1  

Educational Impact Statement 

The School Closure Task Force respectfully submits this Educational Impact Statement as per the charge: 

To investigate the educational impact of closing 1 or 2 elementary schools and to draft, in accordance 

with NYS Education Law Article 9 Section 402‐A “Procedures for Closing a School Building” and as per the 

recommendation of the full Board of Education, an educational impact statement to be filed with the 

Board not later than December 19, 2013 

Background 

The Katonah Lewisboro Union Free School District has operated one high school, one middle school, and 

four elementary schools since 1967 when construction on our fourth elementary school was completed. 

Elementary student enrollment has been declining for the past fifteen years and the Board of Education 

has been concerned about this decline for at least the past five years.1   

In 2009 ‐ 2010, the District administration started to identify and consolidate vacant classrooms in the 

elementary schools.  This resulted in cost savings from the reduction in heat and energy usage (utilities) 

in these empty areas and in the reduced need to clean and maintain spaces that were vacant or 

underutilized.  Also in September 2010, the Board of Education discussed the advisability of moving the 

6th grade back to the elementary schools.  This was in response financial constraints and a desire to 

ensure the District was allocating resources and utilizing buildings effectively.   

During the following school year in 2010‐2011, the administration presented to the Board of Education a 

budget which included the reduction of 2.0 FTE staff associated with moving the District Office from 

Shady Lane to six vacant classrooms in the Increase Miller Elementary School.2  Savings were estimated, 

inclusive of reduced salaries, benefits, utility costs and other maintenance costs to exceed $180,000 per 

year.  When it became apparent that this type of vacant space (six vacant classrooms) was available in 

our elementary schools, the Board of Education started to discuss efficiencies that could be realized as a 

result of consolidation of elementary schools. 

                                                            1 Over the past five years elementary enrollment declined from 2009‐2010: 1663 students to 2010‐2011: 1628 students to 2011‐2012: 1497 students to 2012‐2013: 1437 students to 2013‐2014: 1386 students.  Elementary enrollment has not dipped below 1394 students since 1991‐92 at which time it began and continued to increase through 1998‐1999 when it peaked at 2016 elementary students. 2 The reduction of staff was achieved by consolidating the Business Office, Curriculum and Instruction Office, Human Resources Office, and Superintendent's Office into the vacant space at the Increase Miller Elementary School. In consolidating these three offices, we were able to reduce staffing as shown above.  In addition to reducing our expenses, we have been able to rent the original home constructed on Shady Lane for an amount equal to $2400 per month plus utility costs. 

2  

Concurrently, the District’s Finance Committee was completing the first of three reports which 

compared the Katonah Lewisboro Union Free School District’s actual expenses to that of the actual 

expenses of the following Districts:3 

Bedford Central School District Byram Hills Central School District Chappaqua Central School District Harrison Central School District Scarsdale Public School District  

The conclusion reached by the Finance Committee was that the actual per‐pupil expenses for the 

Katonah Lewisboro Union Free School District for the 2009 – 2010 fiscal year exceeded the average for 

the comparable districts listed above by more than $1500 per student.  Subsequent reports presented in 

June of 2012 and June of 2013 demonstrated that the actual per pupil expenses of the Katonah 

Lewisboro Union Free School District continue to exceed that of our peers.  

Declining elementary enrollment has created a slow moving systemic problem within the District.  In the 

last three years, the decline in the K‐3 elementary population has steepened.  It has been a challenge 

both educationally and financially to operate smaller elementary schools with class size parity and to 

staff special services and special area subjects appropriately within each building.   

Consider the following two examples:  

1. In Lewisboro Elementary School in the 2013‐2014 school year, an additional 1 FTE was added to 

grade levels K, 1, 2, 4, and 5 to create sections at or below the District goal.  This resulted in an 

addition of 5 FTEs at the discretion of the Superintendent and the Board of Education.4  The 

District will not be able to continue to staff elementary sections at or below goal—discretionary 

spending at this level will not be sustainable—if it continues to operate four elementary schools. 

2. In 2013‐2014, based upon our current elementary school configuration and local curriculum 

requirements, one of our instrumental music teachers is shared across four buildings and three 

of our art teachers are shared across 5 buildings.  This has resulted in fragmentation of the 

music, art, and physical education programs as well as a loss of productivity related to travel 

time for each of these staff members.  Finally, other benefits related to art shows as well as 

grade level music productions have become increasingly challenging to produce. 

 

                                                            3 Finance Committee presentations can be found in Appendix H of this document. Video of each of the Finance Committee presentations to the Board of Education can be viewed through the District’s website www.klschools.org.   4 In 2013‐14, 48 Kindergartners are divided across three sections of 16 students but could have been divided across two sections of 24 in accordance with allowable maximums specified in the District’s contract with the Teachers Association; 47 first graders are divided across three sections of 15, 16, 16 but could have been divided across two sections of 23, 24; 45 second graders are divided across three sections of 14, 15, 16 but could have been divided across two sections of 22, 23; 58 third graders are divided across three sections of 19, 19, 20; 76 fourth graders are divided across four sections of 19 but could have been divided across three sections of 25, 25, 26; 76 fifth graders are divided across four sections of 19 but could have been divided across three sections of 25, 25, 26. 

3  

Like other districts throughout the State of New York, Katonah Lewisboro has been struggling to 

implement costly unfunded mandates—initiatives required by law but for which funding is not provided 

by the State.  A few of these initiatives are the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR), the 

Common Core Curriculum, and Response to Intervention (RTI). These initiatives have created the need 

to deliver education differently; to assess students and staff differently; and to appropriate significant 

resources to ensure that the District not only is in compliance but can capitalize on these initiatives to 

create meaningful opportunity for students.  The overhead associated with implementing and running 

these programs in four elementary schools is significant.   

Finally, by way of background, New York State passed new Tax Cap Legislation which was signed into law 

by Governor Cuomo in June of 2011 (Chapter 97 of the Laws of 2011). The legislation restricts the 

amount that a Tax Levy can be increased each year (See Appendix J for Tax Cap information).  The 

implementation of the Tax Cap legislation coincided not only with the timeframe within which the 

District was implementing mandates mentioned above but also in which it experienced a significant 

increase in mandatory New York State retirement system contributions.  

Over the past few years, the Board of Education has pursued several strategies to mitigate expenditures 

that continue to increase even as enrollment declines and to respond to limitations on its ability to raise 

revenue (based on Tax Cap Legislation as well as the District’s relative intolerance for tax increases as 

documented in Appendix H). Strategies include but are not limited to negotiations with labor 

associations; a transition from a self‐insured health plan to a premium based consortium health 

insurance plan; energy savings; and general operating expense reductions including a transition from 

“double tripping” to “triple tripping”.5   Over the past several years the District also has experienced a 

reduction in force (RIF) equivalent to approximately 130 FTE staff members.  Although some of this RIF 

can be attributed to attrition due to declining enrollment, it is important to note that it also corresponds 

to programmatic cuts—programs the district could no longer afford, e.g. foreign language in the 

elementary schools, Latin at the Middle School, and certain electives at the high school.     

 The continued operation of four elementary schools in an era of declining elementary student 

enrollment contributes to an increase in our per pupil expenses.  As will be outlined later in this report, 

the savings relative to closing Lewisboro Elementary School (net of attrition) is projected to exceed $1.9 

million per year.  Based on the Finance Committee's presentation to the Board of Education on June 20, 

2013, a $1.9 million per year reduction in expenditures would have resulted in a reduction of our per 

pupil expenses in the amount of approximately $525 per pupil.6 

 

                                                            5 These terms are used to describe the number of public school bus “waves” necessary to transport all students to and from their schools.  Double tripping indicates that two main transportation “waves” are needed to transport students (K‐12) to or from school.  Triple tripping indicates that three main transportation “waves” are needed to transport students (K‐12) to or from school.  In 2010‐2011 the District switched back to triple tripping to reduce costs (fewer drivers and buses are needed to provide triple tripping) and to make the start time of the High School students later based on research demonstrating that older students benefit from a later start time.   6 KLSD costs per pupil as compared to the average costs per pupil for the five other districts mentioned above can be found in Appendix H.  See page 8 of the 2013 Finance Committee Report. 

4  

In response to the context outlined above, the Board of Education committed to investigate further the 

possibility of closing one of our four elementary schools.    

All of these concerns—the yearly destabilization of all elementary schools caused by the decline in 

elementary enrollment, rising costs associated with financial obligations (some of which cannot be 

mitigated by the District such as costs associated with retirement system contributions which are 

mandated by New York State) and new State‐required educational initiatives and programs prompted 

the Board of Education to establish a School Utilization Committee during December of 2012.  

The School Utilization Committee  On December 13, 2012 the Board of Education of the Katonah Lewisboro Union Free School District, by 

resolution, established the School Utilization Committee. The composition of this committee is included 

in Appendix Q.  This committee was charged with the following: 

To research and present to the Board of Education specific options and recommendations for 

building configuration during a period of declining enrollment and fiscal constraints, to ensure 

the efficient use of resources and support student achievement and continuous improvement of 

school programs. 

The School Utilization Committee met on the following dates: 

February 26, 2013 March 12, 2013 April 3, 2013 April 24, 2013 May 13, 2013 May 28, 2013 (PowerPoint Development – no minutes) June 10, 2013 (PowerPoint Development – no minutes)  

The Committee began its work by investigating various educational models that it would consider and 

recommend to the Board of Education.  In addition, the Committee reviewed demographic reports and 

projected enrollments prepared by Statistical Forecasting LLC.  Full‐day kindergarten was included in all 

educational models considered.  On June 20, 2013 the Committee presented its findings to the Board of 

Education.7  As you can see by looking at Appendix A, the Committee considered nine different 

educational models.  Two of the educational models considered were found to be preferable.  

 The two models presented to the Board of Education on June 20, 2013 were as follows:  

First Model 

Three K‐5 Buildings 

One 6‐8 Building 

One 9‐12 Building 

                                                            7 The PowerPoint presentation is attached as Appendix A of this report. The full presentation can be viewed by visiting the district website at www.klschools.org.   

5  

 Second Model  

Two K‐4 Buildings 

One 5‐8 Building 

One 9‐12 Building  Opportunities and issues (relative to each of these models) were identified within the report presented 

on June 20, 2013.  The financial impact associated with not closing a school, closing one school, or 

closing two schools also was presented.   It should be noted that the information presented on June 20, 

2013 did not filter out reduction in force related to declining enrollment. This matter (relative to 

factoring out reduction in force related to student decline) was later corrected during the fall of 2013. 

It was also reported that, based upon the information presented to the committee, consensus was 

reached by the School Utilization Committee that at least one school should be closed in response to 

declining enrollment.  It should be noted that School Utilization Committee discussions centered on 

whether grade‐level sections would fit in fewer than four elementary schools but did not take into 

account space requirements for other instructional programs such as special education services or 

Response to Intervention (RTI) and did not take into account the timeline for a potential closure. 

 

The final recommendation of this Utilization Committee was that the Board of Education should 

establish a School Closure Task Force per State Statute to further and appropriately study the two 

options presented. 

 

School Utilization Committee minutes are included in Appendix I.   

The School Closure Task Force  On June 25, 2013 the Board of Education passed a resolution establishing a School Closure Task Force Committee to investigate the educational impact of closing one or two elementary schools; and to prepare, in writing, an educational impact statement on the proposed closing(s).  The composition of this committee is included in Appendix Q. On August 5, 2013 a formal charge of the committee and the composition of the committee were approved by the Board of Education. The charge reads as follows:  

To investigate the educational impact of closing 1 or 2 elementary schools and to draft,  in 

accordance with NYS Education Law Article 9 Section 402‐A “Procedures for Closing a School 

Building” and as per the recommendation of the full Board of Education, an educational impact 

statement to be filed with the Board not later than December 19, 2013. 

The School Closure Task Force Committee met on the following dates; meeting minutes are available in 

Appendix G: 

 August 27  September 17  October 1 

6  

 October 15  November 12  November 26   December 10 (On calendar) 

 The committee provided updates to the Board of Education on a regular basis as follows:  

September 12 October 3 October 17 November 21 

 The committee also conducted four public hearings for the purpose of inviting feedback, suggestions, 

and information from community members. Those public hearings were held at various times 

throughout the day to accommodate different community member schedules as follows:8  

October 8 – 7:00 pm – Power Point presentation Appendix B October 21 – 10:00 am ‐ Power Point presentation Appendix C November 6 – 1:00 pm ‐ Power Point presentation Appendix D November 18 – 7:00 pm ‐ Power Point presentation Appendix E  

Input from these hearings was collected and reviewed at subsequent Task Force meetings.9  To summarize, members of the community expressed concerns with respect to: 

a) Providing a vision that addresses the educational impact or benefits associated with closing Lewisboro Elementary School  

b) Project management and projected cost savings c) The reliability of demographic analysis and projected enrollments  d) Redistricting plans and transportation e) Whether a 2014‐15 closure would provide sufficient time for careful planning associated with 

transitioning students and staff.   

Aspects of these concerns and issues which were within the purview of the School Closure Task Force are addressed within this document, e.g. a full accounting of projected cost savings is included; an initial redistricting plan is provided; and activities associated with final redistricting and transition planning have been outlined herein10.  Summary of the Work Completed by the School Closure Task Force Committee  August 27 

Reviewed School Closure Task Force charge 

Established dates upon which it would provide an update to the Board of Education 

Established a timeline which provided that a draft Educational Impact Statement would be provided to the Board of Education for consideration on December 5, 2013.  In addition, it was 

                                                            8 Task Force meeting minutes and video recordings of each of the public hearing are available for review on the District’s web‐site at www.klschools.org. 9 See appendix F for detailed issues log 10 For timeline associated with transition‐related activities, refer to appendix P 

7  

established that the Task Force could file its Educational Impact Statement with the Board of Education on December 19 and, if approved, that a public hearing would be conducted on January 16. 

Invitations were sent to town officials to provide input in writing to the Task Force. 

Discussion ensued regarding geocoding students into each of the elementary attendance zones so that modifications to attendance zones could be made and the predicted impact of these modifications on elementary enrollments could be identified. 

Additional detail is included in Appendix G September 17 

The committee focused on drafting a set of assumptions which would inform Task Force recommendations. Assumptions included the following: 

o The need to achieve efficiency  o Decision must be sustainable for a minimum of five years  o Expectation that future school boards would continue to monitor and discuss 

possibilities as enrollment evolves o Students will not be on the bus for more than one hour o Scenarios may require complete redistricting o Proposal would include full day kindergarten o Time frame for demographic information should be stated (5‐7 years) o Schools would not be created to 100% capacity‐ meeting space and other needed areas 

would be considered o No building would be sold o Opportunities to rent buildings or portions of buildings would be sought  o All buildings would be maintained to a standard of safety o Class sizes used to determine capacity would be at or below contract goal  o If two schools are closed, middle school must become 5‐8 school o If a decision is made to close one elementary school, the Task Force could consider 5‐8 

or 6‐8 model  o If there was a 5‐8 middle school, grades 5 and 6 would likely use a different model than 

grades 7 and 8  o Even a single school closure has impact on the entire system  o Disruption factor and social/emotional factors must be considered in establishing 

timeline for school closure 

Discussion also occurred related to whether one school should be closed now with the knowledge that one may need to close in the future. 

A question was raised regarding whether the current Board was able to bind a future Board relative to a school closure occurring in a subsequent year.  

Information related to grade configurations utilized by other school districts (Brewster Central School District and Chappaqua Central School District) were reviewed. 

Average route times based upon 2013 – 2014 were reviewed with the committee 

Additional detail is included in Appendix G  

October 1  

The committee reviewed meetings that were held with each of the elementary school principals to determine space availability and capacity in each building. 

The administration shared that the current Board of Education can bind the next Board of Education to the extent that it adopts a budget that includes a school closure for 2014 ‐ 2015.  It 

8  

was reported that the budget for the 2015 – 2016 school year is outside the purview of the current Board and therefore the current Board cannot ensure that a school will be closed in the 2015 – 2016 school year although it could pass a resolution indicating that it planned to do so. 

Based upon the information presented in the prior bullet the committee narrowed its consideration to options which could be implemented in September 2014. 

It was determined, based upon projected enrollments, that a two school closure was not possible in 2014. 

The committee then reviewed the possibility of closing one school and determined, based upon a high‐level analysis, that there were enough classrooms to accommodate one school closure.  This analysis only accounted for the use of potential full‐sized classrooms and did not take into account the potential use of small group instructional spaces.  This issue is further addressed in the section titled “The Ability of the Other Schools to Accommodate the Elementary Student Population”. 

A disruption analysis, which assumed equal dispersion of all of the elementary school students across three elementary schools, was also reviewed. 

It was determined that schools with the greatest number of potential classrooms (IMES and KES) would be needed to accommodate the elementary school students and that a “bookend school” should not be considered for closure due to the excessive disruption and projected deleterious impact on transportation. As such it was determined that the school to be closed should be Lewisboro Elementary School. 

Additional detail is included in Appendix G  October 15 

The committee decided to make a recommendation to the Board of Education that the "immediate Past Parent Council President" be added to the Task Force for the purpose of maintaining continuity. 

The committee reviewed the information received at the October 8 public hearing and considered suggestions made for inclusion in the Educational Impact Statement. 

The committee reviewed why the Task Force had been convened. o A consistent, relatively precipitous enrollment decline requires the District to consider 

how it delivers education to students and whether it can deliver education effectively. o The Finance Committee's cost per pupil analysis – the analysis of our community's ability 

to pay for the cost of education in this District – requires the District to examine whether our community’s capacity to fund our educational system is sustainable and to explore multiple mitigation strategies. 

o The imbalance created by maintaining four elementary schools with declining enrollment, three of which are projected to dip below 275 students in 2016, is beginning to have adverse educational impact which will be exacerbated over the next five years. 

The committee reviewed timelines associated with when information will be prepared. 

Additional detail is included in Appendix G.  November 12 

The committee reviewed the information received at the October 21 and November 6 public hearings and considered suggestions made for inclusion in the Educational Impact Statement. 

The committee recommended that the updated demographic analysis be provided to the community on Monday, November 18th prior to the hearing 

The committee recommended against conducting a community survey or poll at this time 

9  

The committee reviewed a draft of the updated demographic analysis and discussed the process and timeline for developing an initial redistricting plan 

The committee reviewed the number of grade level sections anticipated for 2014‐2015 and the capacity to house those classes and related special services across 3 elementary schools. 

Additional detail is included in Appendix G.  

November 26 

The committee reviewed in detail the Draft Educational Impact Statement  

The committee reviewed input from the November 18th hearing 

Additional detail is included in Appendix G.  

Factors for Consideration by the Board of Education  

With Respect to the Possibility of Closing Lewisboro Elementary School 

 

1. Current and Projected Pupil Enrollment 

During the 2012 – 2013 school year the Board of Education contracted with Statistical Forecasting LLC to 

complete a demographic study for the Katonah Lewisboro Union Free School District. In 2013 – 2014 the 

Board of Education requested that Statistical Forecasting LLC produce an updated analysis.  This most 

recently prepared report, updated based upon 2013 actual enrollments and available birth data, 

validated the previous study with respect to projected enrollment for the next five years. 

 

Statistical Forecasting LLC considered enrollment information dating back to the 1994‐95 school year. 

This was done to ensure that the data utilized from the most recent five years or six years was not 

skewing enrollment projections.  

 

The demographer utilized birth rate data, available through 2011, to project the number of expected 

kindergarteners.   For future years, an average birth rate of the last three years of available birth data 

(2009 – 2011) was used.  It should be noted, however, that when requested to run a “what if” scenario 

utilizing the average of the highest five reported birth rates (instead of the average of the last three 

years, which is a much lower number), enrollment in the elementary schools for the next five years was 

still 200 students fewer than our current levels. 

   

In addition, new housing developments were investigated.  Home sales from 2000 to 2013 were tracked.  

Finally, a “what if” scenario was completed relative to occupancy rates and the effect on enrollment if 

current occupancy rates (91.9% as reported in the 2007‐2011 American Community Survey) returned to 

occupancy rates seen in 2000 Census (94.5%). It should be noted that a full housing turnover/resale 

analysis was not conducted. 

 

Finally, the demographic report was amended to consider the impact of full‐day kindergarten. 

Enrollment within the district is anticipated to continue to decline over the next few years at a 

minimum. The full report can be found as Appendix K of this document. The demographer presented to 

the Board of Education on Thursday, November 21, 2013.  This presentation can be viewed by visiting 

the school district’s website, www.klschools.org 

10  

 

 2. The Ability of the Other Schools to Accommodate the Elementary Student Population 

 Based upon the enrollment projections prepared by Statistical Forecasting LLC, it is expected that the District will be able to operate three elementary schools for at least the next five years.  In a three school model, during 2014 – 2015 it is anticipated that 61 grade level sections would be created to accommodate the student population in Kindergarten (full day) through fifth grade.  These sections are predominantly at or below the District’s stated enrollment goals and are expected to be distributed across three elementary schools as follows:11 

  Increase Miller Elementary School 21 sections,  

Katonah Elementary School 22 sections, and; 

Meadow Pond Elementary School 18 sections  After carefully studying floor plans and physical space with each building principal, we are confident that we can accommodate the number of sections in a three school model.12 In addition to the 61 sections listed above, we have accounted for and taken into consideration rooms necessary to provide special education services and instruction as well as Response to Intervention and special area instruction, e.g. music or art or physical education.  Some services and instruction require and will be accommodated in full‐sized classrooms while others will be delivered in small group instructional spaces as appropriate. 

 Each of the three elementary schools will contain: 

Principal’s office 

Assistant Principal’s office 

Main office 

Copy room 

Faculty room 

Health office 

Two full‐sized music rooms– one shared with instrumental music 

Additional instrumental music room 

Art room 

Social Worker office – shared with second speech teacher 

Additional small group instruction area for speech teacher 

Psychologist office 

Small group instruction area for English as a Second Language teacher 

Full‐sized self‐contained special‐education classrooms (need varies at each building) 

Three small group instruction rooms for interventionist at each building 

One room to be shared by OT/PT 

Two to three rooms (based on need) in each building for special education resource room program 

                                                            11 Enrollment goal for grades K‐2 is 20 students (allowable maximum is 25); for grade 3 the goal is 25 students (allowable maximum is 28); for grades 4‐5 and beyond the goal is 25 (allowable maximum is 30).  For additional detail refer to the District’s contract with the Katonah Lewisboro District Teachers Association. 12 Building floor plans can be found in Appendix S.   

11  

Conference room 

 3. The Prospective Need for Four Elementary Schools 

 Grade level sections for subsequent years within a three school model are projected as follows:13  

2015 – 2016 ‐ 59 sections full‐day kindergarten through fifth grade 

2016 – 2017 ‐ 54 sections full‐day kindergarten through fifth grade 

2017 – 2018 ‐ 53 sections full‐day kindergarten through fifth grade 

2018 – 2019 ‐ 52 sections full‐day kindergarten through fifth grade   As you can see from information presented above (supplemented with information presented in Appendix L) the District is capable of functioning through the use of only three out of its four elementary schools for at least the next five years (10 years if you utilize average birthrates for children not yet born). Demographic projections will be updated on an annual basis to continuously evaluate the prospective need for four elementary schools.  

 4. The Ramifications of Such Closing on the Community 

 Closing Lewisboro Elementary School in 2014‐15 would, at a minimum, have the following impact on the community: 

100% of Lewisboro Elementary students, and approximately 46  Increase Miller Elementary Students would need to be redistricted 

New transportation routes would have to be established; bus route times will increase for some students; although the District’s average route time may not change significantly, the distribution of route times will shift  

On‐site childcare services may need to be relocated 

Before and after school activities, including community groups such as Scouts may need to be relocated 

Town of Lewisboro Recreation Department summer camp may need to be relocated 

Procedures for building utilization with respect to voting or indoor sports, e.g. basketball, would need to be determined 

Outdoor fields would be maintained and may be utilized for sports activities such as soccer 

Other infrequent and irregularly scheduled community activities may have to be relocated.  

In addition, it should be noted that members of the community emphasized the extent to which Lewisboro Elementary School is a cornerstone and anchor of the South Salem community.  Community members and town officials documented concerns about the negative impact of a mostly vacant building in the heart of town and are concerned about its effect on property values and the relative tax 

                                                            13 Projected grade level sections for K‐2 are predominantly at or below goal – under no circumstances does projected sectioning for kindergarten through second grade ever exceed the halfway point between goal and allowable maximum. Grade level sections for 3‐5 are predominantly at or below goal and in all cases never exceed goal plus one.  Projected grade level section detail is provided in Appendix L. 

12  

burden associated with shifted revenue.14  A timeline and plan for reutilization of the building should be established as quickly as possible. 

 5. The Potential “Disposability” of Lewisboro Elementary School & Possible Shared Utilization of 

Space During or After Regular School Hours  Lewisboro Elementary School would revert back to residential zoning if not in use.  Since the school is not a home and the District has no intention of divesting itself of the asset, the District may occupy a portion of the building and sub lease remaining space. 

  The Lewisboro Elementary School building is an asset which may be needed in the future 

and should not be sold.  

The District would encourage and pursue alternative use(s) for the building.  

The Lewisboro Elementary School and grounds would be maintained.  Potential rental of the building would be pursued as a means of generating revenue.  In accordance with Education Law the rental payment shall not be less than fair market 

rental value as determined by the Board of Education.    The District would encourage and foster good relationships with the neighbors, Town, and 

Zoning boards 

 6. Possible Use of Lewisboro Elementary School for Other Educational Programs and 

Administrative Services 

 The District Offices, currently located at Increase Miller Elementary School, would need to be relocated 

if a school consolidation occurs. The current District Offices would need to be transitioned back to 

classrooms. 

