,997 5.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,440 $95,498,183$249,670,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,592 $90,589,115$281,570,729 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,032 $186,087,298$531,240,729 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 24.7% $61,928 $50,038 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.37 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,079 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 27,114 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $218,500 $83,030 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |73 Goose Creek CISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 23,748 11.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 2,916 $193,436,700$505,720,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 3,225 $183,493,120$570,336,641 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 6,141 $376,929,820$1,076,056,641 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.0% $61,928 $57,463 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.32 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,637 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 35,750 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $100,600 $61,845 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |74 Grand Prairie ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 29,339 10.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,422 $226,941,197$593,314,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 3,783 $215,275,324$669,122,664 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 7,205 $442,216,522$1,262,436,664 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 15.8% $64,112 $61,928 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.79 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,985 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 39,461 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $113,200 $55,728 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |75 Hallsville ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 4,936 14.2% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 760 $50,437,285$131,863,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 841 $47,844,565$148,711,343 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,601 $98,281,849$280,574,343 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 23.9% $61,928 $47,793 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.09 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,107 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 7,076 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $160,500 $75,173 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |76 Hardin-Jefferson ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 2,254 11.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 249 $16,517,013$43,182,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 275 $15,667,958$48,699,432 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 524 $32,184,971$91,881,432 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.0% $61,928 $42,446 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.12 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,739 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 3,778 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $118,800 $85,117 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |77 Hays CISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 18,654 21.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 2,056 $136,353,137$356,481,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 2,273 $129,343,927$402,029,139 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 4,329 $265,697,064$758,510,139 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 23.8% $61,928 $48,831 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.12 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,581 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 24,656 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $161,900 $76,406 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |78 Houston ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 215,627 5.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 20,681 $1,371,717,582$3,586,212,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 22,866 $1,301,204,677$4,044,427,955 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 43,547 $2,672,922,259$7,630,639,955 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.9% $61,928 $57,379 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 18.66 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,931 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 531,058 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $XX $51,587 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |79 Hudson ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 2,782 4.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 318 $21,083,652$55,121,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 351 $19,999,850$62,163,897 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 669 $41,083,502$117,284,897 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 25.1% $61,928 $46,411 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.40 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,644 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 3,870 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $101,200 $52,591 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |80 Huffman ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,467 9.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 361 $23,927,904$62,557,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 399 $22,697,894$70,550,006 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 760 $46,625,798$133,107,006 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 18.8% $61,928 $48,947 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.31 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,622 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 5,257 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $158,500 $90,513 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |81 Humble ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 40,549 12.9% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 4,349 $288,446,051$754,112,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,808 $273,618,532$850,466,078 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 9,157 $562,064,582$1,604,578,078 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.4% $61,928 $53,861 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.61 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,734 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 62,118 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $168,500 $96,639 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |82 Huntsville ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 6,962 10.9% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 366 $24,266,032$63,441,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 405 $23,018,641$71,546,956 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 770 $47,284,673$134,987,956 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 28.0% $61,928 $43,591 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.37 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,045 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 18,415 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $119,300 $56,030 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |83 HuttoISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 6,527 20.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,055 $69,987,503$182,975,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,167 $66,389,808$206,354,004 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,222 $136,377,311$389,329,004 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 21.3% $61,928 $49,988 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.57 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,632 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 8,574 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $152,400 $76,510 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |84 Jarrell ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 1,426 46.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 332 $22,051,753$57,652,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 368 $20,918,187$65,018,287 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 700 $42,969,940$122,670,287 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.3% $61,928 $47,970 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 13.45 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,881 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 3,889 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $177,000 $74,572 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |85 Katy ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 72,952 20.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 8,462 $561,265,926$1,467,371,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 9,356 $532,414,148$1,654,859,304 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 17,818 $1,093,680,075$3,122,230,304 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.4% $61,928 $55,990 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.62 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,329 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 96,062 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $200,600 $106,033 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |86 Keller ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 34,180 4.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,976 $263,742,059$689,526,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,396 $250,184,444$777,627,823 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 8,373 $513,926,503$1,467,153,823 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.7% $61,928 $55,166 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.42 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,831 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 53,833 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $187,400 $101,721 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |87 Killeen ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 43,258 7.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 2,913 $193,187,694$505,069,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 3,220 $183,256,914$569,602,462 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 6,133 $376,444,609$1,074,671,462 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 21.8% $61,928 $48,640 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.08 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,074 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 65,183 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $125,200 $52,665 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |88 Klein ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 50,594 11.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 5,662 $375,553,766$981,846,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 6,260 $356,248,489$1,107,298,010 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 11,923 $731,802,255$2,089,144,010 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.1% $61,928 $53,774 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.43 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,938 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 78,888 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $158,900 $85,715 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |89 Lake Travis ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 9,238 32.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,988 $131,860,320$344,735,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 2,198 $125,082,063$388,782,334 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 4,186 $256,942,382$733,517,334 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 18.2% $61,928 $55,687 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.00 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,040 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 15,303 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $384,700 $122,448 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |90 Lamar CISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 29,692 20.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,630 $240,739,417$629,388,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,013 $228,364,249$709,805,896 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 7,643 $469,103,666$1,339,193,896 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 23.1% $61,928 $57,610 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.55 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,886 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 44,790 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $189,900 $87,146 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |91 Lancaster ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 7,324 17.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 140 $9,259,120$24,207,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 154 $8,783,157$27,299,967 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 294 $18,042,277$51,506,967 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 24.2% $61,928 $60,566 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 19.30 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,805 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 13,205 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $104,500 $57,231 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |92 Leander ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 37,158 15.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 6,365 $422,156,512$1,103,684,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 7,037 $400,455,629$1,244,703,443 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 13,402 $822,612,141$2,348,387,443 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 21.3% $61,928 $52,584 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.41 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,758 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 54,596 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $227,400 $100,382 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |93 Lewisville ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 53,490 3.9% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 7,393 $490,369,609$1,282,020,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 8,174 $465,162,244$1,445,825,715 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 15,568 $955,531,852$2,727,845,715 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.7% $61,928 $55,601 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.09 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,253 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 103,344 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $220,600 $99,951 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |94 Liberty Hill ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,482 28.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 670 $44,471,087$116,265,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 741 $42,185,058$131,120,362 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,412 $86,656,145$247,385,362 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.2% $61,928 $48,540 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.90 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,017 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 3,755 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $261,700 $92,168 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |95 Little Elm ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 7,194 14.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 997 $66,101,328$172,815,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,102 $62,703,400$194,895,845 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,098 $128,804,728$367,710,845 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.9% $61,928 $53,201 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.57 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,780 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 11,563 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $164,400 $78,022 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |96 Lockhart ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,397 14.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 242 $16,026,268$41,899,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 267 $15,202,441$47,252,501 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 509 $31,228,709$89,151,501 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 21.0% $61,928 $51,556 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.80 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,815 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 7,832 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $121,600 $53,884 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |97 Lovejoy ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,946 16.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 914 $60,644,234$158,548,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,011 $57,526,827$178,805,928 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,925 $118,171,061$337,353,928 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.3% $61,928 $57,503 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 13.53 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $6,190 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,596 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $374,600 $121,425 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |98 Lubbock-Cooper ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,818 44.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 799 $53,001,549$138,567,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 884 $50,277,013$156,271,924 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,683 $103,278,562$294,838,924 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 28.3% $61,928 $42,687 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 13.97 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,510 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 9,009 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $168,900 $86,709 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |99 Manor ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 8,873 22.