September 10, 2009

PEFA JEFFERSON: PROJECT KICK-OFF

September 10, 2009

The PEFA Approach

September 10, 2009

What is PEFA Jefferson?

• District-wide assessment of the enrollment and capacity situation

• Modeling to understand how those conditions change in the future

• Develop and facilitate system to test capital plan alternatives for effectiveness and cost

• PEFA is a partnership

September 10, 2009

What is unique about the PEFA Process?

• Data-driven and fact-based• Open and transparent process:

– Resource Committee– Project website:

www.knoxmpc.org/pefa/jefferson

• Provides communities with data needed to reach a consensus on course of action

September 10, 2009

What are the PEFA process goals?

• Provide objective data and analysis to enable substantive discussions on alternatives that will help Jefferson County meet its goals

• Avoid debate over data by employing best practice methodologies

• Help Jefferson County develop consensus

September 10, 2009

What PEFA Jefferson is not

• PEFA Team is not intended to be a substitute for local knowledge

• PEFA Team can not counsel relationships between agencies and elected bodies

• PEFA Team will not be lobbying for an outcome or providing a set of recommendations

September 10, 2009

Components of the PEFA Process

September 10, 2009

PHASE 1

• Enrollment projections• Capacity analysis• Comparison of enrollment (current and

future) to existing facility capacity

September 10, 2009

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

• Demographic and development trends analysis:– Recent enrollment trends– Analysis of population change components– Analysis of local development patterns

September 10, 2009

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

• Data inputs:– 5-years of student address data– Attendance zones and school locations– Subdivisions and other planned residential

developments (tracts)

September 10, 2009

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

• Projection factors:– Births– Student mobility– Student yield

September 10, 2009

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

• Projection outputs:– 7-year projection (recommended):

• Through 2016-17 school year– 10-year projections are possible:

• Through 2019-20 school year– Multiple scenarios:

• Historic trends• Accelerated development (Norfolk Southern)• Return to pre-recession growth rates

September 10, 2009

ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Loudon County High School Attendance Patterns

September 10, 2009

CAPACITY ANALYSIS

• Capacity calculations for all school facilities: functional, design, and floor area capacities

• Core space analysis

September 10, 2009

COMPARISON OF ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY

• Compare current and future enrollments to existing facility capacity for each school

• Summary report on existing and future conditions, identifying schools operating at, above, below capacity

• Report serves as decision-making toolkit for capital improvement planning

September 10, 2009

PHASE 2

• Capital plan testing

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING

• Evaluate impacts of new schools, school consolidation, school closings, and/or attendance area redistricting in several scenarios to inform capital improvement planning decisions

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE

• Hypothetical situation showing a new middle school addition in Knox County to alleviate overcrowding at two existing middle schools

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE

Existing Knox County Middle School Districts

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE

Farragut and West Valley Middle School Districts

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE

• Options to reduce overcrowding at West Valley Middle School:– Reconfigure attendance zones– Reconfigure grade assignments– Close existing facility– Expand existing facility– Add a new school

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE

Proposed Lakeside Middle School Attendance Zone

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE

Proposed Lakeside Middle School Attendance Zone

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE

• Capital plan considerations for the new Lakeside Middle School:– Classroom and core space design capacity– Cost estimates to determine if capital plan is

fiscally constrained– Compare alternatives to examine

effectiveness

September 10, 2009

CAPITAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS

• Capital plan testing scope is limited to issues addressing core and classroom capacity

• Other considerations related to facility assessments are not included:– Mechanical– Electrical– Structural– Architectural – Environmental– Site

September 10, 2009

PROJECT TIMELINE

• September: Project kick-off and Resource Committee formation

• September-December: Enrollment projections and capacity analysis

• Early December: Phase 1 completed• Mid December: Capital plan testing

(Phase 2)• Early February: Final presentation

September 10, 2009

Elements of Project Success

September 10, 2009

ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT

• Called on to assist when a district is struggling with implementation of capital (building) program

• Typically there has been some level of disagreement between all or some of the following:– School board– County commission– County mayor’s office – Parents