The District would consider relocating the District Offices to John Jay Middle School/John Jay High School or Lewisboro Elementary School. 

As outlined above, we would attempt to preserve as many community uses of the building as possible. 

Modifications of policy 1500 Public Use of School Facilities may need to be addressed relative to both fees for utilities and other potential use issues. 

 7. Transition Planning 

 Transition associated with redistricting must be carefully planned for and communicated to students, families, and staff.  To date, at least three groups have convened informally to begin discussing a transition plan.  These groups include: 

Central and Building level administrators 

Mental Health Professionals including elementary social workers, elementary psychologists, LES principal, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction 

Lewisboro Elementary School PTA School Closure Study Committee comprised of past and present LES PTA officers and members 

                                                            14 See Appendix N for documentation received from town officials.   

13  

  Should the Board of Education decide to close a school for fall of 2014 or fall of 2015, these groups and others will partner formally to assess how the needs of redistricted Lewisboro and Increase Miller students can be addressed; how the needs of reassigned staff can be addressed; and to plan for the effect of redistricting on all students and staff.15   Some of the identified actions that will be included in the transition plan are:   

Students will see the physical school they will attend 

Students will meet potential classmates 

School communities will create blended or new traditions 

Support will be provided for students who may be separated from close friends 

Family transitions will be created and scheduled 

Staff members will relocate belongings and prepare for new assignments 

Staff members will be transitioned into new buildings and onto new teams 

 8. Educational Plan/Assumptions Informing Initial Cost Savings Estimate 

 Throughout deliberations and as documented in its April 4, 2013 meeting minutes, the School Utilization 

Committee validated that the District’s current elementary model, whereby students  in grades K‐5 are 

educated  in  the  elementary  schools,  serves  students well.   Closing  Lewisboro  Elementary  School will 

result  in delivering  the current elementary model across  three  (3) rather  than  four  (4) K‐5 elementary 

schools; this model will continue to consist of:  

uninterrupted instructional time to provide core instruction in ELA and math 

continued implementation of new science units aligned to Next Generation standards 

utilization of informational texts across content areas including science and social studies 

daily  time  in  special  or  enrichment  areas  including  art, music,  physical  education,  or  library media 

frequent assessment of student progress  

access to support services such as Response to Intervention, speech and language, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, school based counseling, or special education services as determined 

access to a full‐time school nurse 

daily lunch and recess time at all grade levels 

participation  in  grade  level  and  school‐wide  special  events  including  those  related  to  school gardens, sustainability, trails, and wellness 

programming and enrichment activities offered by a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) or Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) in each elementary school as well as by the Special Education Parent Teacher Association (SEPTA), which serves families district‐wide. 

 

In  addition, delivering elementary education  across  three  (3)  rather  than  four  (4) K‐5 elementary 

schools is anticipated to achieve: 

                                                            15 See Appendix P for timeline associated with transition activities  

14  

greater stability with  regard  to grade  level class size at or near District goal over  the next  five years (see Appendix L ) 

greater stability with regard to teacher reassignment year‐to‐year due to low enrollment in the elementary schools  

economies  of  scale  with  regard  to  consolidation  of  support  services,  better  deployment  of specialists and the ability to staff special area subjects within buildings 

improved  articulation  of  a  guaranteed,  viable  elementary  curriculum  rooted  in NYS  Common Core learning standards 

increased opportunities for cohesive curriculum planning across the District which will result in a more consistent experience for students  

9. Cost Savings 

 For the past few years, the District has experienced attrition of staff due to declining enrollment.   If the District continues to operate four elementary schools during the 2014 2015 school year, it would save approximately $1.28 million due to this attrition—this amount is based upon known retirements and/or staff seniority.   If the District closes Lewisboro Elementary School in 2014‐15, there will be an additional recurring savings of $1.9 million. These projections do not include the cost for adding full‐day kindergarten—this recurring cost will be accounted for separately should the Board of Education approve this program for 2014‐2015.  Estimated savings for 2014‐15 are outlined below:   

  

Summary

Operate 4 Elementary Schools 1/2 day K

Reductions Number of FTE Salary Benefits Total

Teachers (8.00)                                (789,513)        (314,617)            (1,104,130)                    

Special Areas (1.33)                                (119,893)        (52,338)              (172,232)                       

Total (9.33)                               (909,406)        (366,956)           (1,276,363)                   

Operate 3 Elementary Schools 1/2 day K

Reductions Number of FTE Salary Benefits Total

Teachers (10.50)                             (1,034,929)     (428,198)            (1,463,127)                    

Psychologist (1.00)                                (67,368)          (37,443)              (104,811)                       

Administrators (2.00)                                (324,673)        (119,971)            (444,644)                       

Clerical (2.00)                                (96,960)          (62,134)              (159,094)                       

Health Services (1.00)                                (60,780)          (40,015)              (100,795)                       

Library Media Specialist (1.00)                                (72,173)          (39,754)              (111,927)                       

Monitors (0.38)                                (33,678)          (18,439)              (52,117)                         

Custodian (3.75)                                (214,905)        (150,756)            (365,661)                       

Special Areas (1.75)                                (157,359)        (66,115)              (223,474)                       

Sub‐Total Staffing (23.38)                             (2,062,825)    (962,826)           (3,025,651)                   

Utilities (148,143)                       

Grand Total (3,173,794)                   

Additional Savings Associated With Closing a Building (1,897,432)                   

15  

It should be noted that in the first year of implementation of a school closing minimal construction will be necessary (in the form of constructing walls or taking down existing walls). Total one‐time costs for the following items (which will need to be refined) are not expected to exceed $95,000:  Increase Miller Elementary School 

Remove walls and privacy partitions constructed to establish the District Office  

Convert District Office lunch area into conference room 

Convert computer lab into faculty room  Meadow Pond Elementary School 

Construct conference room in A‐wing  Katonah Elementary School 

No construction necessary  New District Office 

Relocate District Office   

Other Items: 

Moving Expenses 

Redistricting Consultant 

Mapping Consultant 

Transportation Consultant  

10. Re‐opening Considerations  It is important for the Board of Education to take into consideration the possibility that at some point in the future, if enrollment trends reverse and the District begins to experience enrollment increases, staff may need to be added back and the Board of Education may need to pierce the tax cap.  Furthermore, if enrollment begins to climb, and it becomes necessary for the Board to add staff back into the annual budget, it may be necessary to propose a tax levy which would necessitate the piercing of the cap regardless of the need to reopen the Lewisboro Elementary School.  In addition, it is important to consider that should elementary enrollment levels return to those seen during the most recent peak (2000 plus students as seen from 1998‐2001) the Board of Education may need to re‐open Lewisboro Elementary School.  Should the Board of Education find it necessary to re‐open Lewisboro Elementary School the recurring expense of doing so (in 2013 – 2014 dollars) would be approximately equal to the annual recurring savings associated with closing the school ($1.9 million).    It is imperative that the Board of Education understand that under the new tax cap regulations a 60% majority approval rating on the budget funding would be required to pierce the tax cap.  Based upon the annual Finance Committee Per‐Pupil Expenditure Report, this is no easy task in the Katonah Lewisboro Union Free School District.  An exemption does not exist within the current tax cap formula for the re‐opening and re‐staffing of a school due to increasing enrollment; capital improvements associated with reopening a school may be exempted. 

 

16  

It is impossible at this time to estimate a value associated with how much the tax levy (the value that the tax cap is based upon) might be impacted by the reopening of the Lewisboro Elementary School. Other expenditure considerations would need to be known in order to determine the exact amount by which the cap might need to be exceeded.  It should be the intention of the Board of Education to maintain Lewisboro Elementary School in good operating order.  

11. Type, Age, and Physical Condition of Lewisboro Elementary School  Lewisboro Elementary School was built in 1940 and expanded by building additions in 1951 and 2003. The total square footage contained within the Lewisboro Elementary School is 61,513 square feet.  The property upon which the Lewisboro Elementary School is constructed consists of 9.7 acres.  Outstanding debt associated with 2003 renovations and expansion is approximately $3.03 million.  When the school was first utilized in 1940, it housed students up through grade 8.    In the last 4 years, the District has collected data using the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) assessment tool.  The most recent NYSERDA report from September 2012 assigns a score of 1 to 100 with the higher number indicating better energy efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions and lower cost to operate. In addition to energy use, the EPA metrics take into consideration the size of the structure, the people served or housed in the structure, hours and seasons of operation, weather conditions, and how this structure compares to sister structures in our geography. A 50 means the building has a median rating, a 75 or better indicates a top performer.  The average of the 4‐year rating for each of our elementary schools is as follows:  

1. Katonah Elementary School    56.75 2. Increase Miller Elementary School  27.50 3. Meadow Pond Elementary School  23.75 4. Lewisboro Elementary School      7.25  

 In addition, Honeywell performed a certified energy audit during the 2013 calendar year.  Lewisboro Elementary School's utility cost per square foot is the greatest out of all six of our schools. The utility cost per square foot is calculated to be $3.33. In comparison, the other three elementary schools have utility cost per square foot as outlined below:  

Meadow Pond Elementary School – $2.64 per square foot 

Increase Miller Elementary School ‐ $2.09 per square foot 

Katonah Elementary School – $1.64 per square foot  Although we are planning to complete energy efficiency work in Lewisboro Elementary School, it is anticipated that even after completion of this work to improve the energy efficiency, the school will still be below the median energy efficiency in comparison to other similar schools in the mid‐Atlantic and New England regions. All other Katonah Lewisboro schools, post the completion of energy efficiency projects, will be above the median when compared to other similar schools.   The scope of work planned for Lewisboro Elementary School over the next 12 to 18 months includes lighting and lighting control work, energy conservation measures to improve the efficiency of variable frequency drives and other motors, installation of de‐stratification fans, replacement of unit ventilators, upgrades to the building management system, installation of demand control ventilation (where 

17  

applicable), building envelope improvements, and installation of window thermal panels. All of these efforts will improve the energy efficiency of the Lewisboro Elementary School as outlined above and hopefully increase the marketability of the school.    It is the intention of the District to continue to maintain the Lewisboro Elementary School so that, in the event it becomes necessary to reopen the school, we will be able to do so without a large capital outlay.  The following items of significant cost are of particular concern and should be addressed within the next several years to preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to maintain an environment in overall good condition:  

Emergency lighting – Supplement emergency lighting and provide over exits 

Exterior – Exterior doors which are past useful life are in need of replacement 

Electrical – Provide upgrades to branch feeders and panel boards 

HVAC ‐ Replace original ventilation system which is past useful life 

Lighting – General lighting is near the end of useful life 

Fire Alarm – Replace with new addressable system 

General – Replace interior doors and metal ceilings 

Roofing – Replace foam roofing with EPDM 

Plumbing ‐ Piping throughout the building is at the end of its useful life  Value of Work Identified In 5‐Year Capital Improvement Plan           October 2011      June 2014 

Priority 1      $152,077      $0 

Priority 2      $1,178,607      $1,167,113 

Priority 3      $675,916      $675,916 

Priority 4      $1,342,501      $1,295,345 

Building Totals      $3,349,101      $3,138,374  Building Special Features – Lewisboro Elementary School is one of the originally commissioned buildings within the District. The building has been maintained in good condition. Multiple courtyards which include artistic displays, growing gardens, and other special features exist throughout the site. The Lewisboro Elementary School community has maintained a nature trail which is incorporated into the curriculum and instruction is provided to the students.    Maintenance: As outlined in the “Financial Savings” section above, we anticipate that we will be able to reduce 3.75 FTE custodial staff by closing Lewisboro Elementary School. This will yield in excess of $365,000 (salaries and benefits) in savings for each year that we do not operate the school. It is our intention to continue to maintain the grounds at the school and to continue to conduct security and maintenance checks on a regular basis. Systems will be tested on a regular basis to ensure they are maintained in accordance with preventive maintenance schedules. Over the next several years as principal and interest associated with indebtedness for all of the schools begin to mature, necessary maintenance outlined in the five‐year capital improvement plan should be considered for implementation as a means of maintaining the school in good condition.  For additional information relative to a Facilities Assessment Presentation made to the Board of Education on June 6, 2013, see Appendix M.  

18  

12. Transportation Overview/Summary Baseline transportation was studied in order to be able to model the impact of consolidating elementary schools on routes and travel times.  In summary, based on the methodology and assumptions outlined below, it is anticipated that:  

A. No new buses will need to be purchased to accommodate any of the models presented below. B. Savings relative to the elimination of mid‐day kindergarten runs exceed costs of implementing 

either of the two models (one in summary format only) presented below. C. The number of routes greater than or equal to 21 minutes in length, has increased (from the 

initial routing model) from 363 routes to 414 routes.  The number of routes less than 21 minutes in length has decreased from 709 routes to 653 routes.   

D. If we were to add two routes, designed to address pockets of longer bus runs created by the consolidation of elementary schools, the number of modeled routes greater than or equal to 21 minutes in length is reduced from 414 routes to 384 routes.   

 It should be noted that actual routes and run times for 2014 ‐ 2015 will need to be created during the summer of 2014 once fifth‐grade students have been advanced to the middle school, all kindergarten students have registered, and all other students have been placed in their new elementary school.  Baseline Transportation Data:  

  To understand the impact of closing Lewisboro Elementary School on the baseline transportation data, boundaries for elementary attendance zones were modified based upon the following assumptions:    

Approximately 35% of the students will attend Katonah Elementary School, 

0:41:00 Baseline Transportation Data 0:41:000:42:000:42:000:43:00 IMES0:43:00 Summary0:45:000:45:00 Number of AM Runs 100:45:00 11 Number of PM Runs 100:46:00 Total # of AM and PM 200:49:00 Shortest AM Run 3 min0:50:00 3 Longest AM Run 49 min0:51:00 Shortest PM Run 3 min0:52:00 Longest PM Run 50 min0:53:00 3 Mean 17:50.8

District Median 16:00.0Mean 0:17:10 Mode 06:00.0Median 0:16:00Mode 0:08:00 KESCount 1072 Summary

Number of AM Runs 101-5 min 103 Number of PM Runs 106-10 min 203 Total # of AM and PM 2011-15 min 208 Shortest AM Run 2 min16-20 min 195 Longest AM Run 43 min21-25 min 160 Shortest PM Run 2 min26-30 min 104 Longest PM Run 42 min31-35 min 57 Mean 17:57.236-40 min 25 Median 15:00.041-45 min 11 Mode 12:00.046-50 min 3 LES50-55 min 3 Summary MPES

SummaryNumber of AM Runs 9Number of PM Runs 9 Number of AM Runs 9Total # of AM and PM 18 Number of PM Runs 9Shortest AM Run 1 min Total # of AM and PM 18Longest AM Run 35 min Shortest AM Run 2 minShortest PM Run 3 min Longest AM Run 52 minLongest PM Run 37 min Shortest PM Run 3 minMean 15:52.5 Longest PM Run 51 minMedian 16:00.0 Mean 18:47.2Mode 08:00.0 Median 18:00.0

Mode 10:00.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

19  

Approximately 35% of the students will attend Increase Miller Elementary School,  

Approximately 30% of the students will attend Meadow Pond Elementary School.   These percentages were utilized based upon the number of full‐size classrooms available in each of the elementary schools (27, 27, and 25 respectively). In addition, elementary attendance boundaries were created based upon efficient routes which would minimize ride times and result in safe transportation.    Please note that modifications to these modeled boundary lines may need to be made and ultimately will need to be approved by the Board of Education. To the maximum extent possible, disruption of students who are not currently attending Lewisboro Elementary School has been minimized in the proposed model.  We would caution the Board of Education that modifications to modeled boundary lines may impact the total number of students disrupted by the closure of Lewisboro Elementary School.   Estimated run times based upon a three elementary school model and new elementary attendance zones are outlined below. This analysis involves a comparison between how route times for 2013 ‐2014 elementary school students in a four school elementary model would change in a three school elementary model.   

  We have eliminated all mid‐day kindergarten bus runs.  Additional efficiencies (designed to address longer bus runs referred to below as “Modeled +2”) and route times can be realized if we re‐deployed some of the resources previously used for mid‐day kindergarten routes.    Those additional efficiencies are shown in the comparative information outlined below.    

IMESSummary

Number of AM Runs 14Number of PM Runs 14Total # of AM and PM 28

District Shortest AM Ride Time 0:02Mean 0:18:28 Longest AM Ride Time 0:43Median 0:17:00 Shortest PM Ride Time 0:03Mode 0:11:00 Longest PM Ride Time 0:53Count 1067 Mean 19:03.1

Median 18:00.0Mode 14:00.0

1-5 min 966-10 min 176 KES11-15 min 199 Summary16-20 min 18221-25 min 159 Number of AM Runs 1226-30 min 102 Number of PM Runs 1231-35 min 80 Total # of AM and PM 2436-40 min 40 Shortest AM Ride Time 0:0141-45 min 18 Longest AM Ride Time 0:5146-50 min 11 Shortest PM Ride Time 0:0250-55 min 4 Longest PM Ride Time 0:55

Mean 17:27.2Median 15:00.0Mode 12:00.0

MPESSummary

Number of AM Runs 11Number of PM Runs 11Total # of AM and PM 22Shortest AM Ride Time 0:01Longest AM Ride Time 0:45Shortest PM Ride Time 0:03Longest PM Ride Time 0:46Mean 18:32.5Median 18:00.0Mode 10:00.0

Modeled Transportation Data

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

20  

  Raw data is shown below:  

    13. Redistricting The Lewisboro Elementary School student population cannot be accommodated by utilizing only Meadow Pond Elementary School and Increase Miller Elementary School.  Therefore elementary attendance zones needed to be modified between Katonah Elementary School and Increase Miller Elementary School.  In addition, the elementary attendance zone between Meadow Pond Elementary School and Increase Miller Elementary School needed to be modified.  This ensured a distribution of elementary school students in a manner which could be accommodated by the three remaining elementary schools.  The following “Guiding Principles” informed the development of revised attendance zones:  

Develop attendance zones based on the number of students that can be accommodated at each elementary schools: 

o Approximately 35% at Katonah Elementary School 

Baseline Transportation Verses Modeled Transportation

0

50

100

150

200

250

1‐5 min

6‐10 min

11‐15 min

16‐20 min

21‐25 min

26‐30 min

31‐35 min

36‐40 min

41‐45 min

46‐50 min

50‐55 min

Baseline

Modeled

Modeled +2

Number of AM & PM Stops

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

Baseline Modeled Modeled +2 Routes1-5 min 103 96 986-10 min 203 176 18111-15 min 208 199 21116-20 min 195 182 19521-25 min 160 159 16326-30 min 104 102 10731-35 min 57 80 6736-40 min 25 40 33

41-45 min 11 18 1146-50 min 3 11 250-55 min 3 4 1

21  

o Approximately 35% at Increase Miller Elementary School o Approximately 30% at Meadow Pond Elementary School 

Develop boundaries based upon logical routes which would minimize student ride times and result in efficient and safe transportation.   

Develop elementary boundaries which would (when feasible) bisect the midpoint (based on the length of a bus ride) between one elementary school and the adjacent one. 

To the maximum extent possible minimize the disruption of students who are not currently attending Lewisboro Elementary School. 

 These principles were followed to the maximum extent possible.  At times, one or more of the guiding principles needed to take priority over another based on the impossibility of accommodating all four of the guiding principles because of a specific location of a property.   

 The initial redistricting model was developed through the following process:   

A consultant was hired to map the entire school district (“map consultant”).   

A transportation consultant worked with the District’s Transportation Director to develop logical elementary school zones consistent with the guiding principles outlined above.  The “map consultant” coordinated with the transportation department to transfer the revised attendance boundaries onto a 3‐elementary school map.   

A demographer geocoded the five most recent years of historical student data to construct a model (Cohort Survival Ratio and Kindergarten Distribution Model) to project the next five years of enrollment by school and grade level, taking into account the revised attendance boundaries for 3 elementary schools.   

Central Administration then utilized these enrollment projections to develop the number of grade level sections projected at each of the three remaining elementary schools (see appendix L).   Modifications to the proposed redistricting plan may need to be made and ultimately must be approved by the Board of Education.   A finalized redistricting plan should be approved by the Board of Education not later than mid‐February, 2014. 

 Disruption of students as a result of proposed redistricting is outlined below based on 2013‐14 enrollments:  

Approximately 350 Lewisboro Elementary students would be redistricted to the remaining three elementary schools.   

o 165 Lewisboro Elementary School students would be redistricted to Increase Miller Elementary School, 

o 118 Lewisboro Elementary School students would be redistricted to Meadow Pond Elementary School, and; 

o 67 Lewisboro Elementary School students would be redistricted to Katonah Elementary School  

Approximately 46 Increase Miller Elementary School students would be redistricted to Katonah elementary school to make room at Increase Miller Elementary School for incoming Lewisboro Elementary School students. 

Students currently attending Meadow Pond Elementary School and Katonah Elementary School will continue to attend the same school 

 The maps below illustrate how elementary attendance zones would be modified. Current Attendance Zones 2013‐14 

22  

   Modified Attendance Zones 2013‐14 

  Detailed maps showing proposed modifications to attendance zones as well as the Redistricting Analysis can be found in Appendix R.    

23  

In the event that the Board of Education decides to consolidate its four elementary schools into three, redistricting will need to be finalized no later than mid February 2014.  By doing so budgeting and other important dependent activities including PTA/PTO elections and transition activities can occur.   Summary: Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Closing Lewisboro Elementary School  Closing Lewisboro Elementary School affords the District an opportunity to align its allocation of resources for elementary education with: 

1) A desire to continue to staff grade level sections near the District’s enrollment goals and to 

continue to provide special services and staff special area subjects optimally for the benefit of all 

students 

2) A significant decline in elementary enrollment experienced over the past 15 years 

3) An urgency for the implementation of full‐day kindergarten, due to the implementation of Common Core standards 

 In addition to the financial benefits discussed earlier in this document, there are educational and social benefits associated with redistricting across elementary schools. Class size will become more equitable across the district, class sizes will be more stable, and this should result in fewer grade‐level changes for staff year‐to‐year. Also, more sections on each grade level will provide more options for class placement which will result in opportunity to learn and grow with different students.  Teachers will have more opportunities to collaborate with others on their grade level because there will no longer be singleton classroom teachers (Kindergarten) on a grade level. This is particularly important in the implementation and refinement of Common Core curriculum.  Additionally, special area teachers such as art, music and physical education will not be traveling as much among three buildings resulting in a more efficient delivery of instruction by recapturing some of the time that would have been spent traveling.  When special area teachers are able to be located in fewer buildings, they can also become more involved in the school community which leads to better learning for all.   Finally, consolidating our elementary school also enables the District to continue to mitigate its per pupil costs. As we are among the districts with the highest per pupil cost in the county, this is a very positive change.  The challenges associated with consolidating our elementary schools include the disruption to all Lewisboro families; some Increase Miller families; and the staff who will be assigned to a new school.  Closing a school will require strong leadership, careful planning, and coordinated communication to ensure the establishment of school cultures that reflect a hybrid of traditions and a newly created culture at each elementary school that can be experienced positively by all who become part of its community and the District at large.  Consolidating our elementary schools also will require careful planning around the possible future utilization and maintenance of the building.  Efforts should be made to mitigate the potential negative impacts of school closure on the hamlet of South Salem.  In conclusion, during a period of declining enrollment and fiscal constraint the consolidation of our elementary schools could afford the Board of Education an opportunity to ensure efficient use of resources and support student achievement and continuous improvement of school programs.  A successful implementation of a school closure will require strong leadership on our part and will require 

24  

the school community to work together to bring about the best outcome for all our students and our entire community.    Thank you to all those who, as representatives of their respective constituencies in the District, gave their time, expertise, opinions and patience in helping to bring the process to this point, and for their support in the development of this document.   

 

S h l Utili tiSchool Utilization

School Utilization Committee

J 20 2013June 20, 2013

Charge of the Committeeg

To research and present to the Board of Education specific

ti d d tioptions and recommendation for building configurations during a period of declining enrollment and fiscal constraints, to ensure the efficient use of resources and support student achievement and continuous improvement of school programs.

Committee MembersBoard of Education Chairperson Janet HarckhamBoard of Education Trustees Marjorie SchiffBoard of Education Trustees Marjorie Schiff

Stephanie Tobin

Superintendent of Schools Paul KreutzerAssistant Superintendent for Business Michael JumperAssistant Superintendent for Business Michael JumperAssistant Superintendent for Instruction Alice CroninAssistant Superintendent for Human Resources Scott Persampieri

Director of Special Services Connie HayesDirector of Operations & Maintenance Tom PsomasDirector of Transportation Patricia Kristoferson

Interim Principal, John Jay High School John GoetzPrincipal, John Jay Middle School Rich LeprinePrincipal, Increase Miller Elementary Kerry FordPrincipal Katonah Elementary Jessica GodinPrincipal, Katonah Elementary Jessica GodinPrincipal, Lewisboro Elementary Cristy HarrisPrincipal, Meadow Pond Elementary Carolann Castellano

Committee Members

KLAAS Member Gil CassKLAAS Member Gil Cass

KLDTA Member Sandy Grebinar

KLSSA Member Jeani Granelli

Nurses Pamela Hagele, Karen Greenwood

Support Staff Member Kathy Downz

Elementary Teachers Linda DiGregoria, Shari Robinson, Christine SamuelsohnChristine Samuelsohn

Middle School Teacher Laura Atwell

High School Teacher Linda Burke

Special Area Teachers Jean CapuanoSpecial Area Teachers Jean Capuano

Special Education Teacher Christine Ferrarone

PTO/PTA & Community Members John Goodman, Ashley Murphy, Leah Pizer, Nelson SalazarRobert Kesten

Our WorkOur WorkMeeting Dates:Meeting Dates:

February 26, 2013

March 12, 2013

April 3 2013April 3, 2013

April 22, 2013

May 13, 2013

May 28, 2013

June 10, 2013

United States 2011 Population p

Population Pyramid of Katonah CDPfrom 2010 Censusfrom 2010 Census

Population Pyramid of the Town of Lewisborofrom 2010 Censusfrom 2010 Census

Baseline Enrollment Projections j

Projected Kindergarten Replacementj g p

*Incoming Kindergarten minus prior year graduating class.