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,169 $77,551,012$202,749,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,293 $73,564,515$228,654,559 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,462 $151,115,527$431,403,559 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.1% $61,928 $57,549 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.49 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,740 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 12,433 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $150,100 $63,447 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |100 Mansfield ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 33,809 4.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 5,470 $362,837,632$948,601,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 6,048 $344,186,026$1,069,805,244 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 11,519 $707,023,658$2,018,406,244 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.7% $61,928 $53,521 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.58 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,126 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 47,503 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $169,900 $93,162 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |101 Medina Valley ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 4,473 28.2% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 519 $34,405,279$89,949,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 574 $32,636,682$101,441,925 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,092 $67,041,961$191,390,925 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 25.3% $61,928 $51,157 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.38 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,737 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 7,072 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $152,700 $67,432 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |102 Midland ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 24,555 13.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,310 $86,901,166$227,194,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,449 $82,434,027$256,222,935 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,759 $169,335,193$483,416,935 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.6% $61,928 $58,529 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.66 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,288 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 50,341 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $167,000 $82,124 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |103 Midway ISD (McLennan County): Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 6,883 8.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 954 $63,269,315$165,411,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,055 $60,016,967$186,545,824 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,009 $123,286,282$351,956,824 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 32.7% $61,928 $49,780 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.20 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,049 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 16,228 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $161,300 $76,608 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |104 Montgomery ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 8,174 18.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 854 $56,649,811$148,105,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 944 $53,737,737$167,028,609 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,798 $110,387,549$315,133,609 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.4% $61,928 $54,935 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.48 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,912 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 14,782 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $220,800 $93,663 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |105 NeedvilleISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,024 16.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 488 $32,370,009$84,628,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 540 $30,706,034$95,441,053 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,028 $63,076,044$180,069,053 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.5% $61,928 $53,407 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.56 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,904 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,536 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $120,300 $76,373 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |106 New Caney ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 13,816 36.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,804 $119,623,073$312,742,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,994 $113,473,870$352,701,538 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,798 $233,096,943$665,443,538 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 15.9% $61,928 $59,971 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.24 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,223 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 19,255 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $127,300 $61,543 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |107 North East ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 67,779 1.8% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 9,953 $660,165,660$1,725,934,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 11,005 $626,229,959$1,946,459,305 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 20,958 $1,286,395,619$3,672,393,305 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 21.9% $61,928 $54,304 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.68 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,980 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 158,999 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $167,100 $73,059 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |108 Northside ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 105,110 10.0% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 13,344 $885,037,546$2,313,838,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 14,753 $839,542,343$2,609,480,725 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 28,097 $1,724,579,889$4,923,318,725 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 25.7% $61,928 $54,615 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.8 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,169 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 198,326 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $151,800 $70,659 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |109 Northwest ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 20,976 36.5% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,835 $254,367,425$665,017,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,240 $241,291,711$749,987,269 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 8,075 $495,659,136$1,415,004,269 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.2% $62,541 $61,928 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.00 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,948 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 29,139 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $183,300 $96,607 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |110 Pasadena ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 56,019 7.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 5,144 $341,202,419$892,038,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 5,688 $323,662,967$1,006,015,100 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 10,832 $664,865,386$1,898,053,100 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 16.2% $61,928 $53,277 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.41 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,374 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 80,347 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $100,800 $50,580 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |111 Pearland ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 21,093 12.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 2,126 $140,987,096$368,596,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 2,350 $133,739,678$415,692,091 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 4,476 $274,726,774$784,288,091 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 27.7% $61,928 $49,718 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.59 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,278 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 33,686 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $180,900 $103,152 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |112 Princeton ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 3,876 21.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 533 $35,339,721$92,392,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 589 $33,523,089$104,197,071 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,122 $68,862,809$196,589,071 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 15.3% $61,928 $48,799 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.22 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,076 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 5,690 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $122,600 $60,522 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |113 Prosper ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 8,296 91.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,624 $107,727,779$281,643,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,796 $102,190,051$317,628,970 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,420 $209,917,831$599,271,970 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 17.8% $61,928 $58,243 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.23 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,315 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 6,902 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $309,700 $117,686 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |114 Royse City ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 5,220 14.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 776 $51,488,006$134,610,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 858 $48,841,274$151,809,332 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,635 $100,329,279$286,419,332 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.8% $61,928 $47,006 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 14.66 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,721 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 6,824 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $150,200 $81,509 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |115 Schertz-Cibolo-U City ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 15,118 21.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,904 $126,319,077$330,248,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 2,106 $119,825,666$372,444,307 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 4,010 $246,144,743$702,692,307 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.2% $61,928 $54,218 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.26 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,591 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 22,482 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $179,300 $86,098 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |116 Seminole ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 2,845 17.1% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 793 $52,620,581$137,571,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 877 $49,915,629$155,148,663 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,671 $102,536,210$292,719,663 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 18.1% $61,928 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 12.59 $10,000 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $7,274 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 4,533 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $98,400 $64,014 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |117 Sheldon ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 8,477 23.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,383 $91,700,364$239,741,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,529 $86,986,522$270,373,085 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,911 $178,686,886$510,114,085 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 21.8% $61,928 $53,731 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 15.54 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,789 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 10,163 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $98,700 $52,120 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |118 Socorro ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 45,269 6.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 3,775 $250,382,565$654,599,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 4,174 $237,511,692$738,238,145 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 7,949 $487,894,257$1,392,837,145 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 24.9% $61,928 $57,550 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 18.16 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,570 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 57,018 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $122,100 $53,608 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |119 Southwest ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 13,692 15.9% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,292 $85,690,179$224,028,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,428 $81,285,290$252,652,410 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 2,720 $166,975,468$476,680,410 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 20.8% $61,928 $55,902 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.02 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $5,189 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 13,917 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $80,100 $43,357 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |120 Stafford MSD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: #N/A #N/A Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 442 $29,324,563$76,666,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 489 $27,817,139$86,461,736 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 931 $57,141,702$163,127,736 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 23.1% $61,928 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: #N/A Instructional Spending/ #N/A Pupil: #N/A DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 6,568 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $153,500 $66,479 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |121 Tomball ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 14,120 32.3% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,971 $130,758,344$341,854,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 2,180 $124,036,734$385,533,224 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 4,151 $254,795,078$727,387,224 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.5% $61,928 $50,347 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.43 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,997 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 22,103 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $214,800 $105,867 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |122 Waller ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 6,572 20.6% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 580 $38,499,534$100,653,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 642 $36,520,472$113,513,592 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,222 $75,020,006$214,166,592 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.2% $61,928 $51,231 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.83 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,885 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 9,952 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $131,600 $69,894 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |123 Willis ISD: Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 7,113 10.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 535 $35,482,392$92,765,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 591 $33,658,426$104,617,730 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 1,126 $69,140,819$197,382,730 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 19.7% $61,928 $49,974 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 17.06 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $4,471 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 13,160 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $140,900 $64,495 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |124 Wylie ISD (Collin County): Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 14,615 16.7% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 272 $18,021,758$47,116,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 300 $17,095,353$53,136,086 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 572 $35,117,111$100,252,086 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 22.9% $61,928 $44,577 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.82 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $3,806 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 19,342 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $172,400 $91,475 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |125 Wylie ISD (Taylor County): Economic Impact Enrollment 2015-16: 5-Year Growth: 4,080 22.4% Total Impact of Capital Outlays & Equipment: 15-Year Total (2000-2014) JobsLabor IncomeEconomicActivity Direct 1,733 $114,916,822$300,438,000 Construction Indirect & Induced 1,916 $109,009,543$338,825,436 Land & Existing Structures Instructional Equipment TOTAL 3,648 $223,926,365$639,263,436 Other Equipment Average District Wages Employment in Education $76,430 & Healthcare: 29.6% $61,928 $44,577 Pupil/Teacher Ratio: 16.82 Instructional Spending/ Pupil: $3,806 DistrictTexasU.S. Households: 6,896 Median Family Income: Median Home Value: $178,700 $86,226 Sources: AE, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FGSC, Implan, National Center for Education Statistics Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |126 Appendix Appendix I.Additional Definitions II.Methodology III.School District Performance Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |128 Appendix I.AdditionalDefinitions Multipliers-areusedtocalculatetheeconomicimpacts associatedwithaparticularactivity.Multipliersare uniquetotheregionbeingstudiedandusedto calculatethespecificeffectsbroughtaboutbya changetoaregionaleconomy.Forinstance,a positiveeconomicactivitywillhaveamultiplier greaterthan1,whichmeansthattheeconomic impactsaregreaterthanjustthedirectexpenditures fromtheanalyzedactivity.Putsimply,amultiplieris theratiothatdefinesthetotaleconomicoutput createdforeachdollarinvested. Jobs-arecreatedthroughinducedeffectsandarefull- timeequivalents. LaborIncome-includesallformsofemployment income.Thisincludesbothwagesandbenefits. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |129 Appendix II.Methodology Forthecalculationofeconomicimpactsrelatedtoconstruction,datawascollectedforeachyearfrom2000 through2014,whichisthemostrecentdataavailableasofthewritingofthisreport. AngelouEconomicsemployedthe2015IMPLAN(IM pactAnalysisfor PLAN ning)model. Alleconomicimpactfiguresrepresent2017U.S.dollars. Thetotaleconomicoutputisasummationofdirect,indirect,andinducedimpacts,whicharedefinedasfollows: IndirectInduced Direct Includes changes to sales, The increased household The spending and job creation incomes, and jobs in business spending patterns through all effects in Texas that occur as a sectors that support or supply business sectors that occur as a result from construction is FGDs. direct activity. result of the direct activity. TheaveragedistrictwagesthatarepresentedinLocalsectionwerecalculatedbydividingthetotal wagespaidineachdistrictbythetotalnumberofstaffemployedineachdistrict.Thisincludesallstaffon payroll,including:administrators,teachers,counselors,custodians,etc. DatafortheSouthTexasISDwasnotuniformlyavailablefromalldatasources.ThisisduetothefactthatSouth TexasISDisamagnetschooldistrict.Assuch,auniqueprofilewasnotabletobeincludedforthisdistrictin Localsectionofthereport. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |130 Appendix III.SchoolDistrictPerformance Eachyear,theTexasEducationAgencyreleasesanassessmentofschooldistrictperformanceacrossthestateknown astheTexasAcademicPerformanceReports.Tobuildthereports,awiderangeofinformationiscollectedonthe performanceofstudentswithineachschoolanddistrictinTexas.Includedinthereportareaccountabilityratingsfor eachdistrictinTexas. In2016,fast-growthdistrictsperformedexceptionallywellandachievedthehighestmarkin74of 75districts. 2016 Accountability Ratings RatingFast-GrowthDistrictsOther Districts Met Standard74 (99%)1,033 (91%) Met Alternative Standard030 (3%) Improvement Required1 (1%)56 (5%) Not Rated013 (1%) Sources: FGSC, Texas Education Agency RatingDefinitions: MetStandard indicatesacceptableperformanceandisassignedtodistrictsandcampusesthatmeetthetargetson allrequiredindicesforwhichtheyhaveperformancedata. MetAlternativeStandard indicatesacceptableperformanceandisassignedtoeligiblecharterdistrictsand alternativeeducationcampuses(AECs)thatareevaluatedbyalternativeeducationaccountability(AEA)provisions. Toreceivethisrating,eligiblecharterdistrictsandAECsmustmeetmodifiedtargetsonallrequiredindicesfor whichtheyhaveperformancedata. ImprovementRequired indicatesunacceptableperformanceandisassignedtodistrictsandcampuses,including charterdistrictsandAECsevaluatedunderAEAprovisionsthatdonotmeetthetargetsonallrequiredindicesfor whichtheyhaveperformancedata. NotRated indicatesthatadistrictorcampusdidnotreceivearatingforavarietyofpotentialratings. Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |131 About AngelouEconomics AngelouEconomicspartnerswithclientcommunitiesandregionsacrosstheUnitedStatesandabroadto candidlyassesscurrenteconomicdevelopmentrealitiesandidentifyopportunities. Our goal is to leverage the unique strengths of each region to provide new, strategic direction for economic development. Asaresult,clientsareabletodiversifytheireconomies,expandjobopportunitiesand investment,fosterentrepreneurialgrowth,betterpreparetheirworkforce,andattract companies. Tolearnmore,visit www.angeloueconomics.com Project Team Angelos Angelou Principal Executive Officer William Mellor Vice President Anthony Michael Project Manager Melissa Menashe Research Associate Priyanka Juneja Research Associate For questions about the Fast Growth For any and all media inquiries School Coalition, please contact: about this study, please contact: Dr. Guy SconzoJennifer Harris Executive DirectorOwner Fast Growth School CoalitionJWH Communications guy@fastgrowthtexas.orgjharris@jwhcommunications.com 281-352-8525512-773-7168 Economic Impact: Fast Growth School Districts |132 City Hall City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 www.cityofdenton.com Legislation Text File #:ID 18-611,Version:1 AGENDA CAPTION Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding an update on Denton Independent School District plans for future construction, land purchases, bond programs, or facility changes. (30 minutes) City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/3/2018 powered by Legistar© City Hall City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 www.cityofdenton.com Legislation Text File #:ID 18-613,Version:1 AGENDA CAPTION Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding a recent assessment of the City of Denton’s Aquatics Division and Facilities and the joint agreement between the City of Denton and Denton Independent School District for shared use of the Natatorium. (30 minutes) City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/3/2018 powered by Legistar© City of Denton City Hall 215 E. McKinney Street Denton, Texas www.cityofdenton.com _____________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation DCM/ ACM: Bryan Langley DATE: May 8, 2018 SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding key findings from an aquatics assessment performed by PROS Consulting, Inc. BACKGROUND The aquatic center, comprised of Denton Natatorium (NAT) and Water Works Park (WWP), is located at the northwest corner of Loop 288 in Denton. The aquatic center was forged by a Joint Use Agreement between the City of Denton and Denton Independent School District (DISD). The aquatic center opened in June 2003. DISD funded the NAT building and competition pool. The City funded WWP and added the NAT leisure pool. Annually, the facility is maintained and operated by the City of Denton Parks and Recreation Department (PARD). At the end of each fiscal year, any deficit generated by the combined revenues and expenditures of NAT and WWP are equally shared on a 50 percent basis by the City and DISD. In December of 2017, PROS Consulting, Inc. was contracted by the City of Denton to conduct an assessment current aquatic facilities and operations. The scope of work outlined the following tasks: Assess and inventory the current aquatics facilities operational and financial models; Determine current and anticipated demand for aquatic facilities and programming in Denton as well as current supply to meet demands; Provide industry best practices for effective and efficient aquatic facility operations and management; to achieve the strategic objectives and recommended actions, goals, objectives and implementation strategies outlined in the plan; Deliver a final Aquatics Assessment to Denton Parks and Recreation incorporating all components of the project. PROS Consulting Inc. conducted site visits and held multiple meetings with staff and stakeholders. A final report was submitted to the City in March 2018. Key findings from the PROS Aquatics Assessment included: Staffing Levels Three facilities are staffed by 7.5 full-time staff and 34.19 part-time/seasonal staff. Found that division is staffed appropriately with best practice standard operating procedures and policies; however, division lacks in targeted marketing to generate revenue in non-traditional ways. Staffing Distribution Currently, full-time staff costs are not allocated to Civic Center Pool (CCP) budget and therefore a task-time analysis was conducted to determine what percentage of cost should be allocated to CCP. o Estimated that approximately $111,685 of full-time staff personnel costs should be allocated to CCP budget. The movement of $111,685 from the WWP/NAT budget would reduce DISD annual cost payment by $55,482. Joint Use Agreement o The current joint use agreement between the City and DISD lacks the detail necessary to better delineate roles, responsibilities, decision-making authority, and cost sharing. o The current agreement stipulates the formation and regular meeting of the Natatorium Committee to set usage procedures and policies for implementing the allocation of usage between the City and DISD. The committee has not met since approximately 2005. Classification of Services and Cost Recovery Goals Recommended to develop classification of services model to determine who benefits and who assumes the cost of the program. This allows cost recovery goals to be established for each category of service, develop strategies to achieve those goals, and measure if they are achieved through cost analysis. Opportunities o Efficiency and Effectiveness (technology to capture data & improve customer service, upgrade security system, engage Purchasing Division, implement a work order system) o Revenue Generation (marketing, classification of services model, premium services at the WWP, reduced pricing for DISD employees, flexibility for pricing strategies to enhance revenue) o Policy and Procedure (pricing policy, no outside food policy, joint use agreement, update select policies, full task-time analysis, full cost of service analysis) Additionally, PROS Consulting proposed next steps for the City and DISD to initiate and work towards implementation of recommendations. They are: Restart regular meetings of the Natatorium Committee o Improve communications, review policies & procedures, and review joint use agreement Perform a full time-task analysis of City Aquatics staff, review with Natatorium Committee, and use that method for cost allocation going forward. Develop a classification of services model and set cost recovery goals for the facilities & programs. Provide regular reporting and analyze success of programs. o Develop a plan to achieve cost recovery goals. National Benchmark for Cost Recovery for Natatorium is 35-50% (current 31%) and WWP is 110-120% (current 101%). Perform a full cost of service analysis (including direct, indirect, administrative and overhead costs) across all functional lines of service to more accurately allocate costs. Provide updated data and metrics as the WWP begins first full season with wave pool and concession stand. Consider allowing DISD employees to receive the discounted rates. Explore advertising and naming ventures as an additional source of revenue. Explore the potential to expand DISD programming and curriculum into the NAT. Upon initial review of the assessment, staff has already begun to implement a number of items that were recommended to begin the process of improving customer experience, safety, cost recovery and infrastructure. STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP is an action-oriented road map that will help the City achieve its vision. The foundation for the plan is the five long-term Key Focus Areas (KFA): Organizational Excellence; Public Infrastructure; Economic Development; Safe, Livable, and Family-Friendly Community; and Sustainability and Environmental Stewardship. While individual items may support multiple KFAs, this specific City Council agenda item contributes most directly to the following KFA and goal: Related Key Focus Area: Safe, Liveable & Family-Friendly Community Related Goal: 4.2 Increase percentage of citizens who rate their neighborhood as a place to live from 82 to 85 percent by 2020. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Agenda Information Sheet Exhibit 2 Presentation Exhibit 3 PROS Consulting Report Respectfully submitted: Gary Packan Director, Parks and Recreation Prepared by: Monica Martin Recreation Supervisor, Parks and Recreation Denton AquaticsAssessment Exhibit3 AprilApril20182018 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING............................................................................................1 AQUATICSASSESSMENT STUDY ORGANIZATION..........................................................2 SUMMARY OF AQUATICSASSESSMENT.........................................................................2 CHAPTER TWO -AQUATICSDIVISIONOVERVIEW..................................................................5 AQUATICSFACILITY OPERATING MODELS....................................................................5 LINES OF SERVICE.............................................................................................................6 CHAPTER THREE -OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND BEST PRACTICES.................................8 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.......................................................................................8 AQUATICSAND FACILITY MAINTENANCE.....................................................................8 LIFEGUARD MANAGEMENT............................................................................................9 AQUATICSPROGRAM MANAGEMENT.......................................................................10 GUEST SERVICES MANAGEMENT..................................................................................10 UTILIZATION OF AQUATICSFACILITIES..........................................................................11 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................12 CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES......................................................................................15 POLICY ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................22 CHAPTER FOUR –OPERATING PRO FORMA.........................................................................23 AQUATICSASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATION ASSUMPTIONS..................................23 GENERAL EXPENSE ANDREVENUE ASSUMPTIONS.....................................................23 OPERATING/GROWTH INPUT ASSUMPTIONS..............................................................23 CHAPTER FIVE –ACTION PLAN MATRIX.................................................................................30 CHAPTER SIX -CONCLUSION..................................................................................................32 APPENDIX A -FORMAL ALLOCATION GUIDELINES..............................................................33 APPENDIX B –AQUATICSPERSONAL PROTECTIVEEQUIPMENT STANDARDS...................36 APPENDIX C -NON-SWIMMER PROTECTION POLICY..........................................................37 APPENDIX D -SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR PATRONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS..........................38 APPENDIX E -MARKET ANALYSIS............................................................................................39 i Denton Aquatics Assessment Study CHAPTER ONE-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City of Dentonis a growing and dynamic community with an estimated population of 124,601 residents. The Parks and Recreation Department manages and operates a range of parks and recreation facilities andoffers recreational opportunities for people of all agesand abilities. A significant aspect of the Parks and Recreation Department’s offeringsis its Aquaticssystem. The system consists of threepools and provides a wide variety of programming and services aimed at meeting the Aquaticsneeds of the community.The three Aquaticsfacilities are: Civic Center pool iscommunity pool that is adjacent to Quakertown Park, behind Denton Civic Center, at 515 N. Bell Ave. This outdoor facility operates between Memorial Day and Labor Day and primarily serves Denton residents. Water Works Park is a destination location water park that is located adjacent to The Natatorium at 2400 Long Rd. This outdoor facility operates between Memorial Day and Labor Day and offers four giant slides, two toddler slides, one giant indoor slide, a wave pool a lazy river, children's play pool, sand volleyball, cabanasand full-service concessions. The Natatorium is an indoor, year-round Aquaticsfacility that is located adjacent to Water Works Park at 2400 Long Rd. The Natatorium has twoindoor pools (a ten-lane competition pool with diving well and leisure pool with slide) and is used for year-round swim lessons, party rentals, water exercise classes, the Denton Dolphins Swim Team, Family Fun Nights, and more. The facility is operated in conjunction with the Denton Independent School District via the 2002 Joint Use Agreement. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Denton was interested in an analysis of its current Aquaticsfacilitiesand operations.The analysisincludedoperational and fiscal perspectives of the AquaticsDivisionto determine ifDenton Parks and Recreation is meeting best practices for Aquaticsfacility management and programming. ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN The planning process for the AquaticsAssessmentwas completed inconjunction with City of Dentonstaff and included: The collection and analysis of availablerelevant information, including, but not limited to, staffing levels, operating procedures, visitation, partnerships and financial performance. Workshops with Denton staff and Denton Independent School District representatives. Gain perspective of the supply and demand of Aquaticsservices within the community. Recommendations for improved operational and fiscal elements in meeting the Aquaticsneeds of the community. The data collected from the staff and onsite facility assessments allowed the consulting team to identify key factors, issues, and concerns regarding the Aquaticssystem and how the DentonAquaticsDivision manages operations. 