September 10, 2009

• Support of JCS administration is essential:

– PEFA Team will fail without staff support– PEFA provides data and tools to support

decision making; not a substitute for local knowledge

– We want to facilitate a consensus, not push for any particular outcome

ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT

September 10, 2009

• Maintain 100% transparency and constant communication:

– Resource Committee should report back to their bodies, agencies regularly

– Prepare for upcoming steps in the study– Share preliminary findings– Refer people to the project website:

www.knoxmpc.org/pefa/jefferson

ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT

September 10, 2009

• Commit to the process:– Lack of process seems to frequently be at

the forefront of stalled building programs– Objective supporting data, rigorous process,

and good evaluation criteria lend credence to final recommendations sent to County Commission

ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT

September 10, 2009

ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT

• Positive planning outcomes should be free from political influence

• Political interference in an objective planning process can damage relations

September 10, 2009

Jefferson County Demographic Trends

September 10, 2009

POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2000 TO 2008JEFFERSON COUNTY AND SURROUNDING AREA

Area 2000 2008

Total Change 2000-08

Total Change (%)

2000-08

Average Annual

Change

Average Annual

Change (%)Jefferson County 44,582 51,074 6,492 14.6 812 1.8Anderson County 71,232 74,169 2,937 4.1 367 0.5Blount County 106,217 121,511 15,294 14.4 1,912 1.8Cocke County 33,627 35,688 2,061 6.1 258 0.8Grainger County 20,737 22,708 1,971 9.5 246 1.2Greene County 63,037 66,157 3,120 4.9 390 0.6Hamblen County 58,243 62,132 3,889 6.7 486 0.8Knox County 383,028 430,019 46,991 12.3 5,874 1.5Sevier County 71,699 84,835 13,136 18.3 1,642 2.3Union County 17,859 19,008 1,149 6.4 144 0.8Tennessee 5,703,094 6,214,888 511,794 9.0 63,974 1.1

September 10, 2009

SUB-COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2000 TO 2008JEFFERSON COUNTY

Area 2000 2008

Total Change 2000-08

Total Change (%)

2000-08

Average Annual

Change

Average Annual

Change (%)Jefferson County 44,582 51,074 6,492 14.6 812 1.8Baneberry 373 475 102 27.3 13 3.4Dandridge 2,117 2,687 570 26.9 71 3.4Jefferson City 7,878 8,156 278 3.5 35 0.4New Market 1,290 1,326 36 2.8 5 0.3White Pine 2,005 2,143 138 6.9 17 0.9Unincorporated Area 30,919 36,287 5,368 17.4 671 2.2

September 10, 2009

NATURAL INCREASE AND NET MIGRATION, 2000 TO 2008JEFFERSON COUNTY

YearNatural

IncreaseNet

Migration2000-01 90 5272001-02 90 5102002-03 37 9312003-04 75 5362004-05 39 6102005-06 126 1,0812006-07 72 1,0132007-08 91 799Annual Avg. 2000-08 78 751

September 10, 2009

JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE, 2000/01-2007/08

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Year

Per

sons

Migration Natural Increase

September 10, 2009

JEFFERSON COUNTY BIRTHS AND DEATHS, 1990-2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Bir

ths/

Deat

hs

Births Deaths Natural Increase

September 10, 2009

4.02.11.50.32.41.01.21.8Average annual change (%)

32.117.112.12.419.27.99.214.6Total change (%), 2000-08

38.07,58212,86914,4794,8562,7275,5762,98551,0742008

36.65,73910,99312,9204,7432,2885,1662,73344,5822000

Median Age

65 Years

and Over

45-64 Years

25-44 Years

18-24 Years

14-17 Years

5-13 Years

Under 5 YearsTotalIndicator

JEFFERSON COUNTY AGE GROUP POPULATION

September 10, 2009

JEFFERSON COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH, 1980-2030 (WOODS AND POOLE MODEL)

010,000

20,00030,00040,000

50,00060,000

70,00080,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Popu

latio

n

Total, all ages School age (5-17 years)Working age (20-64 years) Seniors (65 years and over)