Projected Enrollments 2012-2022j

Projected Grade K‐12 Enrollments for 2012‐13 to 2021‐22Using Cohort‐Survival

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sp. 

Ed

K‐12 

Total

2012 13 191 200 226 282 270 254 264 304 274 283 302 309 285 22 3 466

Projected Grade K 12 Enrollments for 2012 13 to 2021 22 Using Cohort Survival 

Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data

2012‐13 191 200 226 282 270 254 264 304 274 283 302 309 285 22 3,466

2013‐14 195 201 201 228 280 273 249 262 303 270 281 297 304 22 3,366  

2014‐15 150 205 202 203 227 283 268 247 261 299 268 276 292 21 3,202  

2015‐16 177 158 206 204 202 229 277 266 246 257 297 263 271 20 3,073  

2016‐17 174 186 159 208 203 204 224 275 265 242 255 292 259 19 2,965

2017‐18 157 183 187 161 207 205 200 222 274 261 241 251 287 18 2,854  

2018‐19 157 165 184 189 160 209 201 199 221 270 259 237 247 17 2,715  

2019‐20 157 165 166 186 188 162 205 200 198 218 268 255 233 17 2,618  

2020‐21 157 165 166 168 185 190 159 204 199 195 217 263 251 16 2,535  

2021‐22 157 165 166 168 167 187 186 158 203 196 194 213 259 15 2,434  

Note 1:  Assumes birth rates and cohort survival ratios remain consistent with past trends

Note 2: Geocoded birth data was not yet available for 2011. This results in greater uncertainty in kindergarten projections for 2016Note 2:  Geocoded birth data was not yet available for 2011. This results in greater uncertainty in kindergarten projections for 2016

Note 3:  The reliability of this data beyond 2016‐17 (CURRENTLY DRAFT DATA)  is diminished since birth data is not yet available.  

Full Day Kindergarteny g

Full day Kindergarten wasFull day Kindergarten was considered in all models.

Options Explored and Eliminatedp p

Model 1 Notes/Why EliminatedModel 1 Notes/Why EliminatedK-1

Consensus was reached that this model: Required students to transition too many times

2-34-5

Could not be effectively realized due to district geography

56-89-12

Model 2 Notes/Why EliminatedK-2

Consensus was reached that this model: Required students to transition too many times Could not be effectively realized due to district

h

3-56-89-12

geography

Options Explored and Eliminatedp p

Model 3 Notes/Why EliminatedModel 3 Notes/Why EliminatedK-3

Consensus was reached that this model: Requires students to transition too many times

4-67-8 (7-12

Research suggests 2-year school configuration (7-8) should be avoided where possible

8 (campus)9-12

Model 4 Notes/Why EliminatedK-4

C h d th t thi d lConsensus was reached that this model: Requires students to transition too many times Research suggests 2-year school configuration

(5 6 or 7 8) should be avoided where possible

5-67-8 (7-12

campus)9-12(5-6 or 7-8) should be avoided where possible

Options Explored and Eliminatedp pModel 7 Notes/Why EliminatedK-6 Consensus was reached that:

Research suggests 2-year school configuration (7-8) should be avoided where possible

District would not be able to maximize or allocate space

7-89-12

effectively

Model 8 Notes/Why EliminatedK-8 Consensus was reached that:

District would not be able to maximize or allocate space effectively

District should not dismantle current middle school model

9-12

Model 9 Notes/Why EliminatedK-6 Consensus was reached that:

District would not be able to maximize or allocate space7 12 District would not be able to maximize or allocate space effectively

District should not dismantle current middle school model

7-12

Options Still ConsideredpModel 5 Notes/Why NOT eliminatedTwo K-4 BuildingsTwo K 4 Buildings

Consensus was reached that: This model could result in potential opportunities for

students as well as significant efficiencies and cost

5-89-12

savings This model warrants further study and analysis

(preliminary discussion of opportunities/issues d d)appended)

Model 6 Notes/Why NOT EliminatedThree K-5 Buildings

Consensus was reached that:Consensus was reached that: This model works well currently and could result in

efficiencies and costs savings, if modified This model warrants further study and analysis

6-89-12

This model warrants further study and analysis (preliminary discussion of opportunities/issues appended)

Two Options for further study: p y

Option 1 (F l M d l 6)Option 1: (Formerly Model 6)

Close one elementary buildingO t th K 5 l t h l• Operate three K-5 elementary schools

• Middle School and High School unaffected

Option 2: (Formerly Model 5)

Close two elementary buildingsClose two elementary buildings• Operate two K-4 elementary schools• Middle school enrolls grades 5-8g

Option 1– Opportunities/Issuesp pp

Opportunities/Issues Three K-5 Buildings

Opportunities:6-8

1. Could result in cost savings, if delivered across five buildings rather than six

2. Less disruption across district: middle school is

9-12

unaffected and current elementary structure is maintained

3. Current model serves the district well and is aligned with organization of new Common Corealigned with organization of new Common Core learning standards

Option 1– Opportunities/Issuesp pp

Opportunities/IssuesThree K-5 Buildings

Issues:6-8

1. Requires redistricting

2. Can accommodate shift to full-day Kindergarten

9-12

but with less flexibility

3. May be the preferred model of educational delivery but will not maximize infrastructuredelivery, but will not maximize infrastructure efficiency or maximize cost savings

Option 2– Opportunities/Issuesp ppOpportunities/Issues

Two K-4 Buildings Opportunities:

1. Results in greatest cost savings to district

2. Smoothes class size across elementary schools

5-8

9-12

y

3. Potential earlier access to departmentalization; World Languages; science labs; guidance counselors; clubs; and intramurals

4. Consolidation of students potentially facilitates delivery of special education services

5. Begin developing district-wide identity earlierg p g y

6. Possible opportunities for student partnerships and mentoring

7. Can easily accommodate shift to full-day Kindergarteny y g

Option 2– Opportunities/Issuesp ppOpportunities/Issues

Two K-4 Buildings Issues:5 8 1. New Common Core Learning Standards organized K-5; 6-8

2. How to structure 5th and 6th grade logistically, contractually, and from a scheduling standpoint

A. To what extent would 5th grade “look more like 6th grade” or would 6th

5-89-12

g ggrade “look more like 5th grade”

1. (5, 6-8)2. (5-6)

(7-8)( )3. (5-8)

3. How to ensure that district is meeting the emotional, social, and developmental needs of 10 year oldsA. How to create opportunity for parent involvement and pp y p

communication, as currently exists for 5th grade in the elementary schools

4. Impact on lunch, recess, infrastructure, e.g. construction of playground at the middle school

5. Requires redistricting6. Impact on transportation7. Alignment of grading practice for 5th and 6th grade

Peak vs. Projected EnrollmentjPeak

Enrollment Peak *Projected

EnrollmentProjected

EnrollmentProjected

EnrollmentSchool Gr. Year Enrollment 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Increase Miller Elementary K-5 1997 629 307 285 271

Katonah Elementary K-5 1999 518 364 352 350

Lewisboro Elementary K-5 1998 537 316 280 265

Meadow Pond Elementary K-5 2005 446 289 265 259

John Jay Middle School 6-8 2001 1,042** 779 792 766

John Jay High School 9-12 2007 1,311 1,144 1,096 1,056

District K-12 2006 4,041 3,202 3,073 2,965, , , ,

*Peak ≠ Capacity** Achieved prior to building addition

Projected EnrollmentProjected Enrollment

YK-5

3 El tK-4

2 El t G d 5 8Year 3 Elementary Schools

2 Elementary Schools

Grade 5-8

2014 423 494 10592014 423 494 10592015 392 474 10182016 378 465 9682016 378 465 968

Cost AssumptionsCost Assumptions 70% reduction in utilities 70% reduction in utilities

Class size at current levels for “low savings”

Cl i t ½ b t “ l” d “ ” f “hi h Class size at ½ way between “goal” and “max” for “highsavings”

Renovations and transportation not included Renovations and transportation not included

Assumes buildings will not be sold

Assumes no revenue from buildings

Expenses attached to labor reductions were assumedb d 2013 tbased on 2013 costs

Assumes full-day Kindergarten at ten (10) sections

2014 – 2015 Financial Impact Verses 2013 – 2014 Program *2013 2014 Program

ModelLow Savings/(Cost)

High Savings/(Cost)Model Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost)

Current Model ($324,061) $26,298Cu e t ode ($3 ,06 ) $ 6, 98

Option 1Option 1 Three (K-5) $1,215,705 $1,916,422

Option 2Two (K-4) $2,823,774 $2,823,774

* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1 000 000/year* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1,000,000/year

2016 – 2017 Financial Impact Verses 2013 – 2014 Program*2013 2014 Program

ModelLow Savings/(Cost)

High Savings/(Cost)Model Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost)

Current Model $960,586 $960,586Cu e t ode $960,586 $960,586

Option 1Option 1 Three (K-5) $2,266,780 $2,266,780

Option 2Two (K-4) $3,407,704 $3,874,849

* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1 000 000/year* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1,000,000/year

Procedures for Closing a Schoolg

New York Education Law New York Education Law

Article 9 Article 9 -- §§ 402402--AA

Procedures for Closing a School BuildingProcedures for Closing a School Building

Next Stepsp

The School Utilization Committee d th B d f Ed tirecommends the Board of Education

create a School Closure Task Force per State statute to further and appropriately study the two options.app op ate y study t e t o opt o s

School Closure Public Hearing

School Closure Task Force

October 8, 2013

Charge of the Committee

To investigate the educational impact of closing 1 or 2 elementary schools and to draft, in accordance with NYS Education Law Article 9 Section 402-A “Procedures for Closing a School Building” and as per the recommendation of the full Board of Education, an educational impact statement to be filed with the Board not later than December 19, 2013.

Baseline Enrollment Projections

Projected Kindergarten Replacement

*Incoming Kindergarten minus prior year graduating class.

Projected Enrollments 2012-2022

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Sp. Ed

K‐12 Total

2012‐13 191 200 226 282 270 254 264 304 274 283 302 309 285 22 3,466  2013‐14 195 201 201 228 280 273 249 262 303 270 281 297 304 22 3,366  2014‐15 150 205 202 203 227 283 268 247 261 299 268 276 292 21 3,202  2015‐16 177 158 206 204 202 229 277 266 246 257 297 263 271 20 3,073  2016‐17 174 186 159 208 203 204 224 275 265 242 255 292 259 19 2,965  2017‐18 157 183 187 161 207 205 200 222 274 261 241 251 287 18 2,854  2018‐19 157 165 184 189 160 209 201 199 221 270 259 237 247 17 2,715  2019‐20 157 165 166 186 188 162 205 200 198 218 268 255 233 17 2,618  2020‐21 157 165 166 168 185 190 159 204 199 195 217 263 251 16 2,535  2021‐22 157 165 166 168 167 187 186 158 203 196 194 213 259 15 2,434  Note 1:  Assumes birth rates and cohort survival ratios remain consistent with past trendsNote 2:  Geocoded birth data was not yet available for 2011. This results in greater uncertainty in kindergarten projections for 2016Note 3:  The reliability of this data beyond 2016‐17 (CURRENTLY DRAFT DATA)  is diminished since birth data is not yet available.  

Projected Grade K‐12 Enrollments for 2012‐13 to 2021‐22 Using Cohort‐Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data

Peak vs. Projected Enrollment

School Gr.

Peak Enrollment

YearPeak *

Enrollment

ProjectedEnrollment2014-2015

ProjectedEnrollment2015-2016

ProjectedEnrollment2016-2017

Increase Miller Elementary K-5 1997 629 307 285 271

Katonah Elementary K-5 1999 518 364 352 350

Lewisboro Elementary K-5 1998 537 316 280 265

Meadow Pond Elementary K-5 2005 446 289 265 259

John Jay Middle School 6-8 2001 1,042** 779 792 766

John Jay High School 9-12 2007 1,311 1,144 1,096 1,056

District K-12 2006 4,041 3,202 3,073 2,965

*Peak ≠ Capacity** Achieved prior to building addition

K 1 2 3 4 5 Total

KES 45 61 58 66 63 71 364LES 31 45 52 46 60 82 316

IMES 38 53 52 41 56 62 302

MPES 35 47 41 51 47 68 289

Totals 149 206 203 204 226 283 1,271

2014-2015 Enrollment Projections

YearK-5

3 Elementary Schools

K-42 Elementary

SchoolsGrade 5-8

2014 423 494 10592015 392 474 10182016 378 465 968

Projected Enrollment

Grade

2013-2014Average

Class SizeClass Size

Goal

Contractual Maximum Class Size

K 16.3 20 251 17.6 20 252 17.9 20 253 19.5 25 284 21.8 25 305 20.5 25 30

2013-2014 Average Class Size

Grade

Projected2013-2014Average

Class Size

Class SizeGoal

Contractual Maximum Class Size

K 16.6 20 251 17.3 20 252 17.0 20 253 22.5 25 284 25.3 25 305 23.8 25 30

Projected 2014-2015 Average Class Size

Building# Full Size Rooms # Potential Rooms*

Total Possible Rooms

KES 24 3 27

LES 24 1 25

IMES 21 6 27

MPES 22 3 25

*Rooms such as computer labs, oversized classrooms, or the current District Office configuration

•Data Analysis:We conducted interviews with each elementary principal to take inventory of current classroom space.  The following chart outlines large classroom space in eac

Data Analysis

Number of Classrooms Needed

Description of Program Number of Rooms

Self Contained Special Education Rooms

7.0 Full sized rooms are needed

Interventionists (ELA and Math) 4.5 Full sized rooms or 9 Small Group Instruction Rooms

Occupational Therapists/Physical Therapists

3.0 Full sized rooms

Total Other Classrooms Needed 14.5 Rooms

Classroom CapacityIn a 3 elementary school model with full-day kindergarten, we need 63 General Education rooms for the K-5 population. In addition, we need 14.5 additional rooms as outlined above. In total we would need 63+14.5=77.5 classrooms to accommodate our K-5 elementary population in 3 schools.

KES – 27  KES – 27 KES – 27 KES – 27IMES – 27  IMES – 27  IMES – 27  IMES – 27   LES – 25  LES – 25  LES – 25  LES – 25 MPES – 25  MPES – 25  MPES – 25  MPES – 25 

Total  Rooms – 77  Rooms – 77  Rooms – 79  Rooms ‐79  

It is possible to accommodate the 2014-15 K-5 elementary population in 3 schools if the district operates 2 of its largest schools (IMES and KES) and one of its smaller schools (LES or MPES) for a total of 79 available classrooms.

Scenario #1: (532 students = 41.81% disruption rate)

Close MPES (1,271 students total; approximately 423 students in each building)

KES IMES LES MPES

Target 423 423 423 ClosedProjected 364 302 316 289

+289 -289

Net Result 364 302 605 0+182 -182

Net Result 364 484 423 0+61 -61

Net Result 425 423 423 0

School Closure – Scenario #1

School Closure – Scenario #2Scenario #2: (377 students = 29.7% disruption rate)

Close LES (1,271 students total; approximately 423 students in each building)

KES IMES LES MPES

Target 423 423 Closed 423Projected 364 302 316 289

-134 +134

Net Result 364 302 182 423+182 -182

Net Result 364 484 0 423

+61 -61Net Result 425 423 0 423

(Only LES: 316 students = 24.8% disruption rate)

Cost Assumptions 70% reduction in utilities

Class size at current levels for “low savings”

Class size at ½ way between “goal” and “max” for “highsavings”

Renovations and transportation not included

Assumes buildings will not be sold

Assumes no revenue from buildings

Expenses attached to labor reductions were assumedbased on 2013 costs

Assumes full-day Kindergarten at ten (10) sections

2014 – 2015 Financial Impact

Three (K-5) $2,250,000 $2,960,000

Cost Savings Range

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

Number of AM & PM BusStops

IMESSummary

Number of AM Runs 10Number of PM Runs 10Total Number of AM and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 3 minLongest AM Run 49 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 50 minMean 17:55.4Median 16:00.0Mode 06:00.0

KESSummary

Number of AM Runs 10Number of PM Runs 10Total Number of AM and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 2 minLongest AM Run 43 minShortest PM Run 2 minLongest PM Run 42 minMean 17:57.2Median 15:00.0Mode 12:00.0

MPESSummary

Number of AM Runs 9Number of PM Runs 9Total Number of AM and PM Runs

18

Shortest AM Run 2 minLongest AM Run 52 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 51 minMean 18:47.2Median 18:00.0Mode 10:00.0

LESSummary

Number of AM Runs 9Number of PM Runs 9Total Number of AM and PM Runs

18

Shortest AM Run 1 minLongest AM Run 35 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 37 minMean 15:52.5Median 16:00.0Mode 08:00.0

Baseline Transportation Data

Katonah-Lewisboro School District

School Closure Public Hearing

School Closure Task Force

October 21, 2013

Public Hearings

The School Closure Task Force has scheduled four (4) Public

Hearings at different times of day to accommodate various

schedules as follows:

October 8, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

October 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

November 6, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

November 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

The objective of Public Hearings is to invite

feedback, suggestions and information from

members of the community.

Proposed Timeline

September-November 2013:

Task force will present findings and facilitate discussion with full Board during a standing

agenda item to be added to the following BOE meeting agendas: September 12, October 3

and 17, November 21

Task Force will hold 4 public hearings on the JJMS/JJHS campus - October 8, October

21, November 6, November 18 - to invite feedback, suggestions, and information from

members of the community.

Schedule of Task Force Committee Meetings:

August 27

September 17

October 1

October 15

November 12

November 26

December 10

Proposed Timeline

January 2014:

January 16:

Public Hearing

January 23:

Board of Education will vote on a FINAL resolution regarding a school closure.

December 2013:

December 5

Special meeting of the Board to review summary of Task Force Findings and Draft

Educational Impact Statement

December 19

The Board of Education will consider a resolution to either close a school for the fall

of 2014 OR it will conclude its consideration of the matter for the year.

IF the Board approves a closure, then it will schedule a public hearing (Thursday,

January 16th, 2014).

Charge of the Committee

To investigate the educational

impact of closing 1 or 2

elementary schools and to

draft, in accordance with NYS

Education Law Article 9 Section

402-A “Procedures for Closing

a School Building” and as per

the recommendation of the full

Board of Education, an

educational impact statement to

be filed with the Board not later

than December 19, 2013.

District Enrollment

2883

4109

2686

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Enrollment

PROJECTED ACTUAL

Grade 12 vs. Grade 1 Enrollment

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Grade 1

Grade 12

PROJECTED ACTUAL

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

KES Total

IMES Total

LES Total

MPES Total

PROJECTED ACTUAL

Enrollment – 4 Elementary Schools

Building

# Full Size

Rooms

# Potential Rooms*

Total Possible

Rooms

KES 24 3 27

LES 24 1 25

IMES 21 6 27

MPES 22 3 25

*Rooms such as

computer labs,

oversized classrooms,

or the current District

Office configuration

•Data Analysis: We conducted interviews with each elementary principal to take inventory of current classroom space. The following chart outlines large classroom space in each of our current buildings:

Elementary Classrooms

Year

Total

Students

3 Schools (Equal)

Existing 4 Schools

A

B

C

IMES

KES

LES

MPES

2014-15

1,271

423

424

424

302

364

316

289

2015-16

1,177

392

392

393

280

352

280

265

2016-17

1,136

378

379

379

266

346

265

259

2017-18

1,081

360

360

361

262

325

253

241

2018-19

1,044

348

348

348

251

318

236

239

Projected Enrollment by Building

Grade

2013-2014 Average

Class Size

Class Size

Goal

Contractual

Maximum Class Size

K

16.3

20

25 1 17.6 20 25 2 17.9 20 25 3 19.5 25 28 4 21.8 25 30 5 20.5 25 30

2013-2014 Average Class Size

Grade

Projected 2014-2015 Average

Class Size

Class Size

Goal

Contractual

Maximum Class Size

K

16.6

20

25 1 17.3 20 25 2 17.0 20 25 3 22.5 25 28 4 25.3 25 30 5 23.8 25 30

Projected 2014 Class Size 3 Schools

Factors

Disruption Factors

Flexibility of Space/Design

Efficiency/Environmental/Energy

Total Classrooms

Cost Assumptions

70% reduction in utilities

Class size at current levels for “low savings”

Class size at ½ way between “goal” and “max” for “high

savings”

Renovations and transportation not included

Assumes buildings will not be sold

Assumes no revenue from buildings

Expenses attached to labor reductions were assumed

based on 2013 costs

2014 – 2015 Financial Impact for Single Closure

Model

Low

Savings/(Cost)

High

Savings/(Cost)

Three (K-5)

$2,250,000

$2,960,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

IMES

Summary

Number of AM Runs 10

Number of PM Runs 10

Total Number of AM

and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 3 min

Longest AM Run 49 min

Shortest PM Run 3 min

Longest PM Run 50 min

Mean 17:55.4

Median 16:00.0

Mode 06:00.0

KES

Summary

Number of AM Runs 10

Number of PM Runs 10

Total Number of AM

and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 2 min

Longest AM Run 43 min

Shortest PM Run 2 min

Longest PM Run 42 min

Mean 17:57.2

Median 15:00.0

Mode 12:00.0

MPES

Summary

Number of AM Runs 9

Number of PM Runs 9

Total Number of AM

and PM Runs

18

Shortest AM Run 2 min

Longest AM Run 52 min

Shortest PM Run 3 min

Longest PM Run 51 min

Mean 18:47.2

Median 18:00.0

Mode 10:00.0

LES

Summary

Number of AM Runs 9

Number of PM Runs 9

Total Number of AM

and PM Runs

18

Shortest AM Run 1 min

Longest AM Run 35 min

Shortest PM Run 3 min

Longest PM Run 37 min

Mean 15:52.5

Median 16:00.0

Mode 08:00.0

Baseline Transportation Data

Katonah-Lewisboro School District

School Closure Public Hearing

School Closure Task Force

November 6, 2013

Charge of the Committee

To investigate the educational impact of closing 1 or 2 elementary schools and to draft, in accordance with NYS Education Law Article 9 Section 402-A “Procedures for Closing a School Building” and as per the recommendation of the full Board of Education, an educational impact statement to be filed with the Board not later than December 19, 2013.

Proposed Timeline

September-November 2013: Task force will present findings and facilitate discussion with full Board during a standing agenda item to be added to the following BOE meeting agendas: September 12, October 3 and 17, November 21

Task Force will hold 4 public hearings on the JJMS/JJHS campus - October 8, October 21, November 6, November 18 - to invite feedback, suggestions, and information from members of the community.

Schedule of Task Force Committee Meetings:

August 27 September 17 October 1 October 15 November 12 November 26 December 10

Proposed Timeline

January 2014:January 16:

Public Hearing

January 23:

Board of Education will vote on a FINAL resolution regarding a school closure.

December 2013: December 5

Special meeting of the Board to review summary of Task Force Findings and Draft Educational Impact Statement

December 19

The Board of Education will consider a resolution to either close a school for the fall of 2014 OR it will conclude its consideration of the matter for the year.IF the Board approves a closure, then it will schedule a public hearing (Thursday, January 16th, 2014).

Public HearingsThe School Closure Task Force has scheduled four (4) Public Hearings at different times of day to accommodate various schedules as follows:

October 8, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

October 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

November 6, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

November 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

The objective of Public Hearings is to invite feedback, suggestions and information from

members of the community.