1 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation AQUATICSASSESSMENT STUDY ORGANIZATION ThisAquaticsAssessmentpresents the overall analysis, findings, and recommendations of the consulting team related to the areas outlined in the scope of services. This study begins with an overview of the AquaticsDivisionand the following sections respond to the desired categories outlined in the study scope to reveal findings, determine needsand offer operational improvement recommendations. SUMMARY OF AQUATICSASSESSMENT Following the assessment of the AquaticsDivisionoperations,the PROSConsulting Team identifieda varietyofopportunitiestosupporttheimplementation of recommendations. These recommendations for the operational,programming,financial and policy recommendation elementswill guide decision- making for immediate actions, short-term strategy, and long-term planning over the next five to ten years. The following summarizes the AquaticsAssessment: . KEY FINDINGS Desired Outcomes of AquaticsFacilities: The desired operational outcomes of the three Aquaticsfacilities are loosely defined. Pricing Policy:The Divisionlacks a Pricing Policy tied to cost recovery goals for each facility. Organizational Structure:Staffing of the Divisionis functionally aligned with its program and service delivery. Staffing:AquaticsDivisionstaff are highly knowledgeable, driven to operate using best practice and innovation and are considered by its peers to be leaders in the field of AquaticsManagement. However, the Divisionis not “business strong” and lacks capacity to developatargetedmarketing program and generate revenue in non-traditional ways. Standard Operating Procedures and Policies:The Divisionhas developed and implemented a set of best practice standard operating procedures and policies to guide the management and maintenance of the Aquaticsfacilities. Safety:Aquaticsstaff conductsthorough on-boarding, training and in-service programs and produce up to date lifeguard manuals and standard operating procedures to ensure the safety of every patron that utilizesthe Aquaticsfacilities. Customer Service:Written code of conduct and customer service guidelines and training are in place. Accountability:The AquaticsDivisionutilizes datato drive decision making and produces reports that summarize its key performance indicators. Program Participation: Program participation rates are very strong. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the Divisionoffered 522 programs and had registered participants in 90% of all available spaces in the programs it offered. This far exceeds industry best practice (50-60%)on average. Joint Use Agreement: The current joint use agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District lacks the detail necessary to better delineate roles, responsibilities, decision making authority and cost sharing. The cost-sharing arrangement defined in the agreement is such that DISD will fund 50% of the combined operating loss of the Natatorium and Water Works Park. 2 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study o The Natatorium Committee: The joint use agreement stipulates the formation and regular meeting of the Natatorium Committee to set usage procedures and policies for implementing the allocation of usage between the City and DISD. This committee has not met since circa 2005. Facility Utilization:The combined attendance of the three Aquaticsfacilities in Fiscal Year 2016-17 was 241,284. This breakdown by facility is as follows: o Civic Center Pool:33,749 o The Natatorium:138,529 o Water Works Park:93,998 DISD Utilization of the Natatorium:DISD Aquaticsprograms accounted for 24% (or 33,692)of the total attendance at the Natatorium. Financial Performance/Cost Recovery-Overall:The Divisionexpended $2.64MM to operate the three Aquaticsfacilities in 2016-17 with a cost recovery rate of 60% (or $1.59MM in revenue generated through user fees and charges).This is in-line with best practice cost recovery rates. Financial Performance/Cost Recovery –The Natatorium and Water Works Park:The Division expended $2.43MM to operate the Natatorium and Water Works Park in 2016-17 with a cost recovery rate of 59% (or $1.44MM in revenue generated through user fees and charges). DISD Cost Share:DISD funded 50% of the operating loss (or $493,544)in 2016-17. This equates to a DISD per person cost based on the attendance figures noted above of $14.65. Cost Allocation: Current practice is for all wages and benefits of full-time employees of the AquaticsDivisionto be charged to the Natatorium budget. Outside Food Policy at Water Works Park: Currently, there is not a policy in placethat restricts patrons from bringing outside food into the Water Works Park. This is potentially problematic as the AquaticsDivisionembarks on the operations of a full-service concession stand in the summer of 2018. KEYRECOMMENDATIONS EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS Develop and implement a plan that upgrades the utilization of technology to capture and analyze data while improving customer service Implement a work order management system for Aquaticsmaintenance. REVENUE GENERATION Develop a Pricing Policy based on the Classification of Services model with the goal of achieving an overall cost recovery goal for the AquaticsDivisionof 70%asprojected by the financial pro forma presented in Chapter Four. Consider the addition of a Marketing Coordinator and Administrative/Financial Analystto develop and implement a targetedmarketing program including increasing group sales 3 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation Consider offering City of Denton Employee Pricing for Aquaticsprograms and services to Denton Independent School District employees Allow the AquaticsDivisionto implement dynamic pricing strategies on an as needed basis POLICY AND PROCEDURE Align policy with the recommended operating models for each Aquaticsfacility while continually seeking to manage the facilities utilizing best practice standards and procedures. Adopt a “No Outside Food Policy” for Water Works Park Revisit the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District in an effort to better delineate roles,decision making authority and cost sharing. Conduct a full task time analysis of AquaticsDivisionfull-time staff to refine the cost allocation of full-time wages and benefits to the three Aquaticsfacilities Conduct a full cost of service analysis including the cost allocation of direct, indirect and administrative and overhead costs across all functional lines of service. 4 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study CHAPTER TWO-AQUATICSDIVISIONOVERVIEW The City of Denton’s Aquaticsfacilities and programs are aDivisionoftheParks andRecreation Department.The AquaticsDivisionoperates and maintainsthreeAquaticsfacilities. AQUATICSFACILITY OPERATING MODELS CIVIC CENTER POOL: How does it function?Summer only,“local community” pool –open approximately 12-13 weeks per year. Operating Model:Social; 30-40% Cost Recovery Who does it service?Primarily Denton residents, in particular children and families Key Lines of AquaticsServices Offered? o Learn to Swim/Summer Swim Team o Open Swim o Birthday Parties and Group Outings/Summer Day Camps o After Hours Rentals WATER WORKS PARK: How does it function? Summer only, “destination water park” Aquaticsfacility –open approximately 12-13 weeks per year. Operating Model:Business; 100+% CostRecovery Who does it service?Serves a regional population within 15-20 square miles of the facility. Key Lines of AquaticsServices Offered? o Open Swim o After Hours Rentals o Group Outings/Birthday Parties o Full-Service Concessions (coming summer of 2018) THE NATATORIUM How does it function? Year-round, indoor communityAquaticscenter Operating Model: Social/Business; Cost Recovery 35-50% Who does it service? Primarily serves Denton residents of all agesand DISD students Key Lines of AquaticsServices Offered? o Learn to Swim Programs o Swim Team Practices and Meets o Water Polo o Water Fitness Programs o Certification,Training and Safety Programs o Open/Open Lap Swim o Masters Swim 5 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation LINES OF SERVICE Within the facilities mentioned above, the AquaticsDivisiondirectly provides a wide variety of programs and servicesand facilitates the utilization of the facilities by outside user groups. The following tables summarize the programs and services that are provided by the AquaticsDivisionat the City of Denton’s Aquaticsfacilities. AQUATICSMANAGEMENT Figure 1-Programs and Services Summary 6 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study AQUATICSAND FACILITY MAINTENANCE Aquatic and Facility Maintenance Lines of Service Administrative Duties Chemical Management (Inventory, Storage and Use) Cleaning and Custodial Services Coordination Facility Maintenance (i.e., HVAC, electrical, plumbing, elevator, etc.) Irrigation Maintenance (Water Works Park and Natatorium) Landscape Maintenance (Water Works Park and Natatorium) Preventative Maintenance Coordination Risk Management System and Infrastructure Repair Water Chemistry GUEST SERVICES MANAGEMENT 7 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation CHAPTER THREE-OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND BEST PRACTICES ORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURE KEY FINDINGS The AquaticsDivisionis currently comprised of 7.5 fulltimeemployeesand 34.19 FTEs of part-time and seasonal employees and has made a conscious effort to continually operate efficientlyand effectively. The following summarizes key findings regarding the organizational structure of the Division. The Divisionis functionally aligned with its program and service delivery. The Divisionis not “business strong” in that it lacks two key positions to advance thebusiness side of the operation:AnAdministrative Assistant/Financial Analyst and a Marketing Coordinator. The Divisiondoes not have a position that focuses on revenue development, such as pass and daily guest sales, sponsorships, donations, and in-kind services to support operational costs. However, this position should be housed at the management level of the Department. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Given the emphasis on cost recovery, the AquaticsDivisionshould consider adding marketing and administrative/financial analysis resources-i.e. Marketing Coordinator ($35,000-$45,000) and Administrative Assistant/Financial Analyst positions($40,000-$50,000).PLEASE NOTE: The scope of this study did not include an assessment of the staffing capacity of the Parks and Recreation Department. The functions performed by the addition of these positions shouldfirst beconsidered withinthe context of the Parks and Recreation Department’s overall staffing capacity. The Parks and Recreation Department should consider adding the position of Revenue Development Manager, which will focus on the creation of partnerships, and sponsor and donor relationships to generate additional earned income. This position should work closely with the Denton Parks Foundation to strategically target revenue development opportunities and avoid the duplication of efforts between the City and the Foundation. Best practice suggests that with- In the first year of employment, the position should establish a goal to generate $100,000 in earned income and/or in-kind services. Within five years, the goal of the position would be to generate $250,000annually. AQUATICSAND FACILITY MAINTENANCE KEY FINDINGS Facilities that are clean and functioning efficiently are a critical element to delivering high quality programs and services. The AquaticsDivision’s Facility Maintenance Operation can be described as a model operation. Key findings regarding the maintenance operation of Denton’s Aquaticsfacilities are as follows: Staff exhibits subject matter expertise that is rarely found at all levels of Aquaticsfacility maintenance. This is a credit to the City of Denton for identifying and developing staff. Best practice and standard operating procedure manuals are in place. 8 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study The holistic operation focuses equally on day-to-day tasks, preventative maintenance, and repair and maintenance. Staff performs long-term asset preservation and replacement. Staff details all work via a coordinated system of manuals, checklists, and information logs. Staff maintains the landscaping within the Water Works Pool and around the Natatorium. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Continue the strong ongoing professional development program to ensure operational sustainability and succession planning. Continue to fully develop an asset management program that establishes lifecycle replacement plans for thefunctional and financial sustainability ofthe physical plants of the AquaticsDivision. Develop a work order management system to better track preventative, daily and repair work. LIFEGUARD MANAGEMENT KEY FINDINGS Lifeguard Management:Denton Aquaticsstaff conduct thorough on-boarding, training and in- service programs and produce up to date lifeguard manuals, emergency action plansand most standard operating procedures to ensure the safety of every patron that utilizes City of Denton Aquaticsfacilities. Further, the positioning of lifeguards throughoutthe Aquaticsfacilities is in- line with best practice alignment. Personal Protective Equipment Standards:The utilization of personal protective equipment (tubes, masks, gloves, etc.)while performing rescues and first aidis necessary to ensure proper rescuer performance andto provide best practice first aid. The AquaticsDivisionhassome standards in place around the care and utilization of personal protective equipment, but improvement is needed. Safety Guidelines for Patrons with Special Needs:Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) persons with disabilities must be provided equal access and opportunity to use all of the City of Denton’s Aquaticsfacilities.In addition toproviding the necessary physical accommodations like ramps and hydro-lifts, Aquaticsstaff must also be prepared to assist people with disabilitiesin normal activities and to respond appropriately in case of an emergency.The AquaticsDivisionhas some standards in place around the care of patrons with special needs. Non-Swimmer Protection Policy: The Cityof Dentondoes not have a policy in its Lifeguard Manual to test the swimming abilities of unknownswimmers and thereby increasesthe risk of a life-saving incident intheAquaticsfacilities. LIFEGUARD MANAGEMENT KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Continue to update Aquaticsfacility safety check list Continue to enforce and reinforce lifeguard responsibilities Continue to refine and refresh the lifeguard in-service programto help ensure that lifeguards are ready to recognize, respond, rescue and resuscitate a victim at all times. 9 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation Update Aquaticspersonal protective equipment standards. See Appendix B for a template policy. Develop and implement a written non-swimmer protection policy. See Appendix C for a template policy. Create written, special needs patron safety guidelines. See Appendix D for template guidelines AQUATICSPROGRAM MANAGEMENT KEY FINDINGS Policies and Procedures: Policies, procedures, and practices that guide Aquaticsprogramming are in line with best practices. Program Participation: Program participation rates are very strong. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the Divisionhad registered participants in 90% of all available spaces in the programs it offered. This far exceeds best practice (50-60%). Non-Resident Participation:Non-residents comprised 35% of all program registrations in Fiscal Year 2016-17. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Implement classification of programs and services recommendations as presented in this report beginning on page 15. Consider the introduction of community special events at Water Works Park on opening and closing weekends. GUEST SERVICES MANAGEMENT KEY FINDINGS Customer Service:Written code of conduct and customer service guidelines and training are in place and serve as a strongfoundation for the work of the AquaticsDivision. Program Registration:Policies, procedures, and practices that guide Aquaticsprogram registrationare in line with best practices. Cash Handling: Policies, procedures and practices that guide cash handlingare in place and in- line with City of Denton guidelines. Facility Reservations/Group Outings: Policies and procedures that guide thebooking of group outings and the reservations of cabanas, shelters and multi-purpose room are in place.However, formal allocation guidelines are not in place. Concession and Gift Shop Management: Policies and procedures that guide the management of concessions and gift shop at the pools are in place. 10 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study Technology:Opportunities exist to enhance and expedite guest services through the introduction of technology at Water Works Park. LockerSystem at Water Works Park:The current “Coin-for-a-Key” locker system is in need of lifecycle replacement. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS In conjunction withTechnology Services, explorethe introduction of hand held scanners for passesand an interactive point of sale system to enhance and expedite guest services, in particular at Water Works Park. Implement a formal allocation policy for the utilization of the Aquaticsfacilities. See Appendix A for a template policy. UTILIZATION OF AQUATICSFACILITIES KEY FINDINGS The following chart depicts the utilization of the AquaticsDivision’s three pools during Fiscal Year 2016- 17: Denton Aquatic Facility Utilization (Fiscal Year 2016-17) Annual Weekly Annual Average Average Average Annual Aquatic FacilityWeeks of Hours of Hours of Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance OperationOperationOperationper Weekper Dayper Hour The Natatorium50854250138,5292,77139633 Water Works Park125566093,9987,8331,119142 Civic Center Pool124149233,7492,81240269 TOTALS5,402266,27613,4161,917244 The following chart depicts the utilization of the Natatorium by the Denton Independent School District during Fiscal Year 2016-17: Denton Independent School District Utilization of The Natatorium (Fiscal Year 2016-17) Annual Annual Lane Attendance Attendance Aquatic FacilityHours of Hours of in All per Hour UseUsePrograms The Natatorium (in total)420542,050138,52933 DISD Utilization1447.5012,00033,69223 DISD % of Utilization34%29%24% 11 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Evaluate operating hours to increase availability or decrease non-utilized hours. Develop formal allocation guidelines to maximize utilization of non-prime time hours. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS Cost of Service:The AquaticsDivisioncurrently tracks revenue and direct cost expenditures across all revenue generating functions. This results in cost recovery percentages based on direct cost allocation only. Pool-by-Pool Operating Costs:The following is a snapshot of the financial performance of each Aquaticsfacility during Fiscal Year 2016-17: Denton Aquatic Division Financial Performance for Fiscal Year 2016-17 National National Annual Annual Operating Cost Benchmark - Benchmark - Expenditure Revenue Annual Net Cost per Hourly Net Per Person Aquatic FacilityRecovery Operating Cost Budget Generated SubsidyHour SubsidyNet Subsidy RateCost per Recovery (actual)(actual)(actual) HourRate The Natatorium$1,440,493$442,231-$998,262$338.94-$234.89-$7.2131%$300-$40035-50% Water Works Park$987,447$998,622$11,175$1,496.13$16.93$0.12101%NA 110-120% Civic Center Pool$213,479$145,899-$67,580$433.90-$137.36-$2.0068%$300-$40030-40% TOTALS$2,641,419$1,586,752-$1,077,017$2,269-$389.17-$9.3360%NA60--70% The Natatorium and Water Works Park Combined Operating Costs: The following is a snapshot of the financial performance of the Natatorium and Water Works Park: Denton Aquatic Division Financial Performance for Fiscal Year 2016-17 National National Annual Annual Operating Cost Benchmark - Benchmark - Expenditure Revenue Annual Net Cost per Hourly Net Per Person Aquatic FacilityRecovery Operating Cost Budget Generated SubsidyHour SubsidyNet Subsidy RateCost per Recovery (actual)(actual)(actual) HourRate The Natatorium$1,440,493$442,231-$998,262$338.94-$234.89-$7.2131%$300-$40035-50% Water Works Park$987,447$998,622$11,175$1,496.13$16.93$0.12101%NA 110-120% TOTALS$2,427,940$1,440,853-$987,087$1,835-$217.95-$7.0959%NA60--70% 12 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study Denton Independent School District Cost Share: The following is a snapshot of the cost-share for Fiscal Year 2016-17 per the Joint Use Agreement that states that DISD will contribute 50% of the combined operating loss of The Natatorium and Water Works Park: Denton Independent School District Cost Share (Fiscal Year 2016-17) Annual Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Aquatic Facilityper Lane per Person Share per Hour Hourper Use The Natatorium$493,544$340.96$41.13$14.65 Cost Allocation: Current practice is for all wages and benefits of full-time employees of the AquaticsDivisionto be charged to The Natatorium budget. o Task-Time Analysis: Ahigh level, task time analysis of full-time employees was conducted to determine the appropriate level of wages and benefits to be allocated to the Water Works Park and the Civic Center Pool. The outcome of this analysis is shown below: In summary, approximately $111,685 of full-time employee costs for the AquaticsDivision would be reallocated to the Civic Center Pool operating budget. This action alone would, in turn,reducethe combined net operating loss of Water Works Park and the Natatorium by the same amount, thereby reducing DISD’s 50% cost share by $55,842 annually. Pricing Strategies: The AquaticsDivisionemploys a host of dynamic pricing strategies in an effortto maximize revenue generation, however, additional strategies can be developed and implemented. o Non-Resident Fee:One shortfall to the pricing strategies is the fee that non-residents pay to participate in Aquaticsprograms offered by the City of Denton. The current 13 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation practice is “whatitalways has been” which is to add a nominal $5 surcharge to the fee of eachprogram. With non-residents making up 35% of program registrants, an updated non-resident fee pricing strategy should be considered to maximize its revenue generation. Revenue Generation: Currently, all fees, pricing strategies, discounts and promotions for the AquaticsDivisionmust be approved by Denton City Council as part of the City’s overall fee schedule during the annual budget process which begins each year in February. This is problematic, in particular for Water Works Park, as the information utilized to generate the fee schedule is not based on the most recent operating season. For example, information utilized to develop the fee schedule for Water Works Park for the 2018 operating season was based on data derived from the 2016 operating season. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Task Time Analysis:The City of Denton should conduct a 12-monthtask time analysis of Aquatics Divisionfull-time staff. This analysis will refine the cost allocation of full-time wages and benefits to the three Aquaticsfacilities and potentially result in further reduction of the annual Denton Independent School District cost sharing payment. Full Cost of Service Analysis:Upon completion of the task time analysis noted above, the AquaticsDivisionshould conduct a full cost of service analysis including the cost allocation of direct, indirect and administrative and overhead costs across all functional lines of service. This analysis will more accurately allocate costs to the three Aquaticsfacilities.More information regarding Cost of Service can be found on page 31-33. Revenue Generation: Latitude should be given to the Parks and Recreation Department and the AquaticsDivisionto develop and implement revenue generating strategies within the framework of new pricing policy on an as needed basis to meet (and exceed) cost recovery goals. Opportunities exist in the areas of: o Special events o City of Denton Employee Pricing for Denton Independent School District Employees o Increased cabana services at Water Works Park o Development of “luxury loungers” at Water Works Park o Further development of group sales for Water Works Park 14 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES The AquaticsDivisioncurrently does not classify its programs and services. Classification is an important process for an agency to remain aligned with the community’s interests and needs, the mission of the organization, and to sustainably operate within the bounds of its financial resources. The criteria utilized in program classification stems from the foundation’s concept detailed by Dr. John Crompton and Dr. Charles Lamb. In Marketing Government and Social Services, they purport that programs need to be evaluated based on the criteria of type, who benefits, and who bears the cost of the program. This is illustrated below: The approach taken in this analysis expands classifying services in the following ways: For whom the program is targeted For what purpose For what benefits For what cost For what outcome PARAMETERS FOR CLASSIFYINGPROGRAM TYPES The first milestone is to develop a classification system for the services and functions of the City of Denton’s AquaticsDivision. These systems need to reflect the statutory obligations of the agency, the support functions performed, and the value-added programs that enrich both the customer’s experience and generate earned revenues in mission-aligned ways to help support operating costs. In order to identify how the costs of services are supported and by what funding source, the programs are to be classified by their intended purpose and what benefits they provide. Then funding source expectations can then be assigned and this data used in future cost analysis. The results of this process are a summary of classification definitions and criteria, classification of programs within the City of Denton’s Aquatics Divisionand recommended cost recovery targets for each service based on these assumptions. Program classification is important as financial performance (cost recovery) goals are established for each category of services. This is then linked to the recommendations and strategies for each program or future site business plan. These classifications need to be organized to correspond with cost recovery expectations defined for each category. 15 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONPROCESS The service classification process consists of the following steps: 1.Develop a definition for each program classification that fits the legislative intent and expectations of the Division; the ability of the AquaticsDivisionto meet public needs within the appropriate areas of service; and the mission and core values of City of Denton’s Aquatics Division. 2.Develop criteria that can be used to evaluate each program and function within the Divisionand determine the classification that best fits. PROGRAM CLASSIFICATIONDESCRIPTIONS The program classification matrixprovided by PROS Consultingwas developed as a guide for the Aquatics Divisionstaff to follow when classifying programs, and how that program needs to be managed with regard to cost recovery. By establishing clarification of what constitutes a “Core Public Service”, “Important Public Service”, and “Value Added Service” will provide the Divisionand its stakeholders a better understanding of why and how to manage each program area as it applies to public value and private value. Additionally, the effectiveness of the criteria linked to performance management expectations relies on the true cost of programs (direct and indirect cost) being identified. Where a programfalls within this matrix can help to determine the most appropriate cost recovery rate that should be pursued and measured. This includes being able to determine what level of public benefit and private benefit exists as they apply to each program area. Public benefit is described as, “everyone receives the same level of benefit with equal access”. Private benefit is described as “the user receives exclusive benefit above what a general taxpayer receives for their personal benefit”. ESSENTIAL IMPORTANT VALUE-ADDED Programs Programs Programs Public interest; High public expectationHigh public expectation High individual and interest Legal Mandate; group expectation Mission Alignment Financial Sustainability Free, nominal or fee Fees cover some direct Fees cover most direct and tailored to public needs costs indirect costs Requires public funding Requires a balance of public Some public funding as funding and a cost recovery appropriate target Benefits (i.e., health, Substantial public benefit Public and individual benefit Primarily individual benefit safety, protection of (negative consequence if assets). not provided) Competition in the Limited or no alternative Alternative providers Alternative providers Market providers unable to meet demand or readily available need Access Open access by all Open access Limited access to users Limited access to users 16 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study Through a workshop with staff, the major functional program areas were classified based on the criteria identified on the previous page. This process included determining which programs and services fit into each classification criteria. Thencost recovery goals were established based on the guidelines included in this assessment. The percentage of cost recovery is based on the classification ofservices and will typicallyfall within these ranges, although anomalies will exist: Essential 0-35% Important 35-75% Value Added 75%+ The below tablerepresents a summary of programs and services, therecommendedclassification of those programs, as well as, recommended cost recovery goals to be achieved within the next sixyears. Cost Core Program AreaBenefit LevelClassificationPricing StrategyRecovery Goal After Hour Rentals/Group Outings - Civic Center Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% After Hour Rentals/Group Outings - NAT Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% After Hour Rentals/Group Outings - Water Works Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Aquatic Explorer Camp Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Aquatic Fitness Classes - NAT Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Aquatic Fitness Classes - River Robics Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Aquatic Safety Programs – Outreach Community EssentialGeneral Fund0-25% Babysitter Training Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Birthday Parties - Civic Center Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Birthday Parties - NAT Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Birthday Parties - Water Works Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Food and Beverage Services - Civic Center Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Food and Beverage Services - Water Works Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Group Learn to Swim Lessons - Civic Center Individual/Community ImportantUser Fees/General Fund50% Group Learn to Swim Lessons - NAT Individual/Community ImportantUser Fees/General Fund50% Junior Lifeguard Program Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Kayaking Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Lifeguard Training Certification Community/Individual ImportantUser Fees/General Fund50% Masters Swim Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Essential/Value Open/Lap Swim - NAT Community/IndividualGeneral Fund - User Fees25-75% Added Open Swim - Water Works Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Open/Lap Swim - Civic Center Pool Community EssentialGeneral Fund25% Private/Semi Private Swim Lessons Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Retail Sales - Gift Shop at Water Works Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Swim Teams/Meets - Denton Aquatics - NAT Individual/Community ImportantUser Fees/General Fund50% Swim Teams/Meets - Denton Aquatics - Civic Center Individual/Community ImportantUser Fees/General Fund50% Swim Teams and Meets – DISD Community EssentialGeneral Fund0% Triathlon Individual Value AddedUser Fees100% Water Safety Instructor Certification Community/Individual ImportantUser Fees/General Fund50% 17 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation UNDERSTANDINGTHE FULL COST OF SERVICE To properly fund all programs, either through taxes or user fees, and to establish the right cost recovery targets, a Cost of Service Analysis should be conducted on each program, or program type, that accurately calculates direct (i.e., program-specific) and indirect (i.e., comprehensive, including administrative overhead) costs. Completing a Cost of Service Analysis not only helps determine the true and full cost of offering a program butprovides information that can be used to price programs based upon accurate delivery costs. The figure below illustrates the common types of costs that must be accounted for in a Cost of Service Analysis. Personnel Costs Admin Building Cost Costs Allocation TOTAL Debt Service COSTS Vehicle Costs Costs FOR ACTIVITY Supply and Contracted Material Costs Services Equipment Costs The methodology for determining the total Cost of Service involves calculating the total cost for the activity, program, or service, then calculating the total revenue earned for that activity. Costs (and revenue) can also be derived ona per unit basis. Program or activity units may include: Number of participants Number of tasks performed Number of consumable units Number of service calls Number of events Required time for offering program/service Agencies use Cost of Service Analyses to determine what financial resources are required to provide specific programs at specific levels of service. Results are used to determine and track cost recovery as well as to benchmark different programs provided by the AquaticsDivisionbetween one another. Cost recovery goals are established once Cost of Service totals have been calculated. Divisionstaff should be 18 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study trained on the process of conducting a Cost of Service Analysis and the process undertaken on a regular basis. Currently, the AquaticsDivisiondoesnot utilize a full cost of service model to track cost recovery. Staff does, however, analyzerevenue, direct expendituresand cost recovery goals for most of itslines of service as shown in the table below: Fiscal Year 16-17 Core Program Area"Direct" Cost Recovery After Hour Rentals/Group Outings - Civic Center165% After Hour Rentals/Group Outings - NAT788% After Hour Rentals/Group Outings - Water Works168% Aquatic Explorer Camp181% Aquatic Fitness Classes - NAT0% Aquatic Fitness Classes - River Robics466% Aquatic Safety Programs – Outreach0% Babysitter Training NA Birthday Parties - Civic Center225% Birthday Parties - NAT104% Birthday Parties - Water Works202% Food and Beverage Services - Civic Center101% Food and Beverage Services - Water Works137% Group Learn to Swim Lessons - Civic Center103% Group Learn to Swim Lessons - NAT140% Junior Lifeguard Program175% Kayaking119% Lifeguard Training Certification158% Masters SwimNA Open/Lap Swim - NAT46% Open Swim - Water Works240% Open/Lap Swim - Civic Center Pool79% Private/Semi Private Swim LessonsNA Retail Sales - Gift Shop at Water Works127% Swim Teams/Meets - Denton Aquatics - NAT201% Swim Teams/Meets - Denton Aquatics - Civic Center99% Swim Teams and Meets – DISD0% Triathlon124% Water Safety Instructor CertificationNA 19 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation To moreaccurately track cost of service and cost recovery, the consulting team recommends the following: Develop New Pricing Policy Based on Classification of Programs and Services: Given the recommended shift in philosophical approach, it is important to refocus the Divisionon cost recovery goals by functional program area or line of service. Pricing based on established operating budget recovery goals will provide flexibility to maximize all pricing strategies to the fullest. Allowing the staff to work within a pricing range tied to cost recovery goals will permit them to set prices based on market factors and differential pricing (prime-time/non-primetime, season/off-season rates) to maximize user participation and also encourage additional group rate pricing where applicable. To gain and provide consistency, a revised pricing policy must be adopted in order for the Denton AquaticsDivisionto operate effectively and efficiently to meet the program cost recovery goals identified above. In short, it is important that the AquaticsDivisionstate its policy in all publications, on its website, and in its reservation processes to describe how they establish a price for a service or use of a facility. Example: “The City of Denton AquaticsDivision’sfunding that is derived from taxpayers is focused on mission-based facilities and services. The programs and facilities that are furthest from our mission, that provide an individual benefit, or that provide exclusive use will require higher fees from users or other sources to help offset operating costs.” It is recommended that the Denton City Council adopt the recommended cost recovery goals for the AquaticsDivision. Itis expected that the Denton AquaticsDivisionwill strive to