September 10, 2009

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1980-2030(PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD)JEFFERSON COUNTY AND TENNESSEE AVERAGES

YearJefferson

County Tennessee1980 2.81 2.761985 2.66 2.651990 2.55 2.561995 2.52 2.542000 2.48 2.482005 2.45 2.432010 2.42 2.392015 2.40 2.362020 2.40 2.342025 2.41 2.342030 2.43 2.34

September 10, 2009

Jefferson County Schools Enrollment Trends

September 10, 2009

JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS, 2000-2007

Grade Level/School Type 2000

Share (%) of Category

Total 2005-07

Share (%) of Category

TotalPreschool 481 556 Public school 318 66.1 270 48.6 Private school 163 33.9 286 51.4Kindergarten 563 755 Public school 528 93.8 755 100.0 Private school 35 6.2 0 0.0Elementary (grades 1-8) 4,817 4,416 Public school 4,618 95.9 4,308 97.6 Private school 199 4.1 108 2.4High (grades 9-12) 2,247 2,412 Public school 2,111 93.9 2,302 95.4 Private school 136 6.1 110 4.6Total (K-12) 7,627 7,583 Public school 7,257 95.1 7,365 97.1 Private school 370 4.9 218 2.9

September 10, 2009

SYSTEMWIDE ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008

6,0006,2006,4006,6006,8007,0007,2007,4007,6007,8008,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Enr

ollm

ent

September 10, 2009

JEFFERSON COUNTY ENROLLMENT CHANGE, 1998/99-2008/09Change Change Change

School 1998-2008 1998-2003 2003-2008Dandridge Elementary 12 59 -47Jefferson Elementary -57 -41 -16New Market Elementary 14 3 11Piedmont Elementary 142 93 49Talbott Elementary 37 73 -36Rush Strong School 66 40 26White Pine School 109 37 72Jefferson Middle 69 117 -48Maury Middle 132 120 12Jefferson County High 452 197 255 Total 976 698 278

September 10, 2009

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Enro

llmen

t

Dandridge Jefferson New Market Piedmont Talbott

September 10, 2009

JEFFERSON COUNTY BIRTHS AND DEATHS, 1990-2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Bir

ths/

Deat

hs

Births Deaths Natural Increase

September 10, 2009

K-8 SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Enr

ollm

ent

Rush Strong White Pine

September 10, 2009

MIDDLE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008

0100200300400500600700800

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Enr

ollm

ent

Jefferson Maury

September 10, 2009

HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Enr

ollm

ent

Jefferson County

September 10, 2009

September 10, 2009

JEFFERSON COUNTY ENROLLMENT CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL, 1998/99-2008/09Change Change (%) Change Change (%) Change Change (%)

Grade 1998-2008 1998-2008 1998-2003 1998-2003 2003-2008 2003-2008K-5 240 7.6 226 7.1 14 0.46-8 277 19.3 266 18.5 11 0.69-12 451 24.8 201 11.1 250 12.4SE 7-9 8 12.7 5 7.9 3 4.4 Total 976 15.1 698 10.8 278 3.9

September 10, 2009

ENROLLMENT CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL, 1998-2008

0

100

200

300

400

500

K-5 6-8 9-12

Grade Level

Enro

llmen

t Cha

nge

1998-2008 1998-2003 2003-2008

September 10, 2009

Past Enrollment Projections

September 10, 2009

COMMUNITY TECTONICS MASTER PLAN, MARCH 2004COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENT

Indicator Actual Projected2003-04 7,181 n/a2008-09 7,459 7,944Average Annual Growth Rate 0.8 2.15-Year Growth Rate (%) 3.9 10.6Error, Projected v Actual 485Error, Projected v Actual (%) 6.5

Systemwide

September 10, 2009

COMPARISION OF ACTUAL AND COMMUNITY TECTONICS PROJECTED ENROLLMENT

5000550060006500700075008000850090009500

10000

1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Year

Enr

ollm

ent

Actual Projected

September 10, 2009

Project Website

www.knoxmpc.org/pefa/jefferson