25 Year History of Tax Levy

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

25 Year History of Tax Levy

Levy

District Enrollment

2883

4109

2686

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Enrollment

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

Grade 12 vs. Grade 1 Enrollment

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Grade 1

Grade 12

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

25-Year Elementary Enrollment

1453

2014

1044

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

25-Year Elementary Enrollment History/Projection

Elementary Total

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

KES Total

IMES Total

LES Total

MPES Total

Enrollment – 4 Elementary Schools

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Grade 1

Grade 5

Grade 1 vs. Grade 5 Enrollment

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

Cost Assumptions

80% reduction in utilities

Class size at current levels

Renovations and transportation not included

Assumes buildings will not be sold

Assumes no revenue from buildings

Expenses attached to labor reductions were assumedbased on 2013 costs

2014 – 2015 Financial Impact for Single Closure

Model Cost Savings

Three (K-5) $1,717,894

Historical Reductions Reduction in force of over 130 employees since 2009

comprised of teachers, support staff, administrators, nurses,counselors, instructional coaches, staff developers, clerical,O&M staff Eliminated foreign language in the elementary Eliminated Latin at the middle level High school electives were reduced Modified 8th grade teaming in the middle school Coaches & assistant coaches (23) were reduced in athletics Moved from double tripping to triple tripping in transportation Reduction in health costs Deferred maintenance in both O&M and Tech Moved the District Office

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

Number of AM & PM BusStops

IMESSummary

Number of AM Runs 10Number of PM Runs 10Total Number of AM and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 3 minLongest AM Run 49 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 50 minMean 17:55.4Median 16:00.0Mode 06:00.0

KESSummary

Number of AM Runs 10Number of PM Runs 10Total Number of AM and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 2 minLongest AM Run 43 minShortest PM Run 2 minLongest PM Run 42 minMean 17:57.2Median 15:00.0Mode 12:00.0

MPESSummary

Number of AM Runs 9Number of PM Runs 9Total Number of AM and PM Runs

18

Shortest AM Run 2 minLongest AM Run 52 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 51 minMean 18:47.2Median 18:00.0Mode 10:00.0

LESSummary

Number of AM Runs 9Number of PM Runs 9Total Number of AM and PM Runs

18

Shortest AM Run 1 minLongest AM Run 35 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 37 minMean 15:52.5Median 16:00.0Mode 08:00.0

Baseline Transportation Data

Katonah-Lewisboro School District

School Closure Public HearingSchool Closure Public Hearing

School Closure Task Force

N b 18 2013November 18, 2013

Charge of the Committeeg

T i ti t th d ti l i t fTo investigate the educational impact of closing 1 or 2 elementary schools and to d ft i d ith NYS Ed tidraft, in accordance with NYS Education Law Article 9 Section 402-A “Procedures f Cl i S h l B ildi ” dfor Closing a School Building” and as per the recommendation of the full Board of Ed ti d ti l i tEducation, an educational impact statement to be filed with the Board not l t th D b 19 2013later than December 19, 2013.

Proposed TimelineProposed TimelineSchedule of Task Force Committee Meetings:

A 27August 27 September 17 October 1 October 15 November 12 November 26 December 10

September-November 2013: Task force will present findings and facilitate discussion with full Board during a standing agenda item to be added to the following BOE meeting agendas: September 12, October 3 g g g g pand 17, November 21

Task Force will hold 4 public hearings on the JJMS/JJHS campus - October 8, October 21, November 6, November 18 - to invite feedback, suggestions, and information from members of the community.

Proposed TimelineProposed TimelineDecember 2013: December 5

Special meeting of the Board to review summary of Task Force Findings and Draft Educational Impact Statement

December 19December 19

The Board of Education will consider a resolution to either close a school for the fall of 2014 OR it will conclude its consideration of the matter for the year.IF the Board approves a closure, then it will schedule a public hearing (Thursday,

January 2014:

IF the Board approves a closure, then it will schedule a public hearing (Thursday, January 16th, 2014).

yJanuary 16:

Public Hearing

January 23:

Board of Education will vote on a FINAL resolution regarding a school closure.

Public HearingsgThe School Closure Task Force has scheduled four (4) Public H i t diff t ti f d t d t iHearings at different times of day to accommodate various schedules as follows:

October 8, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

October 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

November 6, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

November 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. – John Jay Middle School Theater

The objective of Public Hearings is to invite feedback, suggestions and information from

b f th itmembers of the community.

25 Year History of Tax Levyy y

120 000 000

25 Year History of Tax Levy

100,000,000

120,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

40,000,000

, ,

Levy

0

20,000,000

District Enrollment

4109

4500

3500

4000

2883

3000

3500

Enrollment

2883

2686

2500

2000

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

Grade 12 vs. Grade 1 Enrollment400

300

350

250Grade 1

Grade 12

1 0

200

Grade 12

100

150

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

25-Year Elementary Enrollmenty

2500

25-Year Elementary Enrollment History/Projection

2014

2000

1453

1000

1500

El T l1044

500

1000 Elementary Total

0

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

Enrollment – 4 Elementary Schools

700

y

500

600

400 KES Total

IMES Total

LES T t l

200

300

LES Total

MPES Total

100

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

Grade 1 vs. Grade 5 Enrollment400

300

350

200

250

Grade 1

Grade 5

50

100

150 Grade 5

0

50

All data from 2014-2015 and onward is projected.

Cost AssumptionsCost Assumptions

80% reduction in utilities

Class size at current levels

Renovations and transportation not included

Assumes buildings will not be soldg

Assumes no revenue from buildings

Expenses attached to labor reductions were assumed Expenses attached to labor reductions were assumedbased on 2013 costs

2014 – 2015 Financial Impact for Single Closure

Model Cost Savings

Three (K-5) $1,717,894

Historical ReductionsHistorical Reductions Reduction in force of over 130 employees since 2009

comprised of teachers, support staff, administrators, nurses,counselors, instructional coaches, staff developers, clerical,O&M staffO&M staff Eliminated foreign language in the elementary Eliminated Latin at the middle level High school electives were reduced High school electives were reduced Modified 8th grade teaming in the middle school Coaches & assistant coaches (23) were reduced in athletics Moved from double tripping to triple tripping in transportation Reduction in health costs Deferred maintenance in both O&M and TechDeferred maintenance in both O&M and Tech Moved the District Office

Baseline Transportation Data

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops

IMESSummary

KESSummary

200

250

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops Number of AM Runs 10Number of PM Runs 10Total Number of AM and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 3 minLongest AM Run 49 min

Number of AM Runs 10Number of PM Runs 10Total Number of AM and PM Runs

20

Shortest AM Run 2 minLongest AM Run 43 min

100

150

Number of AM & PM Bus

gShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 50 minMean 17:55.4Median 16:00.0Mode 06:00.0

gShortest PM Run 2 minLongest PM Run 42 minMean 17:57.2Median 15:00.0Mode 12:00.0

0

50

Number of AM & PM Bus Stops MPES

Summary

Number of AM Runs 9Number of PM Runs 9Total Number of AM 18

LESSummary

Number of AM Runs 9Number of PM Runs 9Total Number of AM 18Total Number of AM

and PM Runs18

Shortest AM Run 2 minLongest AM Run 52 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 51 minMean 18:47.2

and PM RunsShortest AM Run 1 minLongest AM Run 35 minShortest PM Run 3 minLongest PM Run 37 minMean 15:52.5

Median 18:00.0Mode 10:00.0

Median 16:00.0Mode 08:00.0

Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Issues from School Closure Hearings (10/8; 10/21; 11/6; 11/18) and Public Forum (10/17; 11/21) 

I. Vision/Educational Impact: 

Show us a vision for our schools  

Clarify impact of consolidation on Common Core implementation 

Clarify impact of consolidation on class sizes 

Clarify capacity and provide precise mapping of how students would fit 

Help us understand the educational impact for students and teachers; clarify whether teachers will be 

moved across grade levels or buildings to a greater extent or a lesser extent due to consolidation 

Why dismantle a high performing elementary school? 

Are special needs being taken into account when deciding how space will be allocated within buildings? 

Provide a picture of what will happen if LES remains open compared to what happens if LES is closed 

Request to consider implementation of pre‐K in the District 

Concern that some of the benefits mentioned, e.g. additional teachers on most grade levels within a 

building, will not be realized 

How and where will wrap around day care be provided to families who utilized the program offered at 

LES? 

II. Project Management and Cost Savings: 

Is it worth the money? 

Show us the value proposition; show us tradeoffs 

How will resources be reallocated to create opportunities / increase the value of the education? 

Consider the Project Management Triangle (fast, cheap, good—pick 2); don’t choose speed over quality 

Where do the projected savings come from?  Request to provide detailed savings associated with 

reduction in force. 

Clarify whether/when tax relief is anticipated and the effect of shifted revenue if a significant number of 

LES families grieve their taxes 

How will closing LES affect per pupil costs? 

Compare savings associated with normal attrition to savings associated with closure 

What is the cost/opportunity associated with waiting a year to close? 

What are the one‐time costs associated with renovating potential classrooms? 

What are the costs associated with consultants and other expenditures associated with closure? 

How have the experiences of neighboring communities informed our work? 

How has this work been informed by the past, e.g. by previous enrollment cycles experienced in the 

District 

Are there best practices associated with school closure; if so are we adhering to them? 

What are the criteria/costs for reopening? 

Request to provide all project documentation in one place for quick reference 

Concern that mistakes and misrepresentations all support a school closure—erodes trust  

Concern regarding how the District would be affected by tax cap should it need to reopen a school and 

what the criteria for reopening would be 

There’s been no effort made to understand the impact of adjusted real estate values on property values 

in other parts of the district 

There’s been no effort made to understand the impact of a closure on local merchants or whether it 

could harm local businesses 

The implementation timeline seems short when compared to previous district initiatives such as the las 

redistricting or the 2‐year implementation plan associated with switching from a junior high to middle 

school model 

 

III. Demography: 

Requests to update and validate demographic analysis 

Requests to review enrollment trends within broader, cyclical historical context 

Has the impact of potential new housing units (e.g. HUD settlement) been factored in? 

Has effect of improved real estate market been factored in? 

What might be the effect of full‐day kindergarten on future elementary enrollment? 

Request to consider other what‐if scenarios, e.g., if crime in NYC went up and there was a significant 

exodus from NYC, would KLSD be positioned to accommodate new families or 100 new students? 

The demographic analysis assumes that what will happen in the past will happen in the future;  is not 

appropriate for a “dynamic” community such as KLSD 

Request to research the number of children per house sold and purchased—validate whether this data 

is available or not 

   

IV. Redistricting and Transportation: 

Provide redistricting plans 

How does closing LES affect my property value? 

Provide transportation plans 

How will bus routes and travel times be affected? 

Recurring transportation costs associated with school closure? 

Requests to consider the impact of new bus routes on traffic patterns including the impact on student 

drop‐off and pick‐up at the elementary schools 

 

V. Transition: 

What programs and services will be available to help students transition to a new school 

Not enough time to put transition programs and services into place 

How would the culture of the remaining schools change to create positive community for all? 

Request to consider psychological impact of a school closure on students  

Elementary school is the first and sometimes only social structure for young children—it important to 

consider the documented negative effects of disrupting this structure  

There has been no real effort to consider fully the documented benefits of smaller schools, e.g. lower 

incidents of negative social behavior, higher moral among teachers, etc., or the potential negative 

effects on children during the year prior to and after a closure 

LES is the cornerstone of a community—its closure will have a negative effect on residents of the 

community, especially those in closest proximity.  Local schools and communities matter. 

 

 

 

 

1  

Katonah‐Lewisboro Union Free School District School Closure Task Force Meeting District Office, Conference Room 

9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. August 27, 2013 

 Attendees:    Dr. Paul Kreutzer, Superintendent of Schools Michael Jumper, Assistant Superintendent of Business Alice Cronin, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Harry Lefevre, Interim Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Janet Harckham, Chairperson, Board of Education    Marjorie Schiff, Board of Education  Richard Stone, Board of Education  Patricia Kristoferson, Director of Transportation Carolann Castellano, Principal, Meadow Pond Elementary School Tom Psomas, Director of Building and Grounds  Connie Hayes, Director of Special Education Sandy Grebinar, KLSDTA President/Community Member Corinne Morton, Syntax Representative  Mary Gaza, Parent Council Gail Weiss, Support Staff /Community Member   Are these meetings open to the press/public?     No, Board of Education members do not comprise the majority of the Task Force; the Task Force does not have final decision making authority; these meetings are not "required" by NYS, they are recommended.    

Reviewed school closure task force charge as articulated on the  KLSD homepage "School Closure Task Force link ‐ http://klschooldistrict.org/news_and_media/school_closure_task_force 

  

Challenge for task force to ensure that the full BOE is aware of discussion after each meeting.  Discussed how we would present to the BOE.  Timelines are aggressive in order to meet the timeframe. 

 

BOE board dates ‐ 9/12, 10/3, 10/17, 11/21.    

A BOE meeting was added in the December calendar, 12/5 to specifically consider/discuss the findings of the Task Force. (first reading).  On 12/19 the Task Force will file the recommendations formally with the BOE, the hearing would be 01/19 with a decision of whether to adopt the resolution/finding.    

(Inclement weather would require push back of above schedule)  

2  

How do we involve other entities that may be impacted by conversations in these Task Force representatives of the towns?   

 

How do we ensure that the Task Force has information from the appropriate experts needed?  

Discussed that the Task Force should report out to Parent Council at the same frequency as the BOE meetings and possibly schedule 4 public information hearings at the JJMS that occur both evening and during the day.  Task Force members need to be the ambassadors of this project and attend as many of these meetings as possible.  The next Parent Council meeting is September 20, BOE reps. to the Parent Council will share Task Force information at the meetings.   

 To Do:  

1. Schedule 4 public hearings ‐ (Kim Monzon, District Clerk, should set hearing dates, ensure filming so that meetings can be uploaded to the district website).  First hearing should be scheduled no sooner than the week of 9/23. Action ‐ Dr. Kreutzer, Superintendent of Schools, will coordinate these meetings via email with everyone no later than the end of this week.   

 2. Discussion ‐ Invite Town officials from Lewisboro, Bedford, Pound Ridge, and North Salem to 

write a memo to the Task Force, summarizing concerns from their perspective that the group should take into consideration.  Pending Task Force review, the Task Force could invite one rep. from each town if needed to future meetings.  Memo should include a deadline date.  Action ‐ Dr. Kreutzer, Superintendent of Schools, will send memo, 9/30 deadline for response from town officials.   

 3. Discussion – Cabinet Members, Dr, Kreutzer, Miss Cronin, Mr. Jumper and Mr. Lefevre could 

develop a "road show", other Task Force members would be available to answer/support discussions. 

 4. Discussion ‐ KLSD School Task Force Closure Link  needs to have a link to the Board Docs 

reference library/school closing information for NYS Action:  Dr. Kreutzer , Superintendent of Schools, will contact the appropriate person to place this on the website.   

 5. Discussion:  Essential? ‐ Where does our population, relative to ages of current and perspective 

elementary students, reside?   This process is referred to as Geo‐coding ‐ Westchester County has an office of GIS (Geographic Information Systems), we can provide them with our student database, they can provide us with an overview of resident populations.  This process will enable the committee to understand where students reside in relation to the four elementary schools for attendance zones.  We should include private school students as well in the projections.  Concerns about what the DOH may be willing to disclose re: the 0‐5 (preschool) population.   Action:  Mike Jumper, Assistant Superintendent for Business, will continue exploring this resource.   

  

3  

6. Discussion:  What is average bus ride length for elementary schools currently?   Action:  Ms. Kristofferson, Director of Transportation, will provide information for next meeting re: longest existing route in minutes.   

 7. Should the Task Force determine that bus rides for elementary students should not be longer 

than 45 minutes?  

Discussion about Task Force assumptions‐ Responsible, efficient schools, minimizing disruption factor to community, optimally have a bus ride that does not exceed 45 minutes? 

 

Acknowledge that we can't replace the concept of a neighborhood school, consider if the school population realize enhanced programming, benefits, greater opportunity from the closure, such as stabilized class size, FLES 

 

Public presentation should include a slide that reflects the number of students needed to stop the decline we're experiencing and the number of students required to see growth.   

 

Real Estate ‐ although we are not privy to information about specific numbers of housing occupancy in our district, we do have a means of doing the calculation by looking at the average number of vacant houses.  Home sales have been lagging as well as listings.  Noted that there is no way to project whether house sales include school age children coming into the district.    

One vs. Two schools ‐ cannot deliver a two school closure in the Fall of 2014.    Single closure can occur in the Fall of 2014.  Concerns that recommending a two school closure would obligate a future school board to a decision made by current school board.   

 

Data must be validated before we can make decisions ‐ Enrollment projections (Dr. Grip's demographic projections, Dr. Kreutzer’s current data) Configuration agreed upon in consideration of the current elementary bldgs. with full day Kindergarten  {educational impact statement requires that we do this.} 

 

Q&A at public hearings should be documented and published.    Future Agenda Item: 

 1. Discussion ‐ Review of current/projected population for the 14/15, 15/16 school year.  Optimal 

space utilization in the elementary bldgs? Action ‐   Dr. Kretuzer, Miss Cronin, and Mr. Jumper will meet with each Bldg. Principals and Special Services.  To be discussed at the 10/1 meeting.   

 2. What is the purpose of the public hearings?    3. Organize Task Force assumptions prior to the next meeting.    4. What do we think the public will ask, what is our response?   

 

Katonah-Lewisboro School District School Closure Task Force

Meeting Minutes September 17, 2013

9:30-11:00 AM

Facilitator: Janet Harckham Note Taker: Alice Cronin

Attendees: Carolann Castellano, Michael Conte, Steve DiGangi, Mary Gaza, Sandy Grebinar, Cindy Greenberg, Harry LeFevre, Michael Jumper, Paul Kreutzer,

Patricia Kristoferson, Tom Psomas, Marjorie Schiff, Richard Stone

Janet Harckham, chair, called to order the meeting of the School Closure Task Force at 9:33 a.m. on September 17, 2013 at the District Office Conference Room located at Increase Miller Elementary School by welcoming everyone present. The chair introduced members who had not been in prior meetings and may not be known to all in the room.

The meeting began with a brief discussion related to the reasons these meetings are not open to the press. The chair shared that District counsel provided input in reaching that determination and her viewpoint as well.

One member of the group suggested that perhaps a prepared statement could be shared at the conclusion of each meeting. It was noted that a member of the District’s public relations firm was present for each meeting and that minutes of the meeting would be made public.

The chair also shared the importance of the full Board of Education having access to the minutes prior to them being available to the public so that they were fully informed when approached by any community members.

It was also discussed that while individuals on the School Closure Task Force had the right to speak to anyone regarding the school closure issue as an individual, they were reminded that in their official capacity they should be referring people to the chair and/or the website.

It was stated that due to the timeline related to the work of this group, it would be necessary to divide into smaller subcommittees (demographics, transportation, real estate, etc.). The chair will audit all subcommittees.

The first part of the meeting focused on trying to draft a set of assumptions that will ultimately inform the Task Force recommendations. Assumptions raised, though not finalized, include:

• The need to achieve efficiency • Decision must be sustainable for a minimum of five years • Expectation that future school boards would continue to monitor and discuss possibilities

as enrollment evolves • Students will not be on the bus for more than one hour • Scenarios may require complete redistricting • Proposal would include full day kindergarten • Time frame for demographic information should be stated (5-7 years) • Schools would not be created to 100% capacity- meeting space and other needed areas

would be considered • No building will be sold • Opportunities to rent buildings or portions of buildings would be sought • All buildings would be maintained to a standard of safety • Class sizes used to determine capacity would be at or below contract goal • If two schools are closed, middle school must become 5-8 school • If close one elementary school, Task Force could consider 5-8 or 6-8 model • If there was a 5-8 middle school, grades 5 and 6 would likely use a different model than

grades 7 and 8 • Even a single school closure has impact on the entire system • Disruption factor and social/emotional factors must be considered in establishing timeline

for school closure

It is suggested that it might be worth the public knowing at what point we could have closed a school in the past based upon enrollment. It is also suggested that it would be valuable when we might project that we could close two schools but the remaining elementary schools could be K-5 instead of K-4.

Discussion occurred related to whether one school should be closed now with the knowledge that one may need to close in the future or whether it would be less disruptive to close two at one time.

It was stated that if we were looking at a two school closure that it was not likely to happen for fall of 2014. The question was raised about whether we could close one for fall of 2014 in terms of the capacity of the community to deal with the change on that timeline.

Those present indicated the need to talk about likely disruption that would occur with various scenarios, tolerance for that disruption, ways to reduce disruption, and ways to support students

and staff as disruption occurs. Further discussion needs to be had regarding what preparation would need to be done in these areas.

A question was raised for counsel regarding the idea of not committing future boards as related to school closures to occur in subsequent school year. Mr. Jumper will bring this question to counsel.

It was shared that meetings were scheduled with each of the elementary principals to determine space availability and capacity in each building. The chair indicated an interest in attending those meetings.

It was raised that the Task Force will need to consider whether there is a desire for grade five to be at the middle school. It was expressed that the educators would need to develop the position on this issue. It was also suggested that we should look at why some districts are no longer using a 5-8 model.

There was also a question raised about how much impact public opinion offered at the Task Force hearings would be considered in making a recommendation to the Board of Education.

The Superintendent shared that he had been in contact with administrators from Brewster and Chappaqua. He shared that decisions related to grade configuration are typically made due to enrollment and efficiency. It was shared that the District would be able to provide an excellent education to grade five students whether they were housed in an elementary school or in the middle school.

The Assistant Superintendent for Business shared updates on work that had taken place since the last meeting. He shared that the demographer and someone working with mapping had been exchanging information that was relevant to our decision. It was also shared that there was work being done to code all students so that we could move elementary boundary lines to see the impact of different scenarios. It was expressed that we would need to work with a transportation consultant on a per diem basis in order to determine the impact of recommendations on transportation. It typically takes two months to route the elementary schools within the current configuration. It was discussed that the transportation review may provide good information as a backup to the other mapping and geocoding work. The demographer will update information on BEDS day (the first Wednesday in October).

A discussion took place regarding how students would be sectioned, how we would determine the number of rooms needed, and whether we wanted to create schools of roughly similar enrollments.

Information was shared pertaining to the length of our current bus routes in minutes, including the mean route time (17), median route time (16) and most often occurring route time (8).

Further discussion was had related to ridership on longer routes and the idea of community bus stops. A map was shared showing where students reside.

A small group was formed to begin drafting necessary documentation. This group includes Carolann Castellano, Michael Jumper, Marjorie Schiff, and Richard Stone with other Board members and members of Cabinet being involved as necessary.

The meeting ended with the chair indicating that the next steps would involve Cabinet meetings with each elementary principal. It was also noted that it was important to review relevant information to a one or two school closure and the years each would be possible. It was expressed that at the next meeting there would be a reporting out about what was learned during individual building meetings as well as sharing of any demographic information or information from the towns that was available.

 Katonah‐Lewisboro School District 

School Closure Task Force Meeting Minutes October 1, 2013 9:30‐11:00 AM 

 Facilitator: Janet Harckham Note Taker: Mary Gaza 

 Additional Attendees: Carolann Castellano, Alice Cronin, Steve DiGangi, Cindy Greenberg, Harry LeFevre, Michael Jumper, Paul Kreutzer, Patricia Kristoferson,  Marjorie Schiff, Richard Stone  Not in Attendance:  Janet Harckham,  chair,  called  the meeting of  the School Closure Task Force  to order at 9:30 a.m.  on October  1,  2013  at  the  District Office  Conference  Room  located  at  Increase Miller Elementary School by welcoming everyone present.    The  first  order  of  business  on  the  agenda  for  the  Task  Force was  to  Report  out  from  the meetings with the elementary school principals to determine space availability and capacity in each building.   Ms. Harckham turned the discussion over to Dr. Kreutzer, Superintendent, and Mr. Jumper, Assistant Superintendent of Business.  Before conversation continued, it was noted that under the NYS Special Education regulations, you need to have a classroom of at least 700 square feet for every 12 students and that this data point was one of the key determinants  in assessing each building and  the number of classrooms available/needed.   The administration shared the number of classrooms per building is as follows:  

School  # of Classrooms 

KES  27 

LES  25 

IMES  27 

MPES  25 It was emphasized that these numbers include computer labs,  oversized rooms and with respect to IMES, current DO space. 

 Then, there was a conversation about whether or not the current Board of Education (“BOE”) can bind a future BOE1.   The answer  is that the current BOE can financially; more particularly, they can bind the next BOE to the extent the budget that  is adopted.   Therefore, the current BOE will not be able to bind the  future BOE with respect to the 2015‐2016 school year.   This being said, there was also a related discussion about what a NO vote to the budget  indicates.  

                                                            1 At the September 17, 2013 Meeting, a question was raised for counsel regarding the idea of not committing future boards as related to school closures to occur in subsequent school year. The administration brought this question to counsel. 

The Superintendent emphasized as with any budget vote, a NO vote  indicates that the voters feel  that  the  BOE/Administration  is  spending  too  much  and  should  not  be  used  to  voice displeasure with  the  choices made.  Particular  to  the  issue  at  hand,  the  time  to  voice  your opinions is now, through the upcoming public hearing.  Focus then turned back to the Elementary School Building Analysis and the question, “Can we fit the entire elementary school population in two schools for the 2014/15 school year?”  Based on the data presented by the administration (below),  it appears that  it  is  impossible to fit the entire elementary school population in two schools for the 2014/15 school year and it may not be a possibility until 2016/17, at best.  

TWO SCHOOL MODEL; K‐4  Note: This ignores geography and assumes keeping the two largest buildings open (KES and IMES)   NEED:    48 General Education Classrooms for K‐4 NEED:  +  14.5 Other classrooms2 DEMAND:  62.5 Classrooms for K‐4 SUPPLY:  54 Classrooms in IMES and KES DEFICIT:  8.5 

 Discussion  then occurred  that about perhaps closing a  school and moving  that co‐hort up  to JJMS where there was seemingly ample space.  However, after some very high level discussions, it was decided that this was the conversation for another day as it may not be within this Task Force’s charge as it would involve a referendum and initially that would not work because JJMS would need, among other things, another cafeteria, library, gym, art rooms, etc.  The question was then raised. “At what capacity do we want to be running the buildings?”  The answer seemed to lean toward not being at 100% as that was not optimal since there would be little  flexibility  to  respond  to  classroom  situations  that might  arise.    Therefore,  the  group reviewed the data with regarding to closing one elementary school and keeping the remaining three with K‐5.  

   

                                                            2 In addition to the general education classrooms, it was determined based on the projected enrollment for next year that KLSD needs 14.5 classrooms for self‐contained classes, OT, PT, Interventionists, etc. 