continue to meet the cost recovery goals established for each program area as recommended. In order to continue to meet these goals, efforts must be made to: o Consistently deliver high quality programs and services o Strategically price programs and services o Solicit sponsorships and donations todevelop a sustainable earned income stream o Increase the utilization of volunteers to offset operational expenditures o Expand marketing to increase the volume of participation in programs and services It is expected that an iterative implementation process of introducing the classification methodology and a new pricing policy along with the refinement of the AquaticsDivision’s cost of service analysis will occur over the next sixyears. This process will have an impact on cost recovery as it will result in the refinement of foundational business elements including but not limited to service levels, service delivery, pricing and the guidelines developed to secure external operational funding sources such as grants, donations and partnerships. Additionally, external factors such as economic conditions and changes to the City’s financial policies will have a bearing on achieving a cost recovery goal in which revenue offsets 70% of expenditures. Develop Pricing Strategies:As the Denton AquaticsDivisionembarks on the implementation of a new pricing policy, it will be necessary to develop pricing strategies that will not only increase sales but also maximize the utilization of the City of Denton’sAquaticsfacilities. By creating pricing options, customers are given the opportunity to choose which option best 20 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study fits their schedule and price point. The consulting team recommends that the Aquatics Divisioncontinue to explore pricing strategies that create options for the customer. The following table offers examples of pricing options. PrimetimeIncentive Pricing Non-primetimeLength of Stay Pricing Season and Off-season RatesCost Recovery Goal Pricing Multi-tiered Program PricingLevel of Exclusivity Pricing Group Discounting and PackagingAge Segment Pricing Volume PricingLevel of Private Gain Pricing The most appropriate strategies for the Denton AquaticsDivisionto consider are as follows: Primetime and Non-primetime pricing strategy –The price is set based on the time of the day. Primetime is considered to be the time of day in which the demand for the service is highest. Fees for the rental of a park or pool during this time would be set at rate that would recover 125-150% of costs incurred. To lessen the demand for “primetime”, the Aquatics Divisioncan lower prices for rentals of the park or pool during times in which demand is lower. This will assist in maximizing the utilization of its facilities. Premium pricing -The price set is high to reflect the exclusiveness of the product. An example of this would be a user group paying higher rental fees for the exclusive use of a facility that prohibits the general public or other groups from participating. Consider a pricing strategy that provides a discount for online registration of programs. Consider a pricing strategy that provides for an increase to the Non-Resident Fee such as $1 per hour for each session of program. For example, if a learn to swim program meets for a total of 8 hours, the non-resident fee would be equal to $8. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING OF SERVICESCONSIDERATIONS The Denton Parks and Recreation Department fully operates, manages and maintains,at a best practice level,the City of Denton’s three Aquaticsfacilities. The contracting out of work is limited to repair, maintenance and installation of specialized equipment and systems. Additionally, Denton City Council not only establishes thefees for admission to the Aquaticsfacilities as well as the charges for the programs and services offered but does so in a manner to make the facilities, programs and services “affordable” to Denton residents by appropriating general fund dollars to offset the operating loss incurred by the AquaticsDivision. Given the best practice level at which the AquaticsDivisioncurrently operates and the desire to create affordable Aquaticsofferings to Denton residents, the Consultant does NOT recommend the contracting out of the management and maintenance of the City of Denton’s Aquaticsfacilities. It is, however,imperative that The City of Denton continually evaluate the capacity and cost of service of its operation against the private sector. Through the development of a managed competition process, the AquaticsDivisionwould continually update its cost of service modeling through the implementation of a work order management systemand,inturn,itwould internally analyze the unit cost to perform work internally against the unit cost for a third party contractor. The introduction of managed 21 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation competition will reinforce the concept of performing work in an effective and efficient manner by striving to meet unit cost and level of productivity targets. POLICY ANALYSIS Joint Use Agreement: The current joint use agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District can best be described as a basic framework of an agreement and lacks the detail necessary to better delineate roles, responsibilities, decision making authority and cost sharing. o The Natatorium Committee: The joint use agreement stipulates the formation and regular meeting of The Natatorium Committee to set usage procedures and policies for implementing the allocation of usage between the City and DISD. This committee has not met since circa 2005. Outside Food Policy at Water Works Park: Currently, there is not a policy in place that restricts patrons from bringing of outside food into the Water Works Park. This is potentially problematic as the AquaticsDivisionembarks on the operations of a full-service concession stand in the summer of 2018. (The full-service concession stand was constructed during 2016-2017 Fiscal Year in conjunction with the Wave Pool. The outcome of the full-service concession stand is to generate additional revenue to increase the overall cost recovery at Water Works Pool to 110- 120% -up from its current cost recovery rate of 104%). Procurement: Currently, most AquaticsDivisionsupply and material purchases are made through the City’s central warehouse. This practice has resulted in some charges to the Aquatics Divisionbudget that are above market rate and thereby, unnecessarily, inflating the Division’s expenditures. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Joint Use Agreement:Consider revising the joint use agreement to better delineate roles and responsibilities between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District.An example of a more “robust” joint use agreement is provided as a separate document. The Natatorium Committee:Consider reinstating the Natatorium Committee to increase accountability and lines of communication between the City and DISD. Outside Food Policy:Develop and implement an outside food policy that limitsthe food and beverage patrons can bring into the Water Works Park. Implementation of this policy can generate additional concession revenue, thereby increasing the cost recovery of the Water Works Park operation.An example of an “Outside Food Policy is as follows: Outside food and beverages are permitted as follows: o One clear, quart-sized sealed bag o One factory-sealed plastic water bottle (non-carbonated and colorless water only) not exceeding 1 liter in size per fan o Children’s single serving juice drinks in factory sealed box or pouch package o Baby formula and baby food o Small bags not exceeding 16” X 16” X 8” 22 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study CHAPTER FOUR–OPERATING PRO FORMA The consulting team utilized the following set of assumptions for the development of a high-level pro forma for the management of the threeAquaticsfacilities that make-up the Denton AquaticsDivision. AQUATICSASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATION ASSUMPTIONS Civic Center Pool will operate as a summer only “community pool” and will utilize a social service operating model to recover 30-40% of its costs. The Natatorium will operate as a year-round, full service Aquaticscenter and will utilize a blended operating model of “social service/business” to recover 35-50% of its costs. The Water Works Park will operate as a summer only destination water park and will utilize a business operating model to recover 110-120% of its costs. Full-time employee costs of $111,000 have been re-allocated from The Natatorium operating budget to the Civic Center Pool budgetas a result of the task time analysis. The AquaticsDivisionwill implement the Classification of Services recommendations. Water Works Park will implement a No Outside Food Policy as recommended in this report. The pro forma assumes current staffing levels of the Denton AquaticsDivisionand does NOT include the addition of full-time staffas noted in Section 3.1.2 Personnel expenditures are based on FY 2017-18salaries and wages and does not include an increase in minimum wage to $10+ per hour. GENERAL EXPENSE AND REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS Expenses are projected to be 100%of projected costs beginning in the modeled year “Operating Year 1”; annual increases of a set percent per year each year thereafter as based on Expenditure and Revenue Growth Inputs Revenues are projected to be 100% of projected revenue capacity beginning in the modeled year “Operating Year 1”; annual increases of a set percent per year each year thereafter as based on Expenditure and Revenue Growth Inputs OPERATING/GROWTH INPUT ASSUMPTIONS Operating and growth inputs are based on average increases per expenditure and revenue category; due to the volatility of the health care for staff and utility costs, higher growth rates were utilized o Revenues are projected to growth annual by 3% through growth in users and fee adjustments o Salaries and Benefit growth rate is calculated at 3% annual growth due to the potential volatility of the insurance/pension fund requirements o Supplies expenditures arecalculated at 3% annual growth due to inflation o Other services growth rate is calculated at an average of 2% annual growthdue to ongoing increases in City of Denton Internal Service Fund transfers 23 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation From these assumptions, PROS Consulting projects that the AquaticsDivisioncan operate at a 70% cost recovery beginning in Fiscal Year 2019-20and require a subsidy in the form of the DISD joint use agreement subsidy andageneral fund subsidyto offset the total operating loss ($907,500). BASIC PRO FORMA–FULL AQUATICSDIVISION The following table summarizes the financial operations for the first year of the pro forma –Fiscal Year 2019-20for the Denton AquaticsDivision. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures DENTON AQUATIC DIVISION BASELINE: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES RevenuesCost Over (Under) Recovery - SERVICE TITLEExpendituresPercent RevenuesExpenditures Water Works Park$1,545,000.00$1,405,000.00$140,000.00 110% The Natatorium$479,500.00$1,360,000.00($880,500.00)35% Civic Center Pool$155,000.00$344,000.00($189,000.00)45% 70% Total $2,179,500.00$3,109,000.00($929,500.00) BASIC PRO FORMA –WATER WORKS PARK AND THE NATATORIUM The following table summarizes the financial operations for the first year of the pro forma –Fiscal Year, 2019-20for the Water Works Park and the Natatorium. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures DENTON AQUATIC DIVISION BASELINE: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES RevenuesCost Over (Under) Recovery - SERVICE TITLEExpendituresPercent RevenuesExpenditures Water Works Park + The Natatorium$2,024,500.00$2,765,000.00($740,500.00)73% Total $2,024,500.00$2,765,000.00($740,500.00)73% 24 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study REVENUE MODEL The following table summarizes the revenue model for the three Aquaticsfacilities that comprise the AquaticsDivision. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures DENTON AQUATIC DIVISION REVENUE MODEL DIVISIONACCOUNT TITLEEXPLANATION REVENUES REVENUES WWPAdmissions$1,000,000.00 WWPConcessions$400,000.00 WWPGift Shop$15,000.00 WWPPrograms$30,000.00 WWPFacility Rental$100,000.00 TOTAL WWP Revenues $1,545,000.00 DIVISIONACCOUNT TITLEEXPLANATION REVENUES REVENUES The NATAdmissions$125,000.00 The NATConcessions$3,000.00 The NATMerchandise$1,500.00 The NATPrograms$275,000.00 The NATFacility Rental$75,000.00 TOTAL NATATORIUM REVENUES $479,500.00 DIVISIONACCOUNT TITLEEXPLANATION REVENUES REVENUES CCPAdmissions$75,000.00 CCPPrograms$60,000.00 CCPRentals$20,000.00 TOTAL CIVIC CENTER POOL REVENUES $155,000.00 25 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation EXPENDITURE MODEL –WATER WORKS PARK The following table summarizes the expenditure model for Water Works Park. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures WATER WORKS PARK ACCOUNT TITLE BUDGET REVENUES Admissions$1,000,000.00 Concessions$400,000.00 Gift Shop$15,000.00 Programs$30,000.00 Facility Rental$100,000.00 TOTAL REVENUES$1,545,000.00 EXPENDITURES BUDGET PERSONNEL SERVICES TotalPersonnel Services$780,000.00 SUPPLIES TotalSupplies$610,000.00 OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES TotalOther Services$15,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSESTOTAL EXPENSES$1,405,000.00 NET REVENUE/(LOSS)$140,000.00 26 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study EXPENDITURE MODEL –THE NATATORIUM The following table summarizes the expenditure model for The Natatorium. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures THE NATATORIUM ACCOUNT TITLE BUDGET REVENUES Admissions$125,000.00 Concessions$3,000.00 Merchandise$1,500.00 Programs$275,000.00 Facility Rental$75,000.00 TOTAL REVENUES$479,500.00 EXPENDITURES BUDGET PERSONNEL SERVICES TotalPersonnel Services$800,000.00 SUPPLIES TotalSupplies$450,000.00 OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES TotalOther Services$110,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSESTOTAL EXPENSES$1,360,000.00 NET REVENUE/(LOSS)($880,500.00) 27 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation EXPENDITURE MODEL –CIVIC CENTER POOL The following table summarizes the expenditure model for the Civic Center Pool. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures CIVIC CENTER POOL ACCOUNT TITLE BUDGET REVENUES Admissions$75,000.00 Programs$60,000.00 Rentals$20,000.00 TOTAL REVENUES$155,000.00 EXPENDITURES Personnel Services TotalPersonnel Services$250,000.00 SUPPLIES TotalSupplies$75,000.00 OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES TotalOther Services$19,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSESTOTAL EXPENSES$344,000.00 NET REVENUE/(LOSS)($189,000.00) 28 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study SIX YEAR PRO FORMA –FULL AQUATICSDIVISION Based on all operating assumptions set forth within this report, and excluding any unforeseen circumstances, the Denton AquaticsDivisionis projected to achieve and maintain a cost recovery of70%. A summary of the six-year pro forma is presented in the table below. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures DENTON AQUATIC DIVISION BASELINE: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Revenues 1st Year2nd Year3rd Year4th Year5th Year6th Year Water Works Park$1,545,000.00$1,591,350.00$1,639,090.50$1,688,263.22$1,738,911.11$1,791,078.44 The Natatorium$479,500.00$493,885.00$508,701.55$523,962.60$539,681.47$555,871.92 Civic Center Pool$155,000.00$159,650.00$164,439.50$169,372.69$174,453.87$179,687.48 Total $2,179,500.00$2,244,885.00$2,312,231.55$2,381,598.50$2,453,046.45$2,526,637.84 Expenditures 1st Year2nd Year3rd Year4th Year5th Year6th Year Water Works Park$1,405,000.00$1,447,150.00$1,490,564.50$1,535,281.44$1,581,339.88$1,628,780.07 The Natatorium$1,360,000.00$1,400,800.00$1,442,824.00$1,486,108.72$1,530,691.98$1,576,612.74 Civic Center Pool$344,000.00$346,630.00$349,335.10$352,117.48$354,979.37$357,923.09 Total $3,109,000.00$3,194,580.00$3,282,723.60$3,373,507.63$3,467,011.23$3,563,315.91 Total Cost Recovery70%70%70%71%71%71% SIX YEAR PRO FORMA –WATER WORKS PARK AND THE NATATORIUM Based on all operating assumptionsset forth within this report, and excluding any unforeseen circumstances, the combined financial performance of the Water Works Park and the Natatorium is projected to achieve and maintain a cost recovery of70%. A summary of the six-year pro forma is presentedin the table below. Pro Forma Revenues & Expenditures DENTON AQUATIC DIVISION BASELINE: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Revenues 1st Year2nd Year3rd Year4th Year5th Year6th Year Water Works Park$1,545,000.00$1,591,350.00$1,639,090.50$1,688,263.22$1,738,911.11$1,791,078.44 The Natatorium$479,500.00$493,885.00$508,701.55$523,962.60$539,681.47$555,871.92 Total $2,024,500.00$2,085,235.00$2,147,792.05$2,212,225.81$2,278,592.59$2,346,950.36 Expenditures 1st Year2nd Year3rd Year4th Year5th Year6th Year Water Works Park$1,380,000.00$1,421,400.00$1,464,042.00$1,507,963.26$1,553,202.16$1,599,798.22 The Natatorium$1,360,000.00$1,400,800.00$1,442,824.00$1,486,108.72$1,530,691.98$1,576,612.74 Total $2,740,000.00$2,822,200.00$2,906,866.00$2,994,071.98$3,083,894.14$3,176,410.96 Total Cost Recovery74%70%70%70%71%71% City of Denton General Fund Subsidy$357,750.00$368,482.50$379,536.98$390,923.08$402,650.78$414,730.30 Denton Independent School District Subsidy$357,750.00$368,482.50$379,536.98$390,923.08$402,650.78$414,730.30 FINANCIAL SUMMARY The projected 70% cost recovery would result in a decrease in the overall net subsidy from its current level of $1,077,017to $929,500in Fiscal Year 2019-20. This is a savings of $147,517to the taxpayers of theCity of Denton. 