 

THREE SCHOOL MODEL ‐‐ there are two combinations:  

  Combo #1  Combo #2 

  27 27 25 

27 25 25 

TOTAL NUMBER  79  77 

NEED:    63 General Education Classrooms for K‐5 NEED:  +  14.5 Other classrooms DEMAND:  77.5 Classrooms for K‐5 

 What  the  data  shows  is  that  Combo  #1  is  the  only  plausible  scenario  and,  therefore,  the question becomes do you close MPES or LES?   Which means  that  the discussion as  to which building closes turns to the other objective factors and eventually subjective factors.  The group was  reminded  that at  the  last meeting disruption was discussed at  length.    It was noted  that  if you were  to  close a  “bookend”  school you would  create a wave  into all of  the other schools – ex. MPES closes, MPES kids move to LES; some LES kids move to IMES and some IMES kids move to KES.  Therefore assuming, KLSD was to go with Combo #1 with MPES closing, what would be the disruption as measured by the number of students?  After going through the calculations,  

if you were to close MPES, 41% of the elementary students grades K‐5 would be affected.   

if KLSD was to close LES and redistrict, 29.6% of the elementary students grades K‐5 would be impacted and,  

if LES was basically split with ½ going to IMES and ½ going to MPES, 24.8% of the elementary students grades K‐5. (Further analysis would need to be completed to determine if students would fit into IMES and MPES) 

 Therefore, based on number of  available  classrooms  and  the  goal  to minimize disruption,  it seems that closing LES  is the only remaining possibility this Board of Education should explore further.   Before even  looking at  the  subjective  factors,  the next exercise would be a precise mapping of whether and how the K‐5 elementary population may be redistricted as well as a detailed analysis of  classroom allocation within buildings  to determine whether  the 3  school model truly is feasible and advisable for 2014‐15.    The Task Force, mindful of the time, decided to revisit the conversation of the September 17, 2013 related to identifying the assumptions: 

1. Transportation issues will need to be closely reviewed3 2. Minimize disruption 

                                                            3 At the September 17, 2013 meeting, information was shared pertaining to the length of our current bus routes in minutes, including the mean route time (17 minutes), median route time (16 minutes) and most often occurring route time (8 minutes). 

3. Full Day kindergarten will be offered in 2014/15 4. Data  points  that  are  steadfast:  1271  projected  enrollment  for  K‐5;  14.5  classrooms 

needed  in addition  to general education classrooms; and,  there are only X amount of rooms available. 

5. The current BOE cannot bind future BOE except to the extent the budget does  

Further in anticipation of the upcoming BOE meeting on Thursday and the hearing on Tuesday, October  8th,  the  group  discussed what was  the  best way  to  present  the  information  in  the interest of  transparency but understanding  there  is still data  to be  reviewed.    It was decided that the information that we know at this point will be shared in hopes that the dialogue at the hearings will be  the most beneficial and clearly emphasis  that what we have up until now  is objective data.   We need  to  start  to  look at  the  subjective data4 which  could  lead us  to  the same place or not.  At the close of the meeting, the group was in agreement, that   

(1) that Administration in conjunction with the various players as their next exercise would have to gather data as to what the elementary schools would look like if the district is to operate 3 elementary schools in 2014‐15 

(2) A summary of the 2 most recent meetings would be made available to the BOE.    

                                                            4 Other factors to consider:   

Transportation issues 

Efficiency of utilities 

Play facilities/grounds 

Condition of the buildings 

Small group instruction rooms (# available) 

Marketability 

Katonah Lewisboro School District School Closure Task Force 

Meeting Minutes October 15, 2013 

 

 

Facilitator: Janet Harckham Note Taker: Marjorie Schiff  Also in attendance: Paul Kreutzer, Connie Hayes, Patricia Kristoferson, Steve DiGangi, Frank Raposeiro, Gill Cass, Mary Gaza, Alice Cronin, Harry Lefevre, Richard Stone, Mike Jumper  Janet Harckham, chair, called the Task Force meeting to order at 9:36 AM in the District Office Conference room.  The first item of business was discussion pursuant to a request from the LES PTA Co‐Presidents and Executive Board to add LES representation to the Task Force, specifically to add a particular individual: 

It was suggested that in fact, all schools are represented on the Task Force by the Parent Council President who represents parents and students globally across the district.    

It was suggested that the Task Force Chair could provide periodic updates to Parent Council at large. 

The group was reminded that the Task Force is charged with the relatively narrow task of drafting an educational impact statement; the Task Force is not charged with deciding whether to close LES—this decision will be exclusively a decision made by the full Board of Education 

It was mentioned that the Parent Council President (unlike other Task Force representatives) serves only for one year and that the Task Force could find itself in a position—dependent upon the timeline for its work—where the lack of continuity in Parent Council representation could become an impediment (e.g. the Parent Council President who sat on the School Utilization Committee is not the same President who sits on the School Closure Task Force) 

It was suggested that for the purposes of knowledge transfer and continuity, it would be prudent to advise the Board of Education to add “Immediate Past Parent Council President” to the Task Force effective immediately; thus, from this point forward there would always be 2 Parent Council representatives on the Task Force (Current President and immediate Past President) 

 The next item of business was discussion of a request to open Task Force meetings to the public.  

Consensus was reached that this decision should be consistent with the Task Forces’ prior decision regarding whether to allow press access to Task Force meetings 

Consensus was reached that as reflected in the 9/17 Task Force minutes and per recommendation of counsel, these meetings will not be open to the public or the press as BOE members do not comprise the majority of membership and the Task Force is not a decision making body; minutes will continue to be posted to the District’s website  

The next item of business was to debrief on the October 8th public hearing: 

An estimated 200 community members were in attendance 

Questions were raised regarding demographics, redistricting, estimated savings, task force 

composition, timeline, and the impact of consolidation on the implementation of Common Core 

A comment was made that the public expected transition plans to be in place now for a 2014‐15 

closure; this work is outside the scope of the School Closure Task Force at this time 

It was suggested that we should clarify where we are in our process right now—that the Task 

Force is charged with the narrow task of drafting an Educational Impact Statement, NOT with 

the authority to decide whether or when to close a particular school 

It was suggested that we clarify for the public the status of the implementation of full day 

kindergarten in 2014‐15 

It was mentioned that although participants at the hearing spoke only against school closure, in 

the intervening time the governance team actually has received many emails both against and in 

favor of closing LES 

The next item of business was to revisit why the Task Force has been convened; it was suggested that 

the Task Force should remind the public that last spring, the School Utilization Committee (comprised of 

multiple stakeholders from all schools) recommended to the Board of Education that it should convene 

a task force to investigate closing a school or schools.  It was suggested that the Task Force should 

reiterate why a school closure is being investigated at this time: 

1. A consistent, relatively precipitous enrollment decline requires the district to reconsider 

how it delivers education to students and whether it can deliver education more effectively 

2. The Finance Committee’s cost‐per‐pupil analysis—the analysis of our community’s ability to 

pay for the cost of education in this district—requires the district to examine whether our 

community’s capacity to fund our educational system is sustainable and to explore multiple 

mitigation strategies, e.g. shift health insurance from self‐insured to consortium, collective 

bargaining over the next several cycles, effective operation of our schools.    

3. The imbalance created by maintaining four elementary schools with declining enrollment, 

three of which are projected to dip below 275 students in 2016, is beginning to have 

adverse educational impact which will be exacerbated over the next 5 years 

The next item of business was to discuss expectations and format for the next hearing (Monday, 

October 21).   

The presentation should be shorter, should contain new information to date, e.g. updated 

enrollments 

Task Force representatives will capture questions and issues and will provide clarification of 

analyses  as needed; task force members will not attempt to persuade or convince however, as 

the Task Force does not have the authority to make a decision or take a position—only the full 

Board has this authority to decide whether to close LES in 2014‐15 

Updates were provided as follows: 

By the end of October, we anticipate that our demographer will provide updated enrollment 

projections (that take into account the census data we provided to him on October 1) 

By November 1, we anticipate that we can provide a transportation model that includes 

approximately 1269 students across 3 elementary schools.  This is only one scenario that will 

provide us with an idea of how transportation could be impacted as a result of redistricting.  

By Thanksgiving, we anticipate that we will complete the redistricting work required to 

determine where to draw lines across elementary catchments.  This redistricting work will take 

into account where our students would have attended elementary school for the past 5 years 

had they been divided across 3 (rather than 4) elementary schools and will provide projections 

to help determine where they would attend elementary school over the next 5 years if they are 

to be divided across 3 (rather than 4) elementary schools if we were to redistrict. 

After the redistricting work is complete, the transportation department will update their model 

to provide more accurate run times. 

The next Task Force Hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 21st.  The next Task Force meeting is 

scheduled for Tuesday, November 12th.   

Task Force meeting adjourned at 11:20. 

 

 

 

Katonah Lewisboro School District School Closure Task Force 

Meeting Minutes November 12, 2013 

 Facilitator: Janet Harckham Note Taker: Marjorie Schiff  Also in attendance: Paul Kreutzer, Sandy Grebinar, Connie Hayes, Patricia Kristoferson, Steve DiGangi, Carolann Castellano, Tom Psomas, Mary Gaza,  Ashley Murphy, Alice Cronin, Harry Lefevre, Richard Stone, Mike Jumper, Karina Stabile  Janet Harckham, chair, called the Task Force meeting to order at 9:35 AM in the District Office Conference room.  The first item of business was to debrief on the October 21 and November 6 Task Force hearings: 

Consensus was reached that the format and logistics of the November 6 hearing worked well and would be utilized on November 18th  

It was suggested that new information, e.g., Dr. Grip’s updated demographic analysis, should be provided to the community prior to the next hearing.   It was determined that when the agenda for the November 21 Board of Education meeting is made available to the public on November 18th, Dr. Grip’s report will be posted publicly in Board Docs and made available from the School Closure button on the District home page 

It was noted that the Task Force has not articulated the advantages of closing a school in a clear manner that can be understood by the community  

The Task Force was reminded that the hearings are for gathering information from the community, not for convincing the community 

Detailed information will be included in the December 5 presentation so it may be factored into a recommendation to the BOE—advantages, financial savings, transportation costs, etc.  

The next item of business was discussion pursuant to whether the Task Force recommends conducting a poll or survey regarding school closure: 

Concern was raised that the data would not be reliable—unlike other “opinion” surveys 

conducted by the District, this would be an attempt to survey the community on a complicated 

issue that requires deep understanding of issues, e.g. an appended report 

Concern was raised that conducting a survey could further polarize the district and is not 

appropriate 

Consensus was reached that the Task Force should recommend against administering a poll or 

survey at this time. 

The next item of business was an overview of the updated demographic analysis and its intersection 

with plans to develop a redistricting model: 

Dr. Grip will present the updated demographic analysis to the Board of Education on 11/21 

Reviewed components of the analysis including projected birth ratio and its effect on enrollment 

projections 

A redistricting model is being developed and will be shared with Dr. Grip.  He will use the model 

to look at how many students would have attended each elementary school over the past 5 

years IF the district had been operating 3 elementary schools (IMES, KES, MPES).  He will use this 

historical snapshot to project how many students are likely to attend each of the 3 elementary 

schools over the next 5 years 

The presentation to the BOE on December 5th will include redistricting plans that will need to be 

fine tuned after the Board votes on December 19th; the Educational Impact Statement should 

include the timeline for when redistricting would be finalized 

A discussion ensued regarding perspectives on real estate and home sales in the District 

District Administration has begun slotting grade level sections into classrooms and small group 

instruction sections into appropriate instructional spaces to ensure that capacity will meet demand for 

space in 2014‐15: 

At this point the District anticipates 61‐62 grade level sections, approximately 22 in KES; 21 in 

IM; 19 in MPES 

Working on a redistricting plan that accomplishes this 

Detailed information will be included in the December 5 presentation illustrating that the fit is 

respectful of space needs and is appropriate for 2014‐15.  Based upon the demographic analysis, 

over the next 5 years—the District anticipates needing approximately 51 grade level sections in 

2018 

The next item of business was a report from District Office meetings held with elementary principals: 

Each principal worked closely with a building map to ensure we could accommodate a certain 

number of grade level sections, special areas, special services, etc. 

Started planning transition‐type activities and discussing how to support students; identified 

things we can be doing now that are not dependent upon school closure, e.g. establishing pen 

pals  across elementary schools 

Discussed having transition teams at all schools, not just LES 

Touched on budget impact for district and PTA/PTOs—new student, new family activities would 

be planned for a significantly higher percentage of student population than in recent years 

Next steps include having a conversation with elementary psychologists and social workers  

The next item of business was a discussion of the Educational Impact Statement: 

Should provide an overview of the work of the School Utilization Committee as well as the work 

of the Task Force 

Will include the following key components: background, demography, financial impact, 

educational plan and benefits, transportation impact, redistricting, capital needs, and the 

implication of needing to re‐open a school 

The goal of the EIS is to provide a document that enables the BOE to make an educated decision 

 

The next item of business was an update from the Transportation Director: 

Transportation looked at all students in transportation software and cross referenced them with 

information downloaded from Infinite Campus. 

Students were geo‐coded to their parcels to get an accurate picture of where students live. 

Transportation developed a redistricting model that divides LES students mostly to IMES and 

MPES; in this initial model, some students are moved to KES both from IMES and from LES based 

on school capacity. 

Now working on establishing routes—working with existing routes and modifying them based 

on new destinations; trying to distribute them as economically as possible while taking into 

account new average route times and factors such as bus turnaround time; looking at costs 

saved and incurred. 

Discussion ensued regarding whether several redistricting options would be developed for 

consideration to ensure that we are not making a long‐term decision based on short‐term 

needs.  The Task Force can revisit this issue after Dr. Grip provides enrollment projections for 

each elementary school based on the redistricting model that has been proposed initially. 

Discussion ensued regarding whether a traffic study would be necessary.  It was determined 

that significant traffic disruption is not anticipated but that the Task Force could revisit this 

question after preliminary routes are established for review. 

Planning for November 18th hearing: 

Prior to the November 18th hearing, any new issues raised at the November 6 hearing will be added to the list of concerns/issues documentation  

Dr. Grip’s analysis will be posted to Board docs with the BOE meeting agenda on November 18th    

Task Force meeting adjourned at noon.     

Katonah Lewisboro School District School Closure Task Force 

Meeting Minutes November 26, 2013 

 Facilitator: Janet Harckham Note Taker: Marjorie Schiff  Also in attendance: Paul Kreutzer, Sandy Grebinar, Cindy Greenberg, Patricia Kristoferson, Steve DiGangi, Carolann Castellano, Tom Psomas, Ashley Murphy, Alice Cronin, Harry Lefevre, Richard Stone, Mike Jumper, Michael Conte  Janet Harckham, chair, called the Task Force meeting to order at 9:36 AM in the District Office Conference room.  

The focus of this meeting was to read and discuss a draft of the Educational Impact Statement (EIS):   

Discussion ensued around prior consensus reached by the School Utilization Committee to close a school.  It was suggested that in the EIS, the prior consensus should be qualified to indicate that space for special services and RTI was not considered at that time and to indicate that a timeline for potential school closure was not discussed by the Utilization Committee. 

Central Administration has been reviewing detailed building maps with building level administrators to ensure that grade level sectioning and other instructional programming can fit comfortably within the buildings in 2014‐15.  Some spaces will be shared spaces—but only in circumstances where a staff member occupies the space on a part‐time basis. 

Discussion ensued regarding the need for less space in 2015‐16 than in 2014‐15 and whether LES would continue to be the recommended school for closure if the closure was pushed out one year.   

o In recommending LES for closure, the District preserves the option to meet increased enrollment demand in the future, e.g. even if fewer than 27 full‐sized classrooms are utilized in building in a particular year, the District will be better positioned to accommodate more students/grade level sections in the event that enrollment trends begin to reverse at some point in the future. 

o It was suggested that redistricting could provide an opportunity to provide a full special education classroom in another building rather than concentrate three of the special education classrooms at Increase Miller—this will depend on further demographic analysis. 

Discussion ensued as to whether childcare services would continue at LES or be available only at the other elementary schools.   

Cost savings were reviewed: o Projected staff reductions are based on actual positions, seniority, and actual salary and 

benefits.  Overall a reduction of 22.1 FTE; largest savings is in administrative services.   o Construction costs associated with shift to a 3‐school model are nominal.  No 

construction at KES; only taking down walls and/or construction of walls at IM and MP; moving expenses for District Office will not be significant but will vary depending on where the DO is relocated. 

Discussion ensued regarding the future potential need to re‐open a school and the costs associated.  

o If the enrollment starts to increase enough to warrant adding staff, it is important to note that cap may need to be exceeded based on increased student enrollment before we may need to re‐open a school.   

o At that future time there may be other cost remediation possibilities that do not include re‐opening a school.   

o We may want to revisit school utilization again at that time—the Middle School likely will be underutilized. 

Discussion ensued on the new transportation modeling.  o No new busses will be needed (however one new route may be necessary) to transport 

elementary students in a 3 school model.   o Discussion ensued on the newly modeled bus route times. 

Discussion ensued on what class sectioning would look like in a 4 school model compared to 3 school model.    

o Teacher reassignments from one grade level to another and from one building to another have been disruptive in recent years due to declining enrollment. In a 3 school model, there likely will be at least 3 sections of each grade level in each building in most cases and this should improve staffing continuity. 

Discussion ensued on redistricting.   o Attendance zones have been modeled and the impact on transportation is being 

studied. o Demographer is using this information to develop an initial redistricting model which 

will help predict enrollments and grade level sections in each building over the next five years. 

o Proposed redistricting as outlined in the EIS may need to be modified by the Board of Education and ultimately will need to be approved no later than mid‐February. 

Actual bus routes will need to be developed over the summer after kindergarten students have enrolled and the current fifth graders have been promoted to the middle school. Transition‐related conversations have begun on the principal level and to a lesser extent, the PTA/PTO level. 

It was discussed that in the event of a 2014‐15 closure, transition events and programs for staff and families will need to occur this spring, without being dependent on the summer months.  

o It was suggested that providing a “day in the life” of a K‐5 student overview could be beneficial to families.  This is outside the purview of the task force but could be created as part of a transition activity/plan. 

The Task Force discussed preparations for the December 5th presentation to the Board of Education.  

 The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for December 10th at which time the Task Force may need to prepare or review further analysis that may be required after the Board of Education reviews the EIS on December 5th.  Task Force meeting adjourned at 12:00.  

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEEoa d o ducat o C CO

Comparative Comparative Financial Financial AnalysisAnalysisExpenditures per PupilExpenditures per Pupil

June June 20112011

Objective and Approach

Our key objective is to compare KLSD spending to that of selected other school districts in Westchester County:

“Benchmark” KLSD against other districts with high educational standards Determine where KLSD spends relatively more or less than comparison districtsDetermine where KLSD spends relatively more or less than comparison districts Enable the KLSD community to evaluate if this spending is consistent with its educational

values and fiscal priorities Develop an analytic process and template for annually refreshing the analysis and

conclusions

Comparability was ensured by: Grounding the analysis in the audited financial statements (for the 2009/2010 fiscal year) of

the comparison districts Selecting comparison districts of a similar size and offering a similarly high quality education

(Harrison, Bedford, Scarsdale, Byram Hills, and Chappaqua) Focusing on spending on a per pupil basis, to reflect different enrollment levels Adjusting the audited financial statements to:

- Normalize for different accounting treatment of contracted vs. in-house transportation- Normalize for KLSD’s Half-Day Kindergarten program, andNormalize for KLSD s Half Day Kindergarten program, and- Include the full Debt Service burden, regardless as to how accounted for

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE2

Adjustments Transportation:

KLSD, Scarsdale and Byram Hills manage their bussing “in-house” while Harrison, Bedford, and Chappaqua outsource bussing

For those that outsource bussing, substantially all of the transportation related expenses are in the Transportation lineKLSD h b fit i t d ith T t ti i th B fit li W b li th t thi i th KLSD has benefits expenses associated with Transportation in the Benefits line. We believe that this is the case with the other districts that manage their bussing “in-house” as well

For those “in-house” districts, this analysis re-categorizes any Benefits expense associated with Transportation from Benefits to Transportation

For KLSD, the actual benefits expense associated with transportation employees was moved from Benefits to Transportation; in the case of the other “in-house” districts we estimated that their transportation-relatedTransportation; in the case of the other in house districts, we estimated that their transportation related benefits was a similar proportion to total Transport expense as KLSD

Kindergarten KLSD is the only district in the group that does not have full day Kindergarten Most reports on pupil counts are on a full day equivalent basis so KLSD’s 260 Kindergarten students are onlyMost reports on pupil counts are on a full day equivalent basis, so KLSD s 260 Kindergarten students are only

counted as 130 This analysis counts the full 260 Kindergarten students To be comparable to other districts, the estimated expense of KLSD offering full-day Kindergarten was added -

$900,000 in salaries and $400,000 in benefits, as well as the additional 130 student count

Debt Service Debt Service expenses are typically funded out of the General Fund In cases where all or a portion of Debt Service expense is funded out of a Debt Service Fund, these expenses

were treated as if they were General Fund Expenses

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

Every Adjustment to the Audited Financial Statements is Detailed in the Exhibit to this Presentation

3

Other Considerations

While this analysis is based on the audited financial statements of the comparison districts, Districts have some latitude in how they categorize certain expenses

For example, KLSD reports retirement pay, leave of absence pay and heathcare buyout expenses on the Benefits line. For KLSD, these items aggregate to $2.3 million

We understand that other districts may report all or a portion of these expenses on other lines, most t bl I t tinotably Instruction

Therefore, the following tables, subtotal Instruction and Benefits, which represents the most credible level of detail

The focus of this analysis is benchmarking spending While the comparison districts offer similarly high quality educations, it may be the case that KLSD “delivers

more”. For example, our graduates may have more credits than other districts This can be a follow up item, information to illustrate this has not been discovered

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE4

Financial Data SummaryComparison Schools KLSD

2009/2010 2009/2010 2009/2010 2009/2010 2009/2010 2009/2010KLSD (1) Harrison Bedford Scarsdale (1) Byram Hills (1) Chappaqua Average

Total Revenues 106,001,776$ 97,732,389$ 113,239,860$ 127,357,869$ 76,494,680$ 105,861,230$

General Support 11,863,426 14,030,323 11,590,047 13,118,173 8,484,213 13,672,975 Instruction 56,337,518 54,513,437 58,806,335 72,819,319 38,459,892 59,483,048 Employee Benefits 24 744 247 19 911 143 22 142 030 23 186 588 12 230 849 19 907 256

vsAverage

Employee Benefits 24,744,247 19,911,143 22,142,030 23,186,588 12,230,849 19,907,256 Transportation 6,858,996 5,244,349 8,132,898 4,800,178 5,001,775 5,841,931 Community Services 30,361 - - 317,931 6,752 17,850 Debt Service 6,153,322 1,804,012 8,242,956 10,135,194 8,060,713 5,421,148 Total Expenditures 105,987,870$ 95,503,264$ 108,914,266$ 124,377,383$ 72,244,194$ 104,344,208$

Memo: Hosp, Med and Dental 13,950,844 11,251,171 12,642,312 11,984,094 6,575,744 10,607,841

Pupils 3,897 3,564 4,351 4,758 2,818 4,205

Expenditures per Pupil:General Support 3,044 3,937 2,664 2,757 3,011 3,252 3,124 (80) -2.6%

Instruction 14,457 15,296 13,516 15,305 13,648 14,146 Employee Benefits 6,350 5,587 5,089 4,873 4,340 4,734

Subtotal - Instr and Benefits 20,806 20,882 18,605 20,178 17,988 18,880 19,307 1,500 7.8%

Community Services 8 - - 67 2 4 15 (7) -47.0%

Transportation 1,760 1,471 1,869 1,009 1,775 1,389 1,503 257 17.1%

Debt Service 1,579 506 1,894 2,130 2,860 1,289 1,736 (157) -9.0%T t l E dit P il 27 197$ 26 797$ 25 032$ 26 141$ 25 637$ 24 814$ 25 684$ 1 513$ 5 9%Total Expenditures per Pupil 27,197$ 26,797$ 25,032$ 26,141$ 25,637$ 24,814$ 25,684$ 1,513$ 5.9%

Other Items (per Pupil):Hosp, Med and Dental 3,580 3,157 2,906 2,519 2,333 2,523 2,687 892 33.2%

(Included in Benefits,above)

Prog for Child with Handicap. 2,687 2,379 1,924 1,965 2,439 2,413 2,224 463 20.8%(Included in Instruction, above)

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEESee Exhibits for the Summary Audited Financial Statements and the adjustments made

(1) Adjustments made to Transport and Benefits, see details on following pages

5

SummaryComparison AveragePer Pupil

KLSDPer Pupil

$Difference

%Difference

X KLSD’s3,897 Pupils

General Support $3,124  $3,044  ($80) ‐2.6% ($310,680)

Instruction and Benefits 19,307  20,806  1,500  7.8% 5,844,084

Community Services 15 8 (7) ‐47.0% (26,895)

Transportation 1,503  1,760  257  17.1% 1,002,768

Debt Service 1,736  1,579  (157)  9.0% (612,231)

Total $25,684  $27,197  $1,513  5.9% $5,897,047

KLSD’s $106.0 million in 2009/2010 school spending (as adjusted) represents $27,197 per pupil:

This is higher than all of the comparison districtsThis is higher than all of the comparison districts It is 5.9% above the average of the comparison districts The biggest contributors to the above average per pupil spending include Instruction

and Benefits and Transportation; partially offset by below average per pupil spending in General Support and Debt Service

Were KLSD spending per pupil in line with the average of the selected districts, KLSD annual school expenditures would be $5.9 million lower

KLSD higher per pupil spend of $1,513 x 3,897 KLSD pupils = $5.9 million

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE6

Total Spending by District$ millions

140 0

124.4 

108.9 106.0  104.3 

95.5 100.0 

120.0 

140.0 

72.2 

60.0 

80.0 

20.0 

40.0 

4,758 4,351 3,897 4,205 3,564 2,818

Absolute expenditure levels vary widely across the districts

Pupil Count

‐

Scarsdale Bedford KLSD Chappaqua Harrison Byram Hills

Absolute expenditure levels vary widely across the districts

Absolute spending is NOT a meaningful comparative metric, as there is a relationship between absolute spending and the number of pupils served

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

More pupils generally means more absolute spending is required7

Per Pupil Spending by District$000’s

27.2 27.5 

.

26.8 

26.1 

26.0

26.5 

27.0 

25.7  25.6 

25.0 24.8 25.0 

25.5 

26.0 

23.5 

24.0 

24.5 

KLSD Harrison Scarsdale A erage B ram Hills Bedford Chappaq a

1% 4% 6% 6% 8% 9%KLSD % Higher Spend per Pupil

KLSD Harrison Scarsdale Average Byram Hills Bedford Chappaqua

KLSD per pupil spending is the highest among all peer districts at $27,197 per pupil

KLSD per pupil spending is 6% higher than the Average district spend

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE8

Per Pupil Spending by Category$000’s$000 s

19 5

20.0 

20.5 

21.0 

21.5 

26.0 

26.5 

27.0 

27.5 

Total SpendingInstruction and Benefits Spending

16.5

17.0 

17.5 

18.0 

18.5 

19.0 

19.5 

23.5

24.0 

24.5 

25.0 

25.5 

16.5 23.5 

General Support Debt Service Transportation

1 52.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 

General Support Debt Service Transportation

‐0.5 1.0 1.5 

‐

0.5 

1.0 

‐0.2 0.4 0.6 

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE9

Implication for the total KLSD Budget

Harrison $1 6Harrison

Scarsdale…then 

$1.6

$4.1

If KLSD’s Cost per Pupil  were equal to

AVERAGE

Byram Hills

KLSD’s total spending would be reduced b

$5.9

$6.1

$’s millions

Bedford

Ch

by…

$8.4

$Chappaqua $9.3

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE10

Per Pupil Spend Bridge

1,500 

257 ‐7  ‐80  ‐157 

$  27,197 

$  25,684 

Average Instruction and Benefits

Transport Community Services

General Support

Debt Service KLSD

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE11

Instruction and BenefitsComparison Average KLSD $ % X KLSD’sAveragePer Pupil

KLSDPer Pupil

$Difference

%Difference

X KLSD s3,897 Pupils

General Support $3,124  $3,044  ($80) ‐2.6% ($310,680)

Instruction and Benefits 19,307  20,806  1,500  7.8% 5,844,084

Community Services 15 8 (7) ‐47.0% (26,895)

Th bi t t ib t t KLSD’ b di i I t ti d B fit th d hi h t

Transportation 1,503  1,760  257  17.1% 1,002,768

Debt Service 1,736  1,579  (157)  9.0% (612,231)

Total $25,684  $27,197  $1,513  5.9% $5,897,047

The biggest contributor to KLSD’s above average spending is Instruction and Benefits – the second highest overall and 7.8% above the comparison average

Were KLSD’s per pupil Instruction and Benefits equal to the average, expenditure savings would total $5.8 million

Many factors drive this category, including student staff ratios, compensation levels, special ed spending, the benefits package provided, and the employees’ contribution to the cost of benefits

This financial statement analysis identifies benefits and Special Ed as areas for additional focus: KLSD’s Hospital Medical and Dental expense is $3 580 per pupil the highest in the group and $892 or 33% above the KLSD s Hospital, Medical and Dental expense is $3,580 per pupil, the highest in the group and $892 or 33% above the

comparison average, and KLSD’s Programs for Children with Handicap. is $2,687 per pupil, also the highest in the group and $463 or 21% higher

than the average

Of course there may be classification differences that account for a portion of the benefits differences; and no l i h b d th b f S i l Ed t d t d t KLSD th di t i t

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

analysis has been done on the number of Special Ed students served at KLSD vs other districts

12

TransportationComparison AveragePer Pupil

KLSDPer Pupil

$Difference

%Difference

X KLSD’s3,897 Pupils

General Support $3,124  $3,044  ($80) ‐2.6% ($310,680)

Instruction and Benefits 19,307  20,806  1,500  7.8% 5,844,084

Community Services 15 8 (7) ‐47.0% (26,895)Community Services 15 8 (7) 47.0% (26,895)

Transportation 1,503  1,760  257  17.1% 1,002,768

Debt Service 1,736  1,579  (157)  9.0% (612,231)

Total $25,684  $27,197  $1,513  5.9% $5,897,047

KLDS has the 3rd highest per pupil Transportation costs of the comparison group – 17.1% higher than average

Were KLSD’s per pupil Transportation costs equal to the average, expenditure savings would total $1.0 millionmillion

Clearly the Transportation spend is a function of the number of student transported, the distance transported as well as the efficiency of the operation

KLSD has the 2nd largest district at 52 square miles one district is at 59 with the other comparison districts KLSD has the 2nd largest district at 52 square miles – one district is at 59 - with the other comparison districts substantially smaller at 4 to 27 square miles

It is also the case that KLSD busses a higher percentage of its students

These factors would clearly require that KLSD’s transportation costs per pupil to be higher than the average

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

These factors would clearly require that KLSD s transportation costs per pupil to be higher than the average, although it is unclear if this requires an additional $257 annual spend per pupil

13

Next Steps A detailed analysis is warranted on the Employee Benefits spend category to determine why it is so high:A detailed analysis is warranted on the Employee Benefits spend category to determine why it is so high:

- Is KLSD’s benefits package more generous than other districts?- Are employee contributions lower in KLSD than other districts?- Are there special items that are (temporarily?) increasing this line item?

Transportation also deserves additional attention: - KLSD has a geographically large district with few walkers- It is intuitive that our transport spend would be higher than average- This analysis does not determine if KLSD is delivering transportation in as efficient a manner as possible- It is quite common to outsource transportation KLSD should evaluate if there are benefits to this approach- It is quite common to outsource transportation – KLSD should evaluate if there are benefits to this approach

Public information suggests – the analysis was not sufficiently rigorous for this presentation - that KLSD professional compensation per pupil is somewhat more than the comparison district average. Detailed contract analysis should be done to determine:y- If KLSD’s contracts are broadly more generous than comparison districts, - If KLSD has a more senior population than other districts, or- If KLSD’s student teacher ratio is substantially different than other districts

Decisions based on this and the additional analysis should be made in the context of:- The community’s desire to have a high performing school district,- The importance of attracting, developing and retaining top quality teachers, staff and administration, and- Constraints on the community’s ability and willingness to shoulder higher tax burdens

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

It may be useful to build on this work by keeping it updated on an annual basis

14

Exhibits

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE15

KLSD Detailed Financials with Adjustments

KLSDPupils (1) 3,897

2009/2010

Adjustments

Audited Transport (2) Kinder (3) Debt Svc Adjusted Per Pupil

Total Revenues $ 106,001,776 - - - $ 106,001,776 $ 27,201

Expenditures:

Board of Ed 120,618 - - - 120,618

Central Admin 421 026 421 026Central Admin 421,026 - - - 421,026

Finance 1,217,798 - - - 1,217,798

Staff 1,194,756 - - - 1,194,756

Central Svcs 7,374,826 - - - 7,374,826

Special Items 1,534,402 - - - 1,534,402

Total General Support 11,863,426 - - - 11,863,426 3,044

From Audited Financials 11,863,426

Foot to Financials? Yes

Instruct, Admin and Impr. 4,858,218 - - - 4,858,218

Teaching - Reg School 31,485,063 - 900,000 32,385,063

Prog for Child with Handicap. 10,470,032 - - - 10,470,032 2,687

Occupational Ed 347,884 - - - 347,884

Teaching - Special Schools 6,600 - - - 6,600

Instructional Media 2,976,097 - - - 2,976,097

Pupil Services 5,293,624 - - - 5,293,624

Total Instruction 55,437,518 - 900,000 - 56,337,518 14,457

From Audited Financials 55,437,518

Foot to Financials? Yes

Contract Transportation - -

Oth T t ti 4 761 498 2 097 498 6 858 996Other Transportation 4,761,498 2,097,498 - - 6,858,996

Total Transportation 4,761,498 2,097,498 - - 6,858,996 1,760

Community Services 30,361 30,361

Employee Benefits 26,441,745 (2,097,498) 400,000 - 24,744,247 6,350

(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 15,264,277 (1,313,433) - - 13,950,844 3,580

Debt Service - Interest 1,925,391 - - - 1,925,391

Debt Service - Principal 4,227,931 - - - 4,227,931

D bt S i T t l 6 153 322 6 153 322 1 579Debt Service - Total 6,153,322 - - - 6,153,322 1,579

Grand Total Expenditures $ 104,687,870 $ - $ 1,300,000 $ - $ 105,987,870 $ 27,197

From Audited Financials 104,687,870

Foot to Financials? Yes

(1) BOCES data (3,767) adjusted down for KLSD's half day Kindergarten. 130 students added to get to full student count

(2) Benefits associated with Transport added to Transport line and deducted from Benefits line to make comparable with Districts that

contract out Transportation.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

(3) Salaries and Benefits increased to reflect estimated additional expenses required if KLSD were to offer full day Kindergarten -

required to make comparable to other districts.

16

Harrison Detailed Financials with Adjustments

Harrison# Pupils 3,564

2009/2010

Adjustments

Audited Transport Kinder Debt Svc (1) Adjusted Per Pupil

Total Revenues $ 97,732,389 $ - $ - $ - $ 97,732,389 $ 27,422

Expenditures:Expenditures:

Board of Ed 75,847 - - - 75,847

Central Admin 508,583 - - - 508,583

Finance 950,918 - - - 950,918

Staff 775,480 - - - 775,480

Central Svcs 8,972,915 - - - 8,972,915

Special Items 2,746,580 - - - 2,746,580

Total General Support 14,030,323 - - - 14,030,323 3,937

From Audited Financials 14,030,323

Foot to Financials? Yes

Instruct, Admin and Impr. 5,582,547 - - - 5,582,547

Teaching - Reg School 29,393,896 - - - 29,393,896

Prog for Child with Handicap. 8,479,881 - - - 8,479,881 2,379

Occupational Ed - - - - -

Teaching - Special Schools 4,308,496 - - - 4,308,496

Instructional Media 1,926,051 - - - 1,926,051

Pupil Services 4,822,566 - - - 4,822,566

Total Instruction 54,513,437 - - - 54,513,437 15,296

From Audited Financials 54,513,437

Foot to Financials? Yes

Contract Transportation 5,104,217 - - - 5,104,217

Other Transportation 140,132 - - - 140,132

Total Transportation 5,244,349 - - - 5,244,349 1,471

Community Services - - - - -

Employee Benefits 19,911,143 - - - 19,911,143 5,587

(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 11,251,171 - - - 11,251,171 3,157(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 11,251,171 11,251,171 3,157

Debt Service - Interest - - - 1,520,000 1,520,000

Debt Service - Principal - - - 284,012 284,012

Debt Service - Total - - - 1,804,012 1,804,012 506

Grand Total Expenditures $ 93,699,252 $ - $ - $ 1,804,012 $ 95,503,264 $ 26,797

From Audited Financials 93,699,252

Foot to Financials? Yes

(1) D bt S i (f f d) dd d t th G l F d

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

(1) Debt Service (from reserve fund) added to the General Fund expenses.

17

Bedford Detailed Financials with Adjustments

Bedford# Pupils 4,351

2009/2010

Adjustments

Audited Transport (1) Kinder Debt Svc Adjusted Per Pupil

Total Revenues $ 113,239,860 $ - $ - $ - $ 113,239,860 $ 26,026

Expenditures:

Board of Ed 32 509 32 509Board of Ed 32,509 - - - 32,509

Central Admin 363,005 - - - 363,005

Finance 1,002,544 - - - 1,002,544

Staff 859,665 - - - 859,665

Central Svcs 7,831,586 - - - 7,831,586

Special Items 1,500,738 - - - 1,500,738

Total General Support 11,590,047 - - - 11,590,047 2,664

From Audited Financials 11,590,047

Foot to Financials? Yes

Instruct Admin and Impr 4 717 988 4 717 988Instruct, Admin and Impr. 4,717,988 - - - 4,717,988

Teaching - Reg School 36,986,956 - - - 36,986,956

Prog for Child with Handicap. 8,371,768 - - - 8,371,768 1,924

Occupational Ed 700,193 - - - 700,193

Teaching - Special Schools 22,036 - - - 22,036

Instructional Media 2,785,513 - - - 2,785,513

Pupil Services 5,221,881 - - - 5,221,881

Total Instruction 58,806,335 - - - 58,806,335 13,516

From Audited Financials 58,806,335

Foot to Financials? Yes

Contract Transportation 5,041,045 - - - 5,041,045

Other Transportation 2,147,120 944,733 - - 3,091,853

Total Transportation 7,188,165 944,733 - - 8,132,898 1,869

Community Services - - - - -

Employee Benefits 23,086,763 (944,733) - - 22,142,030 5,089

(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 13,237,494 (595,182) - - 12,642,312 2,906

Debt Service - Interest 3,110,193 - - - 3,110,193

Debt Service - Principal 5,132,763 - - - 5,132,763

Debt Service - Total 8,242,956 - - - 8,242,956 1,894

Grand Total Expenditures $ 108,914,266 $ - $ - $ - $ 108,914,266 $ 25,032

From Audited Financials 108,914,266

Foot to Financials? Yes

(1) Estimated benefits associated with Transport added to Transport line and deducted from Benefits line to make comparable with

Districts that contract out Transportation.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE18

Scarsdale Detailed Financials with Adjustments

Scarsdale# Pupils 4,758

2009/2010

Adjustments

Audited Transport (1) Kinder Debt Svc Adjusted Per Pupil

Total Revenues $ 127,357,869 $ - $ - $ - $ 127,357,869 $ 26,767

Expenditures: p

Board of Ed 48,633 - - - 48,633

Central Admin 484,262 - - - 484,262

Finance 1,014,790 - - - 1,014,790

Staff 682,362 - - - 682,362

Central Svcs 9,927,910 - - - 9,927,910

Special Items 960,216 - - - 960,216

Total General Support 13,118,173 - - - 13,118,173 2,757

From Audited Financials 13,118,173

Foot to Financials? Yes

Instruct, Admin and Impr. 4,636,932 - - - 4,636,932

Teaching - Reg School 50,383,968 - - - 50,383,968

Prog for Child with Handicap. 9,347,967 - - - 9,347,967 1,965

Occupational Ed - - - - -

Teaching - Special Schools - - - - -

Instructional Media 2,410,137 - - - 2,410,137

Pupil Services 6,040,315 - - - 6,040,315

Total Instruction 72,819,319 - - - 72,819,319 15,305

From Audited Financials 72,819,319

Foot to Financials? YesFoot to Financials? Yes

Contract Transportation - - - - -

Other Transportation 3,333,457 1,466,721 - - 4,800,178

Total Transportation 3,333,457 1,466,721 - - 4,800,178 1,009

Community Services 317,931 - - - 317,931

Employee Benefits 24,653,309 (1,466,721) - - 23,186,588 4,873

(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 12,908,128 (924,034) - - 11,984,094 2,519

Debt Service - Interest 4,735,194 - - - 4,735,194

Debt Service - Principal 5,400,000 - - - 5,400,000

Debt Service - Total 10,135,194 - - - 10,135,194 2,130

Grand Total Expenditures $ 124,377,383 $ - $ - $ - $ 124,377,383 $ 26,141

From Audited Financials 124,377,383

Foot to Financials? Yes

(1) Estimated benefits associated with Transport added to Transport line and deducted from Benefits line to make comparable with

Di t i t th t t t t T t ti

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

Districts that contract out Transportation.

19

Byram Hills Detailed Financials with Adjustments

Byram Hills# Pupils 2,818

2009/2010

Adjustments

Audited Transport (1) Kinder Debt Svc (2) Adjusted Per Pupil

Total Revenues $ 76,494,680 $ - $ - $ - $76,494,680 $ 27,145

Expenditures:

Board of Ed 76,776 - - - 76,776

Central Admin 348,865 - - - 348,865

Finance 999,785 - - - 999,785

Staff 750,219 - - - 750,219

Central Svcs 5,456,618 - - - 5,456,618

Special Items 851,950 - - - 851,950

Total General Support 8,484,213 - - - 8,484,213 3,011

From Audited Financials 8,484,213

Foot to Financials? Yes

Instruct, Admin and Impr. 2,914,122 - - - 2,914,122

Teaching - Reg School 22,033,473 - - - 22,033,473

Prog for Child with Handicap. 6,872,222 - - - 6,872,222 2,439

Occupational Ed 67,442 - - - 67,442

Teaching - Special Schools - - - - -

Instructional Media 3,130,968 - - - 3,130,968

Pupil Services 3,441,665 - - - 3,441,665

Total Instruction 38,459,892 - - - 38,459,892 13,648

From Audited Financials 38,459,892

Foot to Financials? Yes

Contract Transportation - -

Other Transportation 3,473,455 1,528,320 5,001,775

Total Transportation 3,473,455 1,528,320 - - 5,001,775 1,775

Community Services 6,752 - - - 6,752

Employee Benefits 13,759,169 (1,528,320) - - 12,230,849 4,340

(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 7,538,586 (962,842) - - 6,575,744 2,333

D b S i I 3 01 13 3 01 13Debt Service - Interest - - - 3,015,713 3,015,713

Debt Service - Principal - - - 5,045,000 5,045,000

Debt Service - Total - - - 8,060,713 8,060,713 2,860

Grand Total Expenditures $ 64,183,481 $ - $ - $ 8,060,713 $72,244,194 $ 25,637

From Audited Financials 64,183,481

Foot to Financials? Yes

(1) Estimated benefits associated with Transport added to Transport line and deducted from Benefits line to make comparable with

Districts that contract out Transportation.

(2) S (f f ) G

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

(2) Debt Service (from reserve fund) added to the General Fund expenses.

20

Chappaqua Detailed Financials with Adjustments

Chappaqua# Pupils 4,205

2009/2010

Adjustments

Audited Transport Kinder Debt Svc (1) Adjusted Per Pupil

Total Revenues $105,861,230 $ - $ - $ - $ 105,861,230 $ 25,175

Expenditures:Expenditures:

Board of Ed 42,676 - - - 42,676

Central Admin 355,977 - - - 355,977

Finance 1,099,541 - - - 1,099,541

Staff 612,120 - - - 612,120

Central Svcs 9,572,234 - - - 9,572,234

Special Items 1,990,427 - - - 1,990,427

Total General Support 13,672,975 - - - 13,672,975 3,252

From Audited Financials 13,672,975

Foot to Financials? Yes

Instruct, Admin and Impr. 5,379,160 - - - 5,379,160

Teaching - Reg School 35,275,378 - - - 35,275,378

Prog for Child with Handicap. 10,145,187 - - - 10,145,187 2,413

Occupational Ed - - - - -

Teaching - Special Schools 216,993 - - - 216,993

Instructional Media 3,409,567 - - - 3,409,567

Pupil Services 5,056,763 - - - 5,056,763

Total Instruction 59,483,048 - - - 59,483,048 14,146

From Audited Financials 59,483,048

Foot to Financials? Yes

Contract Transportation 5,841,931 - - - 5,841,931

Other Transportation - - - - -

Total Transportation 5,841,931 - - - 5,841,931 1,389

Community Services 17,850 - - - 17,850

Employee Benefits 19,907,256 - - - 19,907,256 4,734

(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 10,607,841 10,607,841 2,523(Memo: Hosp, Med, Dental) 10,607,841 10,607,841 2,523

-

Debt Service - Interest 253,333 - - 2,247,815 2,501,148

Debt Service - Principal - - - 2,920,000 2,920,000

Debt Service - Total 253,333 - - 5,167,815 5,421,148 1,289

Grand Total Expenditures $ 99,176,393 $ - $ - $ 5,167,815 $ 104,344,208 $ 24,814

From Audited Financials 99,176,393

Foot to Financials? Yes

(1) D bt S i (f f d) dd d t th G l F d

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

(1) Debt Service (from reserve fund) added to the General Fund expenses.

21

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

ComparativeComparative FinancialFinancial AnalysisAnalysisComparative Comparative Financial Financial AnalysisAnalysis

May 31, 2012May 31, 2012

1

Finance Committee Members

Board of Education MembersMichael Gordon – ChairpersonCharles DayPeter TreyzPeter Treyz

Community MembersHoward AverillAndrew ChintzAndrew ChintzDavid LoefflerDavid MallettLawler Walsh ParkerRichard StoneRichard Stone

District AdministrationPaul Kreutzer – SuperintendentMi h l J

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 2

Michael Jumper

Background During 2011 the Finance Committee of the KLSD Board of During 2011, the Finance Committee of the KLSD Board of

Education developed an analytical framework to objectively compare 2009-2010 KLSD spending levels to that of selected benchmark schools in Westchester Countybenchmark schools in Westchester County.

The analysis resulting from that framework was publicly presented to the BOE in June 2011 and it concluded:

– KLSD per pupil spending at $27,197 during 2009/2010 was the highest of all comparison districts.

– During 2009/2010 instruction, benefits and transportation were the areas of spending within KLSD that contributed the most to KLSD’s overall higher spending. KLSD’s general support and debt level spending were lower than average.

– If KLSD per pupil spending during 2009/2010 were in line with the average of the selected benchmark schools, KLSD annual spend would have been $5.9 million – almost 6% -- lower than actual spending levels.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 3

Next Steps from June 2011 ReportThe following four areas were identified within the Finance

Update the cost per pupil analysis on an annual basis.– Utilize the same analytical framework and most recently available financial

1

gCommittee (June 2011) Report to the Board of Education:

Utilize the same analytical framework and most recently available financial information (2010/2011) to update the study across all benchmark districts

– Analyze latest information and identify any emerging trends that may warrant further study

Investigate why KLSD professional compensation (an area which may contribute to the higher than average spending level in the area of instruction) per pupil appears to be higher than the comparison district

2

Identify and analyze data to evaluate the community’s ability and willingness to shoulder higher tax burdens

I t thi th Fi C itt d l d l t i t

3

– In response to this the Finance Committee developed several metrics to help answer this important question

Analyze Employee Benefits to determine why spending is above 4

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

average.