29 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation CHAPTER FIVE–ACTION PLAN MATRIX The consultant synthesized its findings to develop a framework of strategic recommendations for the City of Denton’s AquaticsDivision. The Action Plan features recommended strategies that align with threemajor categories: Efficiencyand Effectiveness, Revenue Generation,and Policyand Procedures. The Action Plan should be evaluated and refined as political and economic circumstances shift and be used to accomplishthe vision and mission of AquaticsDivision. A complete implementation plan matrix, including tactics, accountability, timelines and performance measures,has been provided as a separate, stand-alone document. EFFICIENCYand EFFECTIVENESS Create an efficient and effective service delivery model of Aquatics for Denton residents. Develop and implement a plan that upgrades the utilization of technology to capture and Strategy analyze data while improving customer service. (Examples include: Point-of-sale scanners, I- Pads for staff, interactive point of sale system for Water Works Park concession) Upgrade the security system at the Natatorium to reduce incidences of false alarms. Strategy Engage the City of Denton’s Procurement Division to determine opportunities to reduce Strategy Aquatics Division expenditures. Implement a work order management system for Aquatics maintenance. Strategy REVENUE GENERATION Increase cost recovery for the Aquatics Division to 70% from 60%. Consider the addition of a Marketing Coordinator and Administrative/Financial Analyst Strategy Develop and implement a target marketing program that includes increasing efforts in the Strategy area of group sales Implement the Classification of Services Model that focuses on cost recovery based on level Strategy of benefit received. Evaluate the introduction of premium services at the Water Works Park, including cabana Strategy services, luxury loungers and interactive point of sale system for concessions Develop and implement Community Special Events at the Water Works Park Strategy Consider offering City of Denton Employee Pricing for Aquatics programs and services to Strategy Denton Independent School District employees Allow Aquatics Division staff to implement dynamic pricing strategies on an as needed basis Strategy within the framework of the new pricing policy. 30 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study POLICY and PROCEDURE Align policy with the recommended operating models for each Aquatics facility while continually seeking to manage the facilities utilizing best practice standards and procedures. Adopt a Pricing Policy for Aquatics Division that aligns the operating models of the three Strategy Aquatics facilities. Adopt a “No Outside Food Policy” for Water Works Park to maximize the return on Strategy investment of the new concession stand Revisit the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent Strategy School District in an effort to better delineate roles, responsibilities, decision making authority and cost sharing. Update Aquatics personal protective equipment standards. See Appendix B for a template Strategy policy. Develop and implement a written non-swimmer protection policy. Strategy Create written, special needs patron safety guidelines. Strategy Implement a formal allocation policy for the utilization of the Aquatics facilities. Strategy Conduct a full task time analysis of Aquatics Divisionfull-time staff to refine the cost allocation of full-time wages and benefits to the three Aquatics facilities and potentially Strategy result in further reduction of the annual Denton Independent School District cost sharing payment Conduct a full cost of service analysis including the cost allocation of direct, indirect and Strategy administrative and overhead costs across all functional lines of service. This analysis will more accurately allocate costs to the three Aquatics facilities Eliminate “Coin-for-A-Key” locker system to improve customer service by eliminating the Strategy perception of putting a financial strain on the customer by charging small amounts for a minor service (“nickel and diming”) 31 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation CHAPTER SIX-CONCLUSION The overall vision and mission of the DentonAquaticsDivisionhas evolved over the past decade as the City continues todevelop as a community comprised of healthy-minded, physically active citizens who love swimming. This evolution creates challenges and opportunities for the AquaticsDivisionto operate effectively and efficiently while recovering costs. The AquaticsAssessmentincludes recommendations to ensure that the DentonAquaticsDivisionis positioned to accomplish short and long-term goals, initiatives, tactics and measurements while delivering best practice Aquaticsfacilities, services and programs to the Denton Community. 32 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study APPENDIXA-FORMAL ALLOCATION GUIDELINES PRIORITY USE SYSTEM Following is a list of user types in priority order. This priority list needs to be used as a guide in allocating pool space, while still ensuring a balance of programming is offered for the residents of Denton. LANE ALLOCATION CONSIDERATIONS Groups in good financial standing with the City of Dentonwill be allocated pool time, utilizing the Priority Use System as a framework. While this system provides a framework for allocation, the City of Denton Aquaticsstaff will need to distribute pool space and times with the goal of ensuring that a balance of activities and opportunities are available to residents of varying Aquaticsinterest. Users may not monopolize desirable pool time so as to jeopardize a variety of programming opportunities being offered to the residents of Denton. If competing requests for allocation takes place, the following factors will be considered in allocation of lanes: Percentage of residents vs. nonresidents Size of program Total number of Dentonresidents in the organization/program Type of program Consistent use of previous allocation Adherence to permit requirements and facility rules and regulations during previous commitments Once pool permits have been issued, additional pool time will be permitted only if space is available during the time requested. At least a two-week advance written notice is required if an organization wishes to cancel the permitted lane. If the canceled permitted lanes are not needed for city programs, staff will notify other existing permit holders via email of the lane availability andallocate the available pool space to the first respondent. All permitting of pool space will be approved in writing. To ensure safe and quality workouts, organizations are expected to limit the number of participants entering the pools in relationship to the number of lanes they are permitted. NONPROFIT STATUS In order to be classified as a nonprofit organization, verification demonstrating good standing with the State of Colorado is requiredby June 30th of each year for returning organizations and at the time of permit application submission for new applicants. RESIDENT ORGANIZATIONS In order to qualify as a resident organization, at least 50% of an organization’s participants using the pools must be Dentonresidents. Participants are defined as “unduplicated” (# of different people). Organizations with both adult and youth programs are classified separately by program. Organizations that have not applied for a permit at the pools within thelast 12 months will be required to submit organization program rosters with full home addresses of participants (business addresses, PO boxes, etc. are not acceptable) to the pools at the time the permit application is submitted. Newly formed organizations must submit their roster to the pools prior to the first day of use. This roster will be compared to the information submitted with the permit application and user category classification adjustments will be made as warranted. 33 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation It is recommended that the AquaticsDivisiontrack not just residency but also total participation. CLASSIFICATION IN PRIORITY USE CATEGORIES For determining placement in the Priority Use Categories, participation levels during the 12-month period prior to each seasonal application deadline are used. If 50% or more participants are residents, the organization will be categorized as a resident organization (youth and adult programs calculated separately) for the upcoming permit period. APPLICATION PROCESS Applications for pool permitswill be accepted twice per year for priority processing. Application/permit dates are approximate and may be adjusted based on school calendars and/or staff schedules. Permitting periods may vary each year in order to adhere to the DentonValley School District’s school-year calendar, and/or pool maintenance schedules. Hours requested on the permit application are to include warm up, stretching, and cool down time. Permits requested after the application deadline for each permitting period will be issued on a space availability basis. CANCELLATIONS Permitted groups cannot exchange or sublet their allocated pool space to any other group and will be responsible for paying for all lanes permitted. If non-weather-relatedcancellations are requested by a group, credit will only be given with two or more weeks advanced written notification to Aquaticsstaff. PERMIT GROUP ATTENDANCE Member information for each organization will be entered into the City’s recreation software system and each person will be issued an Activity Passport card to be swiped upon entering the pools. A fee for the Activity Passport cards will becharged for participants. In the event an organization has a new participant that has not been added to the organization’s roster, they will be askedto sign-in upon entry to the pools and be counted as a nonresident unless proof of Dentonresidency is provided. New members will be given a grace period in which to obtain an Activity Passport card. Members that continually participate with an organization without obtaining an Activity Passport card may be denied access until a card is obtained. Organizations will be required to provide staff with information on new and deleted members on at least a monthly basis in order to update the automated system. RESIDENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR BILLING PURPOSES Organizations will be classified as resident or nonresident on a quarterly basis. At the conclusion of each calendar quarter, staff will determine the number of resident and nonresident participants from each organization (youth and adult programs calculated separately). If the percentage of resident participants during the concluding quarter is 50% or greater, the organization will be classified as a resident organization for that quarter and billed accordingly.If the percentage of resident participants during the concluding quarter is less than 50%, the organization will be classified as a nonresident organization for that quarter and be billed accordingly. PAYMENT Organizations will be billed quarterly. Payment of invoices will be due upon receipt and is considered delinquent if not received within thirty days of invoice date. Permits may be canceled with lanes reallocated and facility access denied if payment is not received on time. Late payments may also result in loss of priority standing for the following permitting season and a requirement for advance payment may be instituted. 34 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study SWIM MEETRENTALS Organizations can apply for use of the pools for swim meets, although the City is limited in the number of meets that can be held each year pursuant to the operating conditions for the facility. Fees are charged on a per-hour basis and only include use of the lap pools. Staff will provide timely notice to permit groups regarding permit changes due to meets schedules. PROHIBITED USES Permits will not be issued to organizations that compete with City programs. Private instruction requires authorization by the City of DentonAquaticsSupervisor. 35 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation APPENDIXB–AQUATICSPERSONAL PROTECTIVEEQUIPMENT STANDARDS Lifesaving is a trainable technique that has been refined for maximum effectiveness. Rescue techniques are employed using specific equipment. This equipment is essential to protect the user and the victim. The following equipment is not optional. It is used to ensure proper rescuer performance and provide appropriate rescuer safety. TUBE The tube provides the rescuer with protection and prevention from sinking. It also provides the victim with buoyancy and prevents the lifeguard from having to fully support the victim’s weight. The tube must be in possession of the on-duty lifeguard at all times, no exceptions! The strap is to be worn by the lifeguard and gathered to prevent catching on the chair during exit. The tube can be used as a barrier for the lifeguard in the event of an emergency (i.e., keeps the guard in control, keeps the victim away from the lifeguard, supports four to five victims’ heads above the static water line). MASK & GLOVES The mask protects the lifeguard from ingestingvomit or other bodily fluids. Gloves give the rescuer protection from blood borne pathogens and give the victim assurance that their rescuer will not panic and quit before the rescue is complete. Mask and gloves will always be with the guard, preferably in a fanny pack. Virtually all drowning and near drowning incidents involve bodily fluids, especially vomit, which has the potential to beexpelled into the guard’s mouthif they do not utilize a mask. The guard will not use these protective devices if they are not readily available. The fanny pack must be worn at all times while at the pool facility. This will ensure they are prepared if they have to respond to an emergency off the pool deck. TRAINING Every lifeguard is required to be certified, a facility must take extra precautions into consideration. Conduct training that will focus specifically on Personal Protective Equipment utilization and practice. During training, “create” artificial body fluids using fake blood and Alka-Seltzer. This strategy will help prepare your guards to adapt to encountering this scenario. Regularly verify that lifeguards are properly equipped and rescue-ready. Lifeguards train and practice in closed environments, usually free of blood borne pathogens and actual drowning victims. It may be difficult to conceive of such a remote and unfamiliar danger as a blood borne pathogen, but the exposure, once experienced, has the potential to be life changing and irrevocable. 36 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study APPENDIX C -NON-SWIMMER PROTECTION POLICY Many Aquaticsfacilities do not test the swimming capabilities of unknown swimmers. Frequently, tragic stories demonstrate the need to develop and implement swim test protocols. An increasing number of Aquaticsfacilities have implemented a non-swimmer protection policy and are now successfully testing swimmers of unknown ability, especially participants of special use groups like day camps, rental groups, and birthday parties. Following is a recommended policy for non-swimmer protection, including all children and adults that are part of an outside group (rentals, special events, birthday parties, etc.). TEST: Swim test to determine swimming ability. Users who do not take the test, or children under seven years old, may automatically be designated as non-swimmers. MARK: Clearly mark all users to identify swimming ability. PROTECT: Most Aquaticsincidents happen in shallow water (3'-5'). Protect non-swimmers, especially younger children, by restricting them to the shallow end and adding additional layers of protection. 1. The non-swimmer is actively engaged in a swim lesson or activity with staff. 2. The non-swimmer is actively supervised, within arms-reach of an adult parent or caregiver; and/or 3. The non-swimmer is wearing a properly fitted US Coast Guard approved Life Jacket. Any change in policy and procedure may encounter difficulties in administration and implementation. Although modifications and new innovations to a policy are anticipated to overcome implementation challenges, the spirit of a policy needs to be fully implemented. A non-swimmer protection policy must be enforced at all times without exception. Failure to do so may put the City of Denton“at risk” in the event of an incident. More importantly, failure to enforce this or a similar policy leaves yourswimmers at risk. 37 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation APPENDIX D -SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR PATRONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) persons with disabilities must be provided equal access and opportunity to use all of the City of Denton’s Aquaticsfacilities. In addition to providing the necessary physical accommodations like ramps and hydro-lifts, Aquaticsstaff must also be prepared to assist people with disabilities in normal activities and to respond appropriately in case of an emergency. Although there are many types of disabilities, it is most important to remember that everyone is a person first. Within the AquaticsDivision, there are several scenarios in which lifeguards may be asked to work with or supervise people with disabilities; and your role will vary based on the situation, age of the person and the person’s ability to understand safety and directions. Drop-In/Free Swim: For a drop-in, a patron with a disability has paid the entrance fee to the rec center and is coming to swim either in the lap or leisure pool. As with any other patron, as a lifeguard your role is to supervise them in the pool to make sure they are being safe and following the pool rules. Your role does not include helping patrons dress, use the restroom or transferring people in or out of wheelchairs. People needing additional support with these types of activities are able to bring an assistant in to the recreation center free of charge to help them. Our pools all have water wheelchairs, accessible entries intothe pools (lifts, ramps, zero depth entry) and assistive floatation devices (life jackets, water belts, etc.). If a patron would like to use this equipment, please watch to ensure they are using it correctly. Registered Class/Swim Lesson: In this situation, a patron has pre-registered for a class and requested an accommodation. At this point, an EXPAND staff will complete an assessment with the patron and decide upon some accommodations to help make the lesson a positive, successful experience for everyone. Accommodations may include things such as a visual schedule of the lesson plan, helping a patron transfer into or out of the pool and having an extra City of Dentonstaff to assist the patron in the water. Swim instructors will be given information about the person in their class and the accommodations being made for them ahead of time. Staff who will be in charge of physically assisting individuals will be trained in the correct procedures to ensure they do not hurt themselves or the patron. This includes things such as transferring people in and out of wheelchairs, using adaptive Aquaticsequipment and assisting patrons in the rest room. Please do not attempt to physically assist someone without the proper training –both you’reand the patron’s safety are of upmost importance! In general, lifeguards need to: Recognize individuals with various challenges and communicate effectively with them. Be able to safely and efficiently assist each of them in case of need. Be proactive to prevent a potentially dangerous situation from becoming an emergency. Modify rescue protocols and procedures; regularly practice how to assist these patrons. Increase guard-to-swimmer ratios to provide adequate protection in pools that include groups of swimmers with disabilities. The Aquaticsstaff must remember individuals with disabilities are people first, people who are to be treated with the same level of respect and dignity that would be afforded to any patron. 38 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study APPENDIX E -MARKETANALYSIS The Demographic Analysis provides an understanding of the population of Denton, Texas. This analysis is reflective of the total population, and its key characteristics such as age segments, income levels, race, and ethnicity. It is important to note that future projections are all based on historical patterns and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the projections could have a significant bearing on the validity of the final projections. METHODOLOGY Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained fromCityof Denton’s Department of Development Services, theU.S. Census Bureau and fromthe Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), the largest research and development organization dedicated to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population projections and market trends. All data was acquired in January 2018and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2010 Censuses and estimates for 2017 and 2022as obtained by ESRI. Straight line linear regressionwas utilized for projected 2027 and 2032demographics. RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The Census 2010 data onrace are not directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis. American Indian –This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment Asian –This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam Black –This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander –This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands White –This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa Hispanic or Latino –This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race 39 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation DENTON POPULACE POPULATION The City’s population has experienced a growingtrend in recent yearsand is currently estimated at 124,601individuals. Projecting ahead, the total population is expected to continue to grow rapidly over the next 15 years. Based on predictions through 2032, the service area is expected to have 171,847 residents living within 60,086households–a projected annual increase of 2%, which is nearly three times that of the US annual growth of 0.7%. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS 200,00070,000 60,086 180,000 60,000 54,422 160,000 48,270 50,000 140,000 43,567 39,784 120,000 40,000 100,000 30,000 171,847 80,000 155,647 137,569 60,000 124,601 20,000 113,383 40,000 10,000 20,000 00 20102017 Estimate202220272032 CensusProjectionProjectionProjection PopulationHouseholds Please note. Figures above include North Texas State University and Texas Woman’s University student enrollment figures of approximately 53,000 which contributes significantly to the overall population of the City of Denton. 40 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study AGE SEGMENT Evaluating the population by age segments, the service area exhibits an unbalanced distribution of population among the major age segments. Currently, the largest age segment, as expected due to the presence of the two major universities, is the 18-34 segment, making up 40.1% of the population. The overall age composition of the population within the City is projected to undergo a slight aging trend. While most of the younger age segments are expected to remain the same or experience slight decreases in population percentage; those who are 55 and older are projected to continue increasing over the next 15 years, making up 22.8% of the population by 2032 –an increase of 3.4% over 2017. POPULATION BY AGE SEGMENT 0-1213-1718-3435-5455-6465-7475+ 100% 3.8% 4.1% 4.9% 5.1% 5.4% 5.0% 6.5% 7.1% 7.8% 90% 8.4% 8.0% 8.8% 8.5% 8.8% 9.0% 80% 21.6% 70% 20.7% 21.3% 20.9% 20.8% 60% 50% 40.9% 40% 40.1% 38.5% 38.0% 37.3% 30% 20% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 10% 15.2% 14.4%14.4% 14.1% 13.9% 0% 20102017 Estimate202220272032 CensusProjectionProjectionProjection Please note. Figures above include North Texas State University and Texas Woman’s University student enrollment figures of approximately 53,000 which significantly contribute to the 18-34- year-old age segment. 41 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation RACE AND ETHNICTY In analyzing race, the service area’s current populations are predominately White Alone. The 2017 estimates show that 70% of the service area’s population falls into the White Alone category, while the Black Alone category (12%) represents the largest minority. The predictions for 2032 project that the service area’s population by race will diversity even further with a decrease in the White Alone population by approximately 8% and slight gains in most every other category. POPULATION BY RACE White AloneBlack AloneAmerican IndianAsianPacific IslanderSome Other RaceTwo or More Races 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% 4% 5% 6% 7% 7% 10% 12% 14% 15% 15% 74% 70% 66% 64% 62% 20102017 ESTIMATE202220272032 CENSUSPROJECTIONPROJECTION PROJECTION Based on the 2010 census,those of Hispanic/Latino origin represent 22% of the City’s total population. The Hispanic/Latino population is expected to experience a slight increaseof 36% by 2032. HISPANIC POPULATION Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race)All Others 100% 90% 80% 70% 73% 60% 78% 50% 40% 30% 20% 27% 10% 22% 0% 2010 Census2032 Projection 42 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME As seen in chart below, the City’s per capita and median household income levels are slightly below the states averages and in-line with national averages. COMPARATIVE INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Per Capita IncomeMedian Household Income $57,617 $56,565 $49,919 $31,128 $28,714 $27,755 DentonTexasU.S.A. Please note. Figures above include North Texas State University and Texas Woman’s University student enrollment figures of approximately 53,000 which significantly contribute to the “depression” of income averages in the City of Denton. 43 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation DENTONDEMOGRAPHICIMPLICATIONS The following implications are derived from the analyses provided above. Each implication is organized by the outlined demographic information sections. POPULATION The population is increasing and is projected to experience a 30% population growth over the next 15 years. With a growing population,opportunity exists for Aquaticsservicesto grow and change tokeep pace with the population. AGE SEGMENTATION Denton has an unbalanced age segmentation with the largest group being 18-34with the second largest group being 35-54.Over the next 15 years, whilethe younger age segments are expected to remain experience slight decreases in population percentage; those who are 55 and older are projected to increase by 3.4%over the next 15 years, making up 22.8% of the population by 2032.This is significant as providing access to Aquaticsservices and programs will need to be focused on amultitude of age segments simultaneously and equally challenging as age segments have different likings towards Aquatics activities. RACE AND ETHNICITY Adiversifying population will likely focus the Cityon providing traditional and non-traditionalAquatics programming and service offerings while always seeking to identify emerging activities and sportsin the area of Aquatics HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME With median and per capita household income averages in-line withthe state averages and below that of national averages, it would be important for the Cityto prioritize providing Aquaticsofferings that are first class with exceptional customer service while modestly seeking opportunities to create revenue generation. 44 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study OVERVIEW OF NATIONALPARTICIPATORY TRENDS Information released by Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 2016 Study of Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report reveals that the most popular sport and recreational activities include: fitness walking, treadmill, running/jogging, free weights, and road bicycling. Most of these activities appeal to both young and old alike, can be done in most environments, are enjoyed regardless of level of skill, and have minimal economic barriers to entry. These popular activities also have appeal because of their social application. For example, although fitness activities are mainly self- directed, people enjoy walking and biking with other individuals because it can offer a degree of camaraderie. Fitness walking has remained the most popular activity of the past decade by a large margin, in terms of total participants. Fitness walking participation last year was reported to be roughly 109.8 million Americans. Although fitness walking has the highest level of participation, it did report a 2.4% decrease in 2015 from the previous year. This recent decline in fitness walking participation paired with upward trends in a wide variety of other activities, especially in fitness and sports, suggests that active individuals are finding newways to exercise and diversifying their recreational interests. In addition, the popularity of many outdoor adventure and water-based activities has experienced positive growth based on the most recent findings; however, many of these activities’ rapid increase in participation is likely a product of their relatively low user base, which may indicate that these sharp upward trends may not be sustained long into the future. From a traditional team sport standpoint, basketball ranks highest among all sports, with approximately 23.4 million people reportedly participating in 2015. In general, nearly every sport with available data experienced an increase in participation, which is a reversal from the five-year trend of declining participation in sports. Sports that have experienced significant growth in participation are squash, boxing, lacrosse, rugby, roller hockey, and field hockey –all of which have experienced growth in excess of 30% over the last five years. More recently, roller hockey, racquetball,indoor soccer, boxing, and flag football were the activities with the most rapid growth during the last year. According to the Physical Activity Council, an “inactive” is defined as an individual that doesn’t take part in any physical activity. Over the last five years, the number of inactive individuals has increased 7.4% from 76 million in 2010 to 81.6 million in 2015. However, looking at just the past year, from 2014 to 2015, the US saw a slight decrease of 0.6% from 82.7 to 81.6 million individuals. Although this recent shift is very promising, inactivity remains a dominant force in society, evidenced by the fact that 27.7% of the population falls into this category. The Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2016was utilized to evaluate national sport and fitness participatory trends. The study is based survey findings by the Physical Activity Council from a total of 32,658 online interviews carried out in 2015. The purposeof the report is to establish levels of activity and identify key participatory trends in recreation across the US. 45 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATICSACTIVITY Swimming is unquestionably a lifetime sport, and all Aquaticsactivitieshave experienced strong participation growth among the American population. In 2016, fitness swimming is the absolute leader inoverall participation (26.6 million) for Aquaticsactivities, due in large part to its broad, multigenerational appeal.In the most recent year, competition swimming reported the strongest growth (16.5%) among Aquaticsactivities, followed by Aquaticsexercise (14.6%) and fitness swimming (1.1%). Aquaticsexercise also has a strong participation base and has experienced steady growth since 2011. Aquaticsexercise has paved the way as aless stressful form of physical activity, while allowing similar benefits as land-based exercises, including aerobic fitness, resistance training, flexibility, and better balance. Doctors are nowrecommending Aquaticsexercise for injury rehabilitation, mature patients, and patients with bone or joint problems,due to the significant reduction of stress placed on weight- bearing joints, bones, muscles, and also the effect of the water in reducing swelling frominjuries. While all activities have undergone increases over the last five years and most recently, casual participation (1-49 times) is increasing much more rapidly than core participation (50+ times). For the five-year timeframe, casual participants of competition swimming increased by 123.9%, Aquaticsexercise by 27.5% and fitness swimming by 26.4%. However, core participants of fitness swimming decreased by 4.8% in 2016. From 2011 to 2016, core participation of competition swimming declined by 2.3% and Aquaticsexercise declined by 0.1%. 46 Denton Aquatics Assessment Study LOCAL MARKET POTENTIALFOR AQUATICS The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Data (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service within the Cityand its surrounding service area. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the US National average. The national average is 100, therefore numbers below 100 would represent a lower than average participation rate, and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rate. The service area is compared to the national average in three (3) categories –general sports, fitness and outdoor activity. Overall, Dentondemonstrates averagemarket potential index (MPI) numbers. Looking at the three categories (general sports, fitness andoutdoor activity), almost all of the activities’ MPI scores fall above 100+. These overallMPI scores show that Denton hasrelativelystrong participation rates when it comes to recreational activities. This becomes significant to consider as there are 11 activities that have higher MPI scores than swimming. High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate that there is a greater potential that residents of the service area will actively participate in offerings providedby the City. GENERAL SPORTS (AND SWIMMING) MPI General Sports 180 159 152 160 137137 134 140 122 120 118 115 114 109 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 DentonNational Average 100 47 Cityof DentonParks and Recreation GENERAL FITNESS (ANDSWIMMING) MPI Fitness 180 153 160 142 140 125125 122122 120 104 103 100 80 60 40 20 0 AerobicsJogging/PilatesSwimmingWalking forWeightYogaZumba RunningExerciseLifting DentonNational Average 100 OUTDOOR ACTIVITY (AND SWIMMING) MPI Outdoor Activity 180 153 160 140 124 122 119119 117 111111 120 101 91 100 80 60 40 20 0 DentonNational Average 100 48 City Hall City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 www.cityofdenton.com Legislation Text File #:ID 18-614,Version:1 AGENDA CAPTION Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding school safety, the School Resource Officer (SRO) program and Memorandum of Understanding, the Hero’s Helping program, and any programs or services between the Denton Police Department and Denton Independent School District. (30 minutes) City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/3/2018 powered by Legistar© City of Denton City Hall 215 E. McKinney Street Denton, Texas www.cityofdenton.com _____________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET DEPARTMENT: POLICE CM/ DCM/ ACM: Todd Hileman DATE: May 7, 2018 SUBJECT Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding school safety, the School Resource Officer (SRO) program the Denton Police Department and Denton Independent School District. BACKGROUND The Denton Police Department assigns a police officer to each of the three DISD high school campuses and each of the three DISD middle school campuses within the city limits. These School Resources Officers are deployed to the campuses on a full-time basis to provide a police presence and to help maintain a safe, secure, and orderly learning environment for students and staff. For several years, the SRO program has been codified through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Denton and DISD. The MOU is reviewed and approved annually, outlines the mission, goals, and the financial aspects of the SRO program. Beginning July 1, 2018, DISD has agreed to increase the reimbursement to the City and provide for fifty percent of the annual salary and benefits of the School Resource Officers assigned to all six of the middle and high school campuses within the city limits. ys, offering a free meal to uniformed law intended to provide opportunities for students and staff to build relationships with first responders and provide an extra sense of security. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) April 3, 2018, City Council Agenda Item - Resolution 18-467. STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP -oriented road map that will help the City achieve its vision. The foundation for the plan is the five long-term Key Focus Areas (KFA): Organizational Excellence; Public Infrastructure; Economic Development; Safe, Livable, and Family-Friendly Community; and Sustainability and Environmental Stewardship. While individual items may support multiple KFAs, this specific City Council agenda item contributes most directly to the following KFA and goal: Related Key Focus Area: Safe, Liveable & Family-Friendly Community Related Goal: 4.1 Enhance public safety in the community EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Agenda Information Sheet Exhibit 3: Memorandum of Understanding Respectfully submitted: Lee Howell Chief of Police Prepared by: Scott Fletcher Assistant Chief City Hall City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 www.cityofdenton.com Legislation Text File #:ID 18-802,Version:1 AGENDA CAPTION Discuss and set future meeting dates, times, and locations. (5 minutes) City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/3/2018 powered by Legistar©