4

Executive Summary – Spring 2012 Report to BOEThis report addresses 3 of the 4* “Next Steps” identified in June 2011

t tiKLSD continued to outspend the comparison districts during 2010/2011:

– 2010 / 2011 KLSD per pupil spend was the highest at $27,988, and 6.7% above the average

presentation:

1

above the average

– 2009 / 2010 KLSD per pupil spend was the highest at $27,197, and 5.9% above the average

KLSD salary levels are higher than most comparison districts2 KLSD salary levels are higher than most comparison districts– Higher salaries are likely contributing to higher instructional costs and

higher benefit costs

The KLSD Community utilizes more of its resources on education than the

2

The KLSD Community utilizes more of its resources on education than the comparison districts:

– KLSD 2009/2010 true value tax rate was the highest and 30% more than the comparative averageKLSD income per pupil is the lowest and 45% less than the comparative

3

– KLSD income per pupil is the lowest and 45% less than the comparative average

– KLSD 2009/2010 spending in relation to income is the highest and 90% more than the comparative average

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

* Note: The District secured the services of a health insurance consultant to further evaluate other benefit spending levels. As a result, the Finance Committee did not address item #4

5

Part IComparativeComparative

Expenditures Per Pupil 2010/20112010/2011

11

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 6

Objective and Approach Our key objective is to compare KLSD spending toOur key objective is to compare KLSD spending to

that of selected other school districts in Westchester County:– “Benchmark” KLSD against other districts with high educational standards– Determine where KLSD spends relatively more or less than comparison districts– Enable the KLSD community to evaluate if this spending is consistent with its

educational values and fiscal priorities– Develop an analytic process and template for annually refreshing the analysis

and conclusions

Comparability was ensured by:G di h l i i h di d fi i l (f h 2010/2011– Grounding the analysis in the audited financial statements (for the 2010/2011 fiscal year) of the comparison districts

– Selecting comparison districts of a similar size and offering a similarly high quality education (Harrison, Bedford, Scarsdale, Byram Hills, and Chappaqua)F i di il b i t fl t diff t ll t l l– Focusing on spending on a per pupil basis, to reflect different enrollment levels

– Adjusting the audited financial statements to: Normalize for different accounting treatment of contracted vs. in-house

transportation

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

Normalize for KLSD’s Half-Day Kindergarten program, and Include the full debt service burden, regardless as to how it is accounted for

7

Financial Data Summary -- 2010/20112010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011

KLSD Harrison Bedford Scarsdale Byram Hills Chappaqua Average

Comparison Schools KLSDvs

AverageKLSD Harrison Bedford Scarsdale Byram Hills Chappaqua Average

Total Revenues 105,974,454$ 97,134,455$ 113,208,215$ 128,432,601$ 77,214,000$ 107,706,455$

General Support 11,717,240 12,097,923 11,535,268 14,021,958 8,718,653 13,008,393 Instruction 54,876,646 55,087,379 58,600,315 73,191,027 38,990,179 61,652,322 Employee Benefits 26,822,850 20,242,712 26,430,450 24,656,426 12,643,402 21,516,170 Transportation 6,941,439 5,285,755 8,312,717 4,978,708 4,788,744 5,858,352

Average

Community Services 29,035 - - 342,963 6,593 18,977 Debt Service 6,050,452 1,807,950 8,261,577 9,693,041 7,985,738 5,104,427 Total Expenditures 106,437,662$ 94,521,719$ 113,140,327$ 126,859,911$ 73,133,309$ 107,158,641$

Memo: Hosp, Med and Dental 14,220,460 10,011,799 15,610,067 12,172,936 5,755,580 10,581,734

Pupils 3,803 3,587 4,414 4,759 2,738 4,149

Expenditures per Pupil:General Support 3,081 3,373 2,613 2,946 3,184 3,135 3,050 31 1.0%

Instruction 14,430 15,358 13,276 15,379 14,240 14,860 Employee Benefits 7,053 5,643 5,988 5,181 4,618 5,186

Subtotal - Instr and Benefits 21,483 21,001 19,264 20,561 18,858 20,045 19,946 1,537 7.7%

Community Services 8 - - 72 2 5 16 (8) -51.7%

Transportation 1,825 1,474 1,883 1,046 1,749 1,412 1,513 312 20.7%

Debt Service 1,591 504 1,872 2,037 2,917 1,230 1,712 (121) -7.1%Total Expenditures per Pupil 27,988$ 26,351$ 25,632$ 26,657$ 26,710$ 25,828$ 26,236$ 1,752$ 6.7%

Other Items (per Pupil):(p p )Hosp, Med and Dental 3,739 2,791 3,536 2,558 2,102 2,550 2,708 1,032 38.1%

(Included in Benefits,above)

Prog for Child with Handicap. 2,942 2,375 1,942 1,965 2,546 2,624 2,290 652 28.5%(Included in Instruction, above)

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 8

Summary 2010-2011Average Actual Difference Difference 3,803 Pupils

General Support 3 050 3 081 31 1 0% 116 507General Support 3,050 3,081 31 1.0% 116,507 Instruction and Benefits 19,946 21,483 1,537 7.7% 5,845,758 Transportation 1,513 1,825 312 20.7% 1,188,261 Community Services 16 8 (8) -51.7% (31,089) Debt Service 1,712 1,591 (121) -7.1% (459,825)

KLSD’ $106 0 illi i 2010/2011 h l di ( dj t d)

, , ( ) ( , )Total 26,236 27,988 1,752 6.7% 6,663,415 *numbers are rounded for ease of reading

KLSD’s $106.0 million in 2010/2011 school spending (as adjusted) represents $27,988 per pupil:

This is higher than all of the comparison districts It is 6 7% above the average of the comparison districts It is 6.7% above the average of the comparison districts The biggest contributors to the above average per pupil spending include

Instruction and Benefits and Transportation; partially offset by below average per pupil spending in debt service

Were KLSD 2010/2011 spending per pupil in line with the average of the selected districts, KLSD annual school expenditures would be $6.7 million lower

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

KLSD higher per pupil spend of $1,752 x 3,803 KLSD pupils = $6.7 million

9

Total Spending by District 2010/2011$ millions

126 9140.0 

126.9 

113.1 107.2  106.4 

94.5 100.0 

120.0 

73.1 

60.0 

80.0 

20.0 

40.0 

4,759 4,414 4,149 3,803 3,587 2,738

Absolute expenditure levels vary widely across the districts

Pupil Count

‐

Scarsdale Bedford Chappaqua KLSD Harrison Byram Hills

Absolute expenditure levels vary widely across the districts

Absolute spending is NOT a meaningful comparative metric, as it does not capture the relationship between total spending and the number of pupils

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

More pupils generally means more absolute spending is required

10

28.5 

Per Pupil Spending by District 2010/2011$000’s

28.0 

26.7  26 727.0 

27.5 

28.0 

26.7 

26.4 26.2 25.8 

25.6 25.5 

26.0 

26.5 

24 0

24.5 

25.0 

24.0 

KLSD Byram Hills Scarsdale Harrison Average Chappaqua Bedford

5% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%KLSD % Higher Spend per Pupil

KLSD per pupil spending is the highest among all peer districts at $27,988 per pupil

KLSD per pupil spending is 7% higher than the average district spend

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

KLSD per pupil spending increased by 2.9% versus prior year

11

Per Pupil Spending by Category 2010/2011$000’s

Total SpendingTotal Spending

Instruction and Benefits Spending

20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 

22.0 

26.5 

27.0 

27.5 

28.0 

28.5 

17.5 18.0 

18.5 19.0 19.5 

24.0 

24.5 

25.0 

25.5 

26.0 

General Support Debt Service TransportationGeneral Support Debt Service Transportation

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

4.0 

1 5

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

1 0

1.5 

2.0 

‐

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

‐

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

‐

0.5 

1.0 

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 12

Implication for the total KLSD Budget

Byram Hills $4 8

If

Byram Hills

Scarsdale…then KLSD’

$4.8

$5.1If KLSD’s Cost per Pupil  were 

Harrison

AVERAGE

KLSD’s total spending would be reduced

$6.2

$6.7

$’s millions

equal to

Chappaqua

B df d

reduced by…

$8.2

$Bedford $9.0

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 13

Per Pupil Spend Bridge

31

$000’s

$ 26 236

1,537 312  31

‐8  ‐121 

$ 27,988 

$ 26,236 

KLSD’s higher spending in Instructions & Benefits and Transportation is only partially offset byand Transportation is only partially offset by lower spending in Debt Service

Average Instruction and  Transport General Support Community  Debt Service KLSD

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 14

gBenefits

p pp yServices

Spending - 2010/2011 Changes vs. Prior Year

% Change in Total Spend % Change in Pupil Count3.9%

2.7%2.0%

1.2%

% Change in Total Spend

1.4%0 6%

g p

Small spend increaseFor KLSD

Large decrease in pupil count

For KLSD1.2%

0.4%

‐1.0%

0.6%0.0%

‐1.3%

KLSD increased spending only 0 4%

‐2.4%‐2.8%

% Change Per Pupil Spend

Graphic #1 Graphic #2

KLSD increased spending only 0.4% versus 2009/2010 -- second lowest of all districts….

….However, KLSD pupil count declined

4.2% 4.1%

2.9%2.4% 2.1% 2.0%

% Change Per Pupil Spend

2.4% -- second highest decline among districts….

…Resulting in a 2.9% per pupil cost increase above the average of 2 1%1 7%

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

increase -- above the average of 2.1%‐1.7%

Graphic #3 Summary

15

Part IIPart IISalary Analysis

22

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 16

Salary Analysis

There are many sources of information and numerous variables that impact salary levels. The Finance Committee utilized three differentsalary comparisons to draw conclusions:

1. Analysis based upon information available through Putnam Northern Westchester Contract Analysis (KLSD ranked 8th highest out of 42 districts)districts)

2. Analysis based upon information available through See-Through New York data (KLSD ranked 2nd highest out of 6 comparison ( g pdistricts)

3. Analysis based upon placing our distribution of staff (our scatter-gram) onto the salary schedules of the other school districts (KLSDgram) onto the salary schedules of the other school districts (KLSD ranked 2nd highest out of 6 comparison districts)

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 17

See-Through New York Data

$123.6 $125 

$000’s

$110.6 $107.1 $106.8 

$102.7 $102.1 $98.4 

$105 

$115 

$75

$85 

$95 

$75 

KLSD salaries ranked 2nd highest out of the 6 comparable districts d 3 6% b h i

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 18

and 3.6% above the comparison average.

Scatter-gram AnalysisThis analysis evaluated in conjunction with the See-Through New York dataThis analysis evaluated in conjunction with the See-Through New York data

helps to disregard variances associated with experience of staff

$115 7$125 

$115.7 $112.0  $110.9  $109.5  $109.0  $107.3 

$105 

$115 ousands

$85 

$95 Tho

$75 

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

KLSD salaries ranked 2nd highest out of the 6 comparable districts

19

Part II Conclusions

Higher salaries are likely contributing to higher instructional costs

Higher salaries are likely contributing to higher benefit costs which are a factor of salaries – i.e. Retirement System, y ,Social Security and Workman’s Compensation expenses

To further evaluate other benefits the District secured theTo further evaluate other benefits, the District secured the services of a health insurance consultant

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 20

Part IIIPart IIIAffordability

33

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 21

Part III - Affordability

Th Fi C itt id d b f t i tThe Finance Committee considered a number of metrics to assess affordability -- focusing on areas that indicate ability and willingness to shoulder the tax burden associated with a costly

h l t d d KLSD t th di t i t

Metrics used for comparisons:

school system – and compared KLSD to other districts:

p

Adjusted Gross Income per pupil

True Value Tax Rates – Total taxes (excluding STAR) per $1,000 of total full value

General Fund Expenses/AGI

Real Estate Trends Real Estate Trends

Budget Approval Percentages

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 22

Affordability

$1,000 

$1,200 

ands

AGI/Pupil

The adjusted gross income per pupil of

KLSD residents is less

$400 

$600 

$800 

$ ,

Thousa

KLSD residents is less than that of all

comparable districts.

True Value Tax Rate/$1,000 Assessed

15.38 15.37

12.9511.82 11.1 10.68

9 01$10$12 $14 $16 $18 

The True Value Tax Rate per every $1,000 of Assessed Property is higher than that of 9.01

$8 $10 

s g e t a t at oall comparable

districts.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 23

$80 Gen. Fund Expenses/$1,000  The total general

Affordability

$63

$39 $39 $35 $33$27

$40 

$60 

$80  p /$ ,AGI

The total general fund expenditures for every $1,000

earned by residents is highest in KLSD.$

$27 $25

$20 

$

$52$50

$60Property Taxes/ $1,000 AGI

KLSD R id t

$34 $33 $33$29

$24 $23$30

$40

$50KLSD Residents pay approximately $52 of

school taxes for every $1,000 of income earned

$0

$10

$20income earned

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 24

$0

Affordability - Real Estate AnalysisAverage Price per sq ft 2011

$263$295 $307 $313 $334 $337

$436

$

$400

$500

Average Price per sq ft 2011The average price per

square foot for real estate sold in each of

the comparable di t i t t$263

$

$200

$300 districts was greater than KLSD

% Growth in Avg. Sales Price 2001‐2011

19% 21% 21%25% 26%

40%

20%30%40%50%

2011

Growth in real estate values since 2001 has been slowest in KLSD

3%

0%10%20%

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 25

Voting Analysis - 2009-2011 Averages

59%65% 68% 66% 66%

59%

73%

2 5%

2.5%

3.0%

60%

70%

80%

cent

age A

nnua

1 5%1.6%

1.8%

2.5%

1.5%

2.0%

30%

40%

50%

prov

al P

erc al B

udget I

Budget Approval

Budget

1.0%1.1%

1.3%1.5%

0 5%

1.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

udge

t App

Increase

Budget Increase

0.5%0%B

Despite the lowest average annual budget increase (1.0%), KLSD has the lowest average budget approval rating from voters (59%, tied with Harrison)

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 26

Harrison)

Di iDiscussion

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 27

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

ComparativeComparative FinancialFinancial AnalysisAnalysisComparative Comparative Financial Financial AnalysisAnalysis

June 20, 2013June 20, 2013

1

Finance Committee Members

Board of Education MembersMark Lipton – ChairpersonStephanie TobinPeter TreyzPeter Treyz

Community MembersAndrew ChintzDavid LoefflerDavid LoefflerDavid MallettLawler Walsh ParkerScott PosnerRichard StoneRichard Stone

District AdministrationPaul Kreutzer – SuperintendentMi h l J

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 2

Michael Jumper

Background

During the 2010-2011 school year, the Finance Committee of the KLSD Board of Education developed an analytical framework to objectively compare KLSD actual spending levels to that of selected benchmark schools in Westchester Countyschools in Westchester County.

The analysis resulting from that framework was publicly presented to the BOE in June 2011 and June 2012. These reports concluded:

– KLSD per pupil spending during 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 was the highest of all comparison districts.

– Instruction, benefits and transportation were the biggest contributors to KLSD’s overall higher spending. KLSD’s general support and community services spending were lower than the average of benchmark districts.

If KLSD il di l d h f h l d b h k– If KLSD per pupil spending equaled the average of the selected benchmark schools, KLSD annual spend for each of the years analyzed would have ranged 5.9% - 6.7% lower than actual spending or approximately $6 million less per year.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 3

Next Steps from June 2011 Report

The following four areas were identified within the Finance

U d t th t il l i ll

The following four areas were identified within the Finance Committee (June 2011) Report to the Board of Education:

Update the cost per pupil analysis annually– Utilize the same analytical framework and most recent available

financial information– Identify any emerging trends that may warrant further study

1

Investigate why KLSD professional compensation appears to be higher than benchmark districts

2

Analyze Employee Benefits to determine why spending is above average

3

Evaluate the community’s ability and willingness to shoulder higher tax burdens

– The Finance Committee identified several metrics to analyze this

4

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

The Finance Committee identified several metrics to analyze this important question

4

Executive SummaryKLSD continued to outspend the benchmark districts during 2011/2012:1 KLSD continued to outspend the benchmark districts during 2011/2012:

– 2011 / 2012 KLSD per pupil spend was the highest at $28,733, and 5.9% above the average

– 2010 / 2011 KLSD per pupil spend was the highest at $27,988, and 6.7% above the averageabove the average

– 2009 / 2010 KLSD per pupil spend was the highest at $27,197, and 5.9% above the average

KLSD salary levels are higher than most benchmark districts– Higher salaries are likely contributing to higher instructional costs and

higher benefit costs

The KLSD Community utilizes more of its resources on education than the

2

3 The KLSD Community utilizes more of its resources on education than the benchmark districts:

– KLSD 2011/2012 true value tax rate was the highest and 36% more than the benchmark average

– KLSD income per pupil is the lowest and 38% less than the benchmark

3

KLSD income per pupil is the lowest and 38% less than the benchmark average

– KLSD 2010/2011 spending in relation to income was the highest and 76% more than the benchmark average

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 5

Part IComparativeComparative

Expenditures Per Pupil 2011/20122011/2012

11

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 6

Objective and Approach Our key objective is to compare KLSD spending toOur key objective is to compare KLSD spending to

that of peer school districts in Westchester County– “Benchmark” KLSD against other districts with high educational standards– Determine where KLSD spends relatively more or less than benchmark districts– Determine where KLSD spends relatively more or less than benchmark districts– Enable the KLSD community to evaluate if its spending is consistent with its

educational values and fiscal priorities– Develop an analytic process and template to refresh the analysis and

conclusions annuallyconclusions annually

Comparability was achieved by:– Grounding the analysis in the audited financial statements of the benchmark

districtsdistricts– Selecting benchmark districts similar in size and quality of education (Harrison,

Bedford, Scarsdale, Byram Hills, and Chappaqua – cohort maintained and studied over time)

– Focusing on a “spending per pupil basis,” to neutralize different enrollment levelsFocusing on a spending per pupil basis, to neutralize different enrollment levels– Adjusting the audited financial statements to address:

accounting treatment variance of contracted vs. in-house transportation KLSD’s Half-Day Kindergarten program full debt service burden

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

full debt service burden

7

Financial Data Summary -- 2011/2012Benchmark Schools KLSD

2011/2012 2011/2012 2011/2012 2011/2012 2011/2012 2011/2012KLSD Harrison Bedford Scarsdale Byram Hills Chappaqua Average

$ %Total Revenues 108,655,291$ 98,532,110$ 115,758,108$ 131,373,741$ 77,380,730$ 108,665,569$

General Support 10,498,384 11,767,456 11,284,151 13,753,848 8,595,725 12,459,471 Instruction 54,949,985 55,552,793 60,482,214 75,475,836 40,354,263 61,560,053

Benchmark Schools KLSDvs

Average

Employee Benefits 25,690,872 22,521,270 24,758,522 27,918,116 14,230,864 22,695,828 Transportation 6,976,500 5,196,671 9,315,868 4,869,189 5,411,254 6,208,460 Community Services 13,147 - - 343,427 7,328 18,977 Debt Service 6,227,204 1,806,550 8,012,134 9,676,698 7,907,638 4,857,530 Total Expenditures 104,356,092$ 96,844,740$ 113,852,889$ 131,998,687$ 76,507,072$ 107,800,319$

Memo: Hosp, Med and Dental (1) 12,921,774 11,434,595 12,496,539 13,335,904 6,199,406 10,674,720

# of Pupils 3,632 3,553 4,385 4,744 2,676 4,134

Expenditures per Pupil:General Support 2,891 3,312 2,573 2,899 3,212 3,014 3,002 (111) -3.7%

Instruction 15,129 15,635 13,793 15,910 15,080 14,891 Employee Benefits 7,073 6,339 5,646 5,885 5,318 5,490

Subtotal - Instr and Benefits 22,202 21,974 19,439 21,795 20,398 20,381 20,797 1,405 6.8%, , , , , , , ,

Community Services 4 - - 72 3 5 16 (12) -75%

Transportation 1,921 1,463 2,124 1,026 2,022 1,502 1,627 294 18.1%

Debt Service 1,715 508 1,827 2,040 2,955 1,175 1,701 14 0.8%Total Expenditures per Pupil 28,733$ 27,257$ 25,963$ 27,832$ 28,590$ 26,077$ 27,143$ 1,590 5.9%

Other Items (per Pupil):Hosp, Med and Dental 3,558 3,218 2,850 2,811 2,317 2,582 2,756 802 29.1%

(Included in Benefits,above)

Prog for Child with Handicap. 3,073 2,490 2,114 2,303 2,822 2,768 2,500 573 22.9%(Included in Instruction, above)

(1) Included in Employee Benefits shown above

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 8

28.7 28.6 

28 5

29.0 

Per Pupil Spending by District 2011/2012$000’s

27.8 

27.3  27.1 

27.0 

27.5 

28.0 

28.5 

26.1  26.0 

25 0

25.5 

26.0 

26.5 

24.5 

25.0 

KLSD % Higher Spend per Pupil 0.5% 3% 5% 6% 10% 11%

KLSD per pupil spending is the highest among all peer districts at $28,733 per pupil

KLSD per pupil spending is 5.9% higher than the average district spend

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

KLSD per pupil spending increased by 2.7% versus prior year

9

Summary 2011-2012C i KLSD $ % KLSD'

Per Pupil SpendComparison KLSD $ % x KLSD's

Average Actual Difference Difference 3,632 PupilsGeneral Support 3,002 2,891 (111) -3.7% (403,152) Instruction and Benefits 20,797 22,202 1,405 6.8% 5,102,960 ***Community Services 16 4 (12) -75.0% (43,584) y ( ) ( )Transportation 1,627 1,921 294 18.1% 1,067,808 Debt Service 1,701 1,715 14 0.8% 50,848 Total 27,143 28,733 1,590 5.9% 5,774,880

If KLSD 2011/2012 spending per pupil equaled the average of the benchmark districts, KLSD annual school expenditures would be $5.8 million lower

KLSD higher per pupil spend of $1,590 x 3,632 KLSD pupils = $5.8 million

***$5.1 million of the difference, when compared to the average, or 88% of the difference is in the areas of Instruction and Benefits88% of the difference is in the areas of Instruction and Benefits

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 10

Per Pupil Spending by Category 2011/2012$000’s

Instruction and Benefits Spending General Support

22.2 22.0 

21.8 

20.8 

20 4 20 421.0 

21.5 

22.0 

22.5 

2 0

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

20.4  20.4 

19.4 

18.0 

18.5 

19.0 

19.5 

20.0 

20.5 

‐

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

Debt ServiceTransportation

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

‐

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

‐

0.5 

1.0 

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 11

Per Pupil Spend Bridge

27,143  294  (12)(111) 14

28,733

1,405 

KLSD’s higher spending in Instructions & Benefits and Transportation is the primary cause of above average per pupil spending

Average Instruction and 

Benefits

Transport Debt Service

General Support

Community Services

KLSD

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 12

% Change in Total Spend

Spending - 2011/2012 Changes vs. Prior Year

‐0.3% ‐0.4%0 7%

4.6% 4.1%

2.5%

g p

Spend decreaseF KLSD ‐0.7% ‐0.9%

‐2.3%% Change in Pupil Count

0.6% 0.6%

2 0%

For KLSD

‐4.5%

‐2.0%

KLSD decreased spending 2 0% versus

Graphic #1 Graphic #2

% Change Per Pupil SpendKLSD decreased spending 2.0% versus 2010/2011 – the only district with a decline

….However, KLSD pupil count declined

7.0%

4.4%3.5% 3.4%

2.7%

4.5% -- highest decline among districts….

…Resulting in a 2.7% per pupil cost increase

1.3% 1.0%

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEEGraphic #3

Summary

13

Implication for the total KLSD Budget

Byram Hills $0 5

If

Byram Hills

Scarsdale…then KLSD’

$0.5

$3.3If KLSD’s Cost per Pupil  were 

Harrison

AVERAGE

KLSD’s total spending would be reduced

$5.4

$5.8

$’s millions

equal to

Chappaqua

B df d

reduced by…

$9.6

$Bedford $10.1

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 14

$30 000

Three Year Average Cost per Pupil Data – Peer Schools

$28 000

$29,000

$30,000

$26 000

$27,000

$28,000

$24 000

$25,000

$26,0002009‐10

2010‐11

2011‐12

$22 000

$23,000

$24,000 2011 12

$22,000

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE15

Part IIPart IISalary Analysis

22

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 16

Salary Analysis

There are many sources of information to evaluate salary levels. The Finance Committee utilized three different salary comparisons to draw conclusions:

1. Analysis based upon information available through Putnam Northern Westchester Contract Analysis - KLSD ranked 8th highest out of 36 districts reporting See note #1districts reporting. See note #1

2. Analysis based upon information available through See -Through New York (School Year ending 2011) data - KLSD ranked 2nd( g )highest out of 6 comparison districts

3. Analysis based upon placing our distribution of staff (our scatter-gram) onto the salary schedules of the other school districts KLSDgram) onto the salary schedules of the other school districts - KLSD ranked 2nd highest out of 6 comparison districts

Note 1: Study only includes 25 steps and lanes out of approximately 350 available on KLSD salary t i l KLSD MA 27 t th MA30 d KLSD MA54 t th MA60 thi

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 17

matrix – also compares KLSD MA 27 to others MA30 and KLSD MA54 to others MA60 – this understates KLSD comparable number

See-Through New York Data$129 5$129.5 

$118.2  $116.9  $116.7 $112.6 

$108 8115 

125 

$108.8 $105.6 

95

105 

Sal

arie

s h

ou

san

d (

$)

75

85 

95 

Th

75 

KLSD 2011 salaries ranked 2nd highest out of the 6 comparable districts and 1.1% above the comparison average.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 18

districts and 1.1% above the comparison average.

Scatter-gram AnalysisThis analysis evaluated in conjunction with the See-Through New York dataThis analysis evaluated in conjunction with the See-Through New York data

helps to disregard variances associated with experience of staff

$119.4 125

$113.1  $112.1  $111.7 $108.6  $106.4 

105

115

alar

ies

usa

nd

($)

85

95Sa

Th

ou

75

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

KLSD salaries ranked 2nd highest out of the 6 comparable districts

19

3900District Enrollment

716679725

District Staffing FTESince 2007-08 the District has experienced a reduction in staffing of approximately 19%

3400From 2007-08 to 2013-14 the district will experience an enrollment drop of nearly 15.3%

679

615577

500

575

650

725 g pp y

2900500

$88,000,000

Total Wages and Benefits Paid ‐ KLSD

D it 19% d ti

$82,458,387

$84,569,499 $85,008,952

$85,948,305

$82,000,000

$84,000,000

$86,000,000Despite a 19% reduction in staffing - total wages and benefits paid have increased 7.8%

$79,732,446

$76,000,000

$78,000,000

$80,000,000

c eased 8%

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE

2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12

Part II Conclusions

Higher salaries continue to contribute to higher instructional costs

Higher salaries are likely contributing to higher benefit costs which are a factor of salaries – i.e. Retirement System, y ,Social Security and Workman’s Compensation expenses

The district has changed Pharmacy Benefit Managers andThe district has changed Pharmacy Benefit Managers and is in the process of negotiating health insurance carrier changes.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 21

Part IIIPart IIIAffordability

33

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 22

Part III - Affordability

Th Fi C itt id d b f t i tThe Finance Committee considered a number of metrics to assess affordability -- focusing on areas that indicate ability and willingness to shoulder the tax burden associated with a costly

h l t d d KLSD t th di t i t

Metrics used for comparisons:

school system – and compared KLSD to other districts:

p

Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) per pupil

True Value Tax Rates – Total taxes (excluding STAR) per $1,000 of total full value

General Fund Expenses/AGI

Real Estate Trends Real Estate Trends

Budget Approval Percentages

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 23

AffordabilityAGI/Pupil

600

800 

and ($)

/ p

The adjusted gross income per pupil of

KLSD residents is less

200 

400 

600 

Thousa

KLSD residents is less than that of all

comparable districts.

17.9916 64$18

True Value Tax Rate/$1,000 Assessed

16.6415.09

13.20 12.5211.68

10.08$10 $12 $14 $16 $18 

The True Value Tax Rate per every $1,000 of Assessed Property is higher than that of

$8 $s g e t a t at o

all comparable districts.

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 24

$$80 General Fund Expenses per  The total general

Affordability

$70

$47 $46$40 $37 $36 $34$40 

$60 

$80  p p$1,000 AGI

The total general fund expenditures for every $1,000

earned by residents is highest in KLSD.$37 $36 $34

$20 

$

$60$60

$70Property Taxes/ $1,000 AGI

KLSD R id t

$41 $39$36 $34 $32 $32

$30

$40

$50

$60KLSD Residents pay approximately $60 of

school taxes for every $1,000 of income earned

$0

$10

$20

$30income earned

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 25

$0

Affordability - Real Estate AnalysisAverage Price per sq ft 2012

$255$281

$325 $326 $327 $339

$438

$300

$400

$500 The average price per square foot for real

estate sold in each of the comparable

di t i t t$

$200

$300 districts was greater than KLSD

% Growth in Avg. Sales Price 2001‐2012

23% 23% 24% 27%

45%

40%

60%

2012Growth in real estate values since 2001 has

been slowest (negative) in KLSD

‐1%

4%

‐20%

0%

20%(negative) in KLSD

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 26

Voting Analysis - 2009-2012 Averages

71%

60%67% 67%

62%69%

75%

2.5%

3.0%

60%

70%

80%

cent

age A

nnua

1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7%

2.5%

1.5%

2.0%

30%

40%

50%

prov

al P

erc al B

udget I

Budget Approval

Budget

1.1%1.2%

0 5%

1.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

udge

t App

Increase

Budget Increase

0.5%0%B

Despite the second lowest average annual budget increase (1.2%), KLSD has the lowest average budget approval rating from voters (60%)

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 27

(60%)

ConclusionKLSD’ t il h i t tl b hi h th it• KLSD’s cost per pupil has consistently been higher than its benchmark district peers (based on three years of analysis)

• Primary cost drivers: Instruction and BenefitsPrimary cost drivers: Instruction and Benefits

• Continued declining enrollment will continue to impact KLSD’s cost per pupil

• Despite lower affordability characteristics compared to benchmark districts, the KLSD community continues to support a high quality education producthigh quality education product

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE28

Di iDiscussion

Board of Education FINANCE COMMITTEE 29

UnderstandingNew York’s

as it relates to public schoolsProperty Tax Levy Cap

For many years, New Yorkers have paid some of the highest property taxes in the country, spurring individuals and business owners to increasingly clamor for tax relief.

In June 2011, state leaders responded by enacting a law that places new restrictions on how school districts (and municipalities) may increase their tax levies. Although the new law has been referred to as a “2 percent tax cap,” it does not in fact restrict any proposed tax levy increase to 2 percent. The law does, however, require at least 60 percent voter approval for a school budget if the proposed levy increase exceeds a certain amount.

That amount, called the “tax levy limit,” will be determined by each district according to a complex formula outlined in the law, and will vary by district.

Although schools have the option to exceed their “tax levy limits” with voter approval, the reality is that any proposed school tax levy increase

Published October 2011

In this first year of New York’s property tax cap, details about its provisions and implementation continue to evolve. This publication answers some questions that parents, taxpayers and school staff members may have, based on what is known as of this printing. School districts continue to await further clarification from the Office of the State Comptroller, Department of Taxation and Finance, State Education Department, Division of the Budget and the Governor’s office. Additional details will be communicated as they become known.

will be compared to this levy “limit”—or against the now-prevalent expectation of “2 percent”—adding to the pressures schools face to keep taxes low despite escalating costs, declining state aid and rising expectations for teaching and learning.

What will all of this mean for district residents as they prepare to vote on their local school budgets in May 2012? For starters, there will be new terminology to understand and new ways that schools will present

budget information, in conjunction with this law.

More importantly, because community members have different priorities and perspectives, school leaders will be under intense pressure from some constituents who expect school districts to stay within their “tax levy limits” and others who will strongly advocate for districts to save valued programs and services by invoking what Gov. Andrew Cuomo calls the law’s “built-in relief valve” —the 60 percent voter approval option.

One thing seems certain—the new tax cap legislation is likely to complicate the struggle to find meaningful tax relief and to build and sustain world-class schools.

Most New Yorkers do not want tax relief to come at the expense of their

public schools.

2U

nder

stan

ding

New

Yor

k’s

Prop

erty

Tax

Lev

y Ca

p O

cto

ber

20

11

Does the new tax cap law mean school tax levies can’t increase by more than 2 percent?

No, the law does not prohibit tax levy increases greater than 2 percent. Despite how it’s been described by some politicians and the media, the legislation signed into law in June requires every district to calculate its own “tax levy limit.” Two percent (or the rate of inflation, if less) is just one of eight factors in this calculation.

The law also establishes a higher threshold of voter approval for a budget to pass if a district’s proposed tax levy increase (before exemptions outlined in the law) exceeds its individual “tax levy limit.”

What is a “tax levy limit?” For school districts, the “tax levy limit” is the highest allowable

tax levy (before exemptions) that a school district can propose as part of its annual budget for which only the approval of a simple majority of voters (more than 50 percent) is required. Any proposed tax levy amount above this limit will require budget approval by a supermajority (60 percent or more) of voters.

Essentially, the “tax levy limit” sets a threshold requiring districts to obtain a higher level of community support for a proposed tax levy above a certain amount.

However, the new legislation does not place a limit on any taxes a school district would levy to pay for expenditures related to specific “exempt” items, including some court orders, some pension costs and

local capital expenditures. These items are then added to the “tax levy limit” to arrive at the “allowable” tax levy limit.

How is the “tax levy limit” determined for school districts?

The law dictates an eight-step formula that each school district must use to calculate its individual “tax levy limit.” In particular, the calculation adjusts a district’s tax levy to reflect growth in the local tax base (if any) and the rate of inflation or 2 percent (whichever is lower).

Tax levy limitA calculated tax levy amount (according to a state formula) that sets the threshold needed for 60 percent voter approval. Despite its name, it does not set a limit on the tax levy that a school district can propose.

The new law applies to

the tax levy, not to tax rates or individual

tax bills.

Although the new law has been referred to as a “2 percent tax cap,” it does not in fact restrict

any proposed tax levy increase to 2 percent.

3

Und

erst

andi

ng N

ew Y

ork’

s Pr

oper

ty T

ax L

evy

Cap

Oct

ob

er

20

11

Does the law take into account that some expenses are currently outside a district’s control?

Yes. Taxes that school districts levy to pay for certain expenses are “exempt” from the “tax levy limit” calculation. In other words, after a school district calculates its “tax levy limit,” it then adds these exemptions to that amount, allowing the district to propose a tax levy greater than the amount set by the “limit” without triggering the need for approval by 60 percent of voters. These exemptions include:

Voter-approved local capital expenditures. ■

Increases in the state-mandated employer ■

contribution rates for teacher and employee pensions that exceed two percentage points.

Court orders/judgments resulting from ■

tort actions of any amount that exceeds 5 percent of a district’s current levy. Tax certioraris, however, are not exempt.

Far from being “loopholes,” these exemptions seem to indicate an acknowledgement among lawmakers that schools have no ability to simply limit cost increases in these areas to the rate of inflation. As a result, a district’s final tax levy (after the levies for these exemptions are added in) could be greater than its published “tax levy limit” and yet still be considered, under the law, within that limit.

What will the property tax cap law mean for MY tax bill?

That remains to be seen. First, the new law applies to the tax levy, not to tax rates or individual tax bills. Second, it does not impose a universal 2 percent cap on taxes—or any other specific amount. The law does require a greater number of voters to approve a budget that exceeds a school district’s individual “tax levy limit,” as calculated by a complex formula. And third, there are several factors that dictate how an individual’s

Essentially, the “tax levy limit” sets a threshold requiring districts to obtain a higher level of community support

for a tax levy above a certain amount.

Tax levyThe total amount of property taxes a school

district must collect to balance its budget, after accounting for all other revenue sources including state aid. The tax levy is the basis for determining the tax rate for each of the cities, towns or villages that make up a school district.

Taxes that school districts levy to pay for certain expenses are

“exempt” from the “tax levy limit”

calculation.

(continued on next page)

4U

nder

stan

ding

New

Yor

k’s

Prop

erty

Tax

Lev

y Ca

p O

cto

ber

20

11

school tax bill is calculated after a school district sets the final tax levy—none of which are within the district’s control. (This calculation process did not change under New York’s property tax cap law.)

Tax bills continue to be calculated by using a property’s assessed value (as determined by the local town assessor) and the tax rate—or the amount paid in taxes per $1,000 of assessed value. Tax rates are not solely determined by the tax levy approved by voters; they are often adjusted by the state using equalization rates, designed to equally distribute the tax burden across municipalities within a district. Tax bills can also be affected by STAR or other exemptions for which individual taxpayers may qualify.

Does the public still vote on school district budgets?

Yes, school district residents will still vote on a proposed budget on the third Tuesday in May. Under the new law, the level of voter approval needed to pass a budget will now depend upon the amount of the tax levy required by the proposed budget.

If the tax levy (before exemptions) is at or below the “tax levy limit,” a simple majority (more than 50 percent) is needed for budget approval.

If the tax levy (before exemptions) exceeds a district’s “tax levy limit,” the support of a supermajority (60 percent or more) of voters is required for budget approval.

How will I know if my district is proposing a tax levy above its “tax levy limit,” requiring 60 percent voter approval?

By law, any school district that proposes a budget that requires a tax levy (before exemptions) above its “tax levy limit” must include a statement on the ballot indicating this to voters.

Far from being “loopholes,” these exemptions seem to indicate an acknowledgement among lawmakers that schools have no ability to simply limit

the cost increases in these areas to the rate of inflation.

Tax base growth factorThe year-to-year increase in the full value of taxable real property in a school district due to physical or quantity change (e.g., new construction, additions and improvements). Value changes due to market fluctuations are not included. This figure is part of the eight-step “tax levy limit” calculation, and will be provided to each district by the state’s Department of Tax and Finance.

School district residents will still vote on a

proposed budget on the third

Tuesday in May.

5

Und

erst

andi

ng N

ew Y

ork’

s Pr

oper

ty T

ax L

evy

Cap

Oct

ob

er

20

11

What happens if the budget is not approved by voters?

If a proposed budget is defeated by voters, a school district—as in the past—has the option of putting the same or a revised budget up for a revote, or adopting a contingent budget. If a proposed budget is defeated twice by voters, a district must adopt a contingent budget. Certain existing contingent budget requirements remain in effect that prohibit spending in specific areas including community use of buildings, certain salary increases and new equipment purchases.

More significantly, under the new law, a district that adopts a contingent budget may not increase its current tax levy by any amount—which would impose, in effect, a zero percent cap. As of this writing, it is unclear if exemptions will apply.

Will the tax cap legislation affect all school districts equally?

The tax cap legislation will affect all districts to varying degrees, but it is clear that some will be affected much more than others. In particular, for poor and/or rural school districts with low property wealth and declining tax bases, staying within their “tax levy limits” will severely restrict their ability to generate the revenues needed to sustain core educational programs.

This discrepancy is largely rooted in what an increasing number of school leaders say is an unfair formula for distributing state aid to districts around the state.

If the new law doesn’t actually cap tax levy increases at 2 percent, how will it provide property tax relief?

With or without a law “capping” tax levy increases, school leaders know that many New Yorkers are struggling in this economy and agree that property tax relief is needed. At the same time, they have heard first-hand from residents what many polls have indicated: Most New Yorkers do not want tax relief to come at the expense of their public schools.

Allowable levy growth factorOne factor in the eight-step tax levy limit calculation, this figure accounts for inflationary change. It is limited to the lesser of 2 percent or the change in the consumer price index.

(continued on next page)

Particularly for poor and/or rural school districts with low property wealth and declining tax bases, staying within their “tax levy limits” will severely restrict their ability to generate revenues needed to sustain core educational programs.

6U

nder

stan

ding

New

Yor

k’s

Prop

erty

Tax

Lev

y Ca

p O

cto

ber

20

11

However, living within the realities of the new law—while mandated costs escalate and the pressure to control taxes continues—will force difficult decisions.

The law seeks to control increases in school tax levies (a source of revenue), not to help curb escalating expenses. Except for a few modest mandate-relief measures, the law does nothing to help schools rein in costs. At the same time, New York State’s public schools have lost more than $1 billion in state education funding in recent years, putting even greater pressure on local taxes to fund school programs.

The law may result in some measure of tax relief for residents. However, the extent to which the law will also result in the loss of educational programs will depend on levels of state education funding and whether state leaders offer any meaningful mandate-relief measures to help control rising costs.

What can I do?The property tax cap law poses an

enormous challenge for public schools, and school leaders need to hear from their communities to help guide them through the difficult decisions that will need to be made. It is more important than ever to become informed about the complex issues shaping school district budgets and educational programs.

Please attend a budget meeting this winter/spring or contact your district with questions about its budget development. Make sure to visit your school district’s website for more information.

And —whether you’ve ever done so in the past or not-—please remember to vote on your school budget on Tuesday, May 15!

This publication was developed cooperatively by the Capital Region BOCES Communications Service

and Questar III’s State Aid Planning and Communications Services. For more information on New York’s

property tax levy cap, visit www.capitalregionboces.org/taxlevycap. Published October 2011.

UnderstandingNew York’s

as it relates to public schoolsProperty Tax Levy Cap

The extent to which the new law results in the loss

of educational programs will

depend on levels of state education

funding and whether state leaders offer

any meaningful mandate-relief

measures to help control rising

costs.

Demographic Study

for the

Katonah-Lewisboro

Union Free School District

August 2012

Prepared By:

Richard S. Grip, Ed.D.

2

TABLE OF COTETS

Page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 4 Population Trends ................................................................................................... 4 1. Katonah CDP ........................................................................................ 4 2. Town of Lewisboro ............................................................................... 5 Selected Demographic Characteristics.................................................................................. 6 1. Katonah CDP......................................................................................... 8 2. Town of Lewisboro................................................................................ 8

District Overview ..................................................................................................... 9 Explanation of the Cohort-Survival Ratio Method ............................................................... 11 Historical Enrollment Growth............................................................................................... 12 Birth Data ................................................................................................................... 16 Effects of Housing Growth ................................................................................................... 20 1. Katonah CDP......................................................................................... 20 2. Town of Lewisboro................................................................................ 23 3. Town of North Salem ............................................................................ 26 4. Town of Pound Ridge .......................................................................... 26 Baseline Enrollment Projections........................................................................................... 26 Projected Enrollment by Grade Configuration ..................................................................... 29 Elementary School Projections ............................................................................................ 31 1. Increase Miller Elementary School ....................................................... 32 2. Katonah Elementary School .................................................................. 33 3. Lewisboro Elementary School ............................................................. 34 4. Meadow Pond Elementary School ....................................................... 35 Peak Enrollment ................................................................................................... 36 Summary ................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix ................................................................................................................. 40

3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Historical Populations for the Town of Lewisboro from 1940-2010 ........................................ 5

2. Selected Demographic Characteristics ....................................................................................... 7 3. Katonah-Lewisboro Historical Enrollments from 2006-07 to 2011-12 .................................... 13

4. Birth Rates and Historical Birth-to-Kindergarten Survival Ratios in the Katonah-Lewisboro School District .................................................................................. 17

5. Projected New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children from New Housing Developments in Katonah ................................................................ 20 6. Number of Building Permits by Year ....................................................................................... 22

7. Projected New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children from New Housing Developments in the Town of Lewisboro ........................................ 23 8. Number of Residential Certificates of Occupancy by Year ...................................................... 25

9. Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2012-13 to 2016-17 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data........................................................................................... 27

10. Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2012-13 to 2016-17 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios

and 6 Years of Historical Data....................................................................................... 28

11. Projected Enrollments for Grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 for Each Projection Method ............ 30 12. Historical and Projected Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School ................. 32 13. Historical and Projected Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School ............................ 33 14. Historical and Projected Enrollments of Lewisboro Elementary School ........................ 34 15. Historical and Projected Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School .................. 35 16. Peak Enrollment ..................................................................................................... 36

4

Purpose of the Study

Statistical Forecasting LLC was contracted to perform a demographic study for the

Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District (hereinafter referred to as the Katonah-

Lewisboro School District). The purpose of the current study is to compute grade-by-grade

enrollment projections for 2012-13 through 2016-17 and to provide additional information

relating to community population trends, birth rates, historical enrollment data, and the effects of

new housing starts.

Population Trends

1. Katonah CDP

Located in Westchester County, New York, Katonah is one of three unincorporated

hamlets within the Town of Bedford. Katonah is a Census Designated Place (“CDP”), which is a

geographical region created by the Census Bureau to collect statistical data. Katonah contains a

land area of approximately 0.73 square miles with an additional 0.08 square miles of water area.

In the recently released 2010 Census, Katonah had 1,679 residents, which is approximately

2,300.0 persons per square mile. Since the Census Bureau did not collect data for Katonah prior

to 2010, no historical population counts of the hamlet were available. The Westchester County

Department of Planning was contacted regarding population projections for future years but this

data were also unavailable.

5

2. Town of Lewisboro The Town of Lewisboro, which is also located in Westchester County, New York,

contains a land area of approximately 27.75 square miles with an additional 1.42 square miles of

water area. In the 2010 Census, Lewisboro had 12,411 residents, which is 447.2 persons per

square mile. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, while the population in Lewisboro grew more

than five-fold from 1940 to 1990, population growth has slowed more recently. From 1990 to

2000, an 8.9% gain occurred, while from 2000 to 2010, there was a gain of only 87 persons

(0.7%). The Westchester County Department of Planning was also contacted regarding

population projections for future years but this data were unavailable.

Table 1 Historical Populations for the Town of Lewisboro from 1940-2010

Year Town of Lewisboro

Population Percent Change

HISTORICAL1

1940 1,929 N/A

1950 2,352 +21.9%

1960 4,165 +77.1%

1970 6,610 +58.7%

1980 8,871 +34.2%

1990 11,313 +27.5%

2000 12,324 +8.9%

2010 12,411 +0.7%

otes: 1Sources: United States Census Bureau, Westchester County Department of Planning

6

Figure 1

Historical Populations for the Town of Lewisboro

from 1940-2010

1,9292,352

4,165

6,610

8,871

11,313

12,324 12,411

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

Selected Demographic Characteristics

In Table 2 following, selected demographic characteristics of Lewisboro are compared

for 2000 and 2010 using data from the decennial censuses and the American Community Survey

(“ACS”). Demographic characteristics are also provided for Katonah CDP for 2010 only. As

Katonah is one of three unincorporated hamlets within the Town of Bedford, the Census Bureau

did not disaggregate data for the hamlets prior to 2010. While some Census variables account

for everyone in the population (e.g., age and race), other variables are collected from a sample

(e.g., median family income, educational attainment, and poverty status). The ACS replaced the

long form of the Census, last administered in 2000 to approximately 16% of the population in the

United States. For small municipalities such as the ones in this study, ACS data represent a

sample collected over a five-year time period, where the estimates represent the average

7

characteristics between January 2006 and December 2010. This information does not represent a

single point in time like the long form of earlier Censuses.

Table 2 Selected Demographic Characteristics

Katonah CDP Town of Lewisboro

2010 2000 2010 Race Origin

White 87.1% 95.2% 93.9%

Black/African American 2.5% 1.2% 1.3%

American Indian/ Alaska Native

0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Asian 2.6% 2.1% 2.4%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other Race 5.4% 0.5% 0.6%

Two or more Races 2.2% 1.0% 1.8%

Total 100.0%1

100.0%1

100.0%1

Hispanic Origin 11.9% 2.5% 4.4%

Age

Under 18 29.5% 31.6% 27.5%

18-64 60.9% 61.3% 60.9%

65 and over 9.6% 7.1% 11.6%

Median age 40.6 years 38.8 years 44.8 years

Educational Attainment

High school graduate or higher

91.3% 96.8% 97.3%

Bachelor’s degree or higher

62.8% 65.6% 71.8%

Income

Median family income $108,512 $129,473 $178,510

Percentage of Persons in Poverty under age 18

5.0% 1.3% 1.6%

Housing Units

Total number 619 4,465 4,854

Occupied units 589 (95.2%) 4,218 (94.5%) 4,453 (91.7%)

Owner-occupied units 427 (72.5%) 3,848 (91.2%) 4,006 (90.0 %)

Renter-occupied units 162 (27.5%) 370 (8.8%) 447 (10.0%)

Median value of an owner-occupied unit

$712,500 $403,000 $706,200

Sources: American Community Survey (2006-2010), United States Census Bureau (2000 and 2010)

otes: 1Data may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

8

1. Katonah CDP

Regarding ethnicity, Katonah is 87.1% White according to the 2010 Census. The

category known as “Other Race” made up the largest minority group at 5.4% in 2010. The

Census Bureau does not consider Hispanic as a separate race; rather it identifies the percent of

people having Hispanic origin. Hispanics in the Census population can be part of the White,

Black, Asian, or any of the other race categories. It is not a mutually exclusive race category.

The concentration of persons having Hispanic origin was 11.9% in 2010.

The median age in Katonah was 40.6 years while the percentage of people under the age

of 18 years was 29.5% in 2010, which corresponds to school-age children.

Regarding educational attainment for adults aged 25 and over, 62.8% of the population

had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2010.

Median family income was $108,512 in 2010 and 5.0% of children under the age of 18

were in poverty.

Regarding housing, there were approximately 619 housing units in Katonah in 2010, in

which 95.2% were occupied. In 2010, 27.5% of the occupied units consisted of renters. The

median value of an occupied unit in 2010 was $712,500.

2. Town of Lewisboro

The Town of Lewisboro is also predominantly White and has experienced little change in

its ethnic makeup from 2000 to 2010. In 2010, the town was 93.9% White as compared to

95.2% in 2000. Asians made up the largest minority group at 2.4% in 2010, which is a slight

increase from the 2.1% that existed in 2000. The concentration of persons having Hispanic

origin increased from 2.5% in 2000 to 4.4% in 2010.

9

The median age in Lewisboro increased from 38.8 years in 2000 to 44.8 years in 2010.

The percentage of people under the age of 18 years decreased from 31.6% in 2000 to 27.5% in

2010, which corresponds to school-age children.

Regarding educational attainment for adults aged 25 and over, 71.8% of the population

had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2010, which is an increase from the 65.6% reported in 2000.

Median family income has increased from $129,473 in 2000 to $178,510 in 2010. The

percentage of children under the age of 18 that are in poverty slightly increased from 1.3% in

2000 to 1.6% in 2010.

Regarding housing, there were approximately 4,854 housing units in Lewisboro in 2010,

which is a gain of 389 units (8.7%) from 2000. The occupancy rate declined from 94.5% to

91.7% during this time period, which may be a result of the downturn in the housing market and

increase in foreclosures. In 2010, 10.0% of the occupied units consisted of renters, which is a

small increase from the 8.8% that existed in 2000. The median value of an occupied unit in 2010

was $706,200, which is a 75.2% increase from 2000 ($403,000).

District Overview

The Katonah-Lewisboro School District has six schools that serve children in grades

kindergarten through twelve. The district receives children from the unincorporated hamlet of

Katonah in the Town of Bedford, approximately the northern one-third of the Town of Bedford,

the Town of Lewisboro, and also small sections of the towns of Pound Ridge and North Salem.

There are four elementary schools containing grades K-5 (Increase Miller, Katonah, Lewisboro,

and Meadow Pond). John Jay Middle School contains grades 6-8 while John Jay High School

contains grades 9-12. Locations of the schools are shown in Figure 2.

10

Fig

ure

2

Sc

ho

ol

Lo

ca

tio

ns

- K

ato

na

h-L

ew

isb

oro

Un

ion

Fre

e S

ch

oo

l D

istr

ict

11

In this study, historical enrollments from 2006-07 through 2011-12 were obtained from

the New York State BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro School District and were used to

project enrollments for five years into the future. Future enrollments were projected using the

Cohort-Survival Ratio method.

Explanation of the Cohort-Survival Ratio Method

In 1930, Dublin and Lodka provided an explicit age breakdown, which enabled analysts

to follow each cohort through its life stages and apply appropriate birth and death rates for each

generation. A descendant of this process is the Cohort-Survival Ratio (“CSR”) method, which is

used to project public school enrollments. In this method, a survival ratio is computed for each

grade progression, which essentially compares the number of students in a particular grade to the

number of students in the previous grade during the previous year. The survival ratio indicates

whether the enrollment is stable, increasing, or decreasing. A survival ratio of one indicates

stable enrollment, less than one indicates declining enrollment, while greater than one indicates

increasing enrollment. If, for example, a school district had 100 fourth graders and the next year

only had 95 fifth graders, the survival ratio would be 0.95.

The CSR method assumes that what happened in the past will also happen in the future.

In essence, this method provides a linear projection of the population. The CSR method is most

applicable for districts that have relatively stable increasing or decreasing trends without any

major unpredictable fluctuations from year to year. In school districts encountering rapid growth

not experienced historically (a change in the historical trend), the CSR method must be modified

and supplemented with additional information.

12

In this study, survival ratios were calculated using historical data from the last six years

for birth to kindergarten, kindergarten to first grade, first grade to second grade, etc. Due to the

fluctuation in survival ratios from year to year, it is appropriate to calculate an average survival

ratio, which is then used to calculate grade enrollments five years into the future.

Historical Enrollment Growth Historical enrollment data for the Katonah-Lewisboro School District from 2006-07

through 2011-12 are shown in Figure 3 and Table 3. Enrollment in the district as of October

2011 was 3,580 students, which represents a loss of 461 students since the 2006-07 school year.

Total enrollment has been steadily declining during this time period. Table 3 also shows

computed average survival ratios based on the last five and six years of historical data, which

will be used to project future enrollment and also determines net migration by grade. Eight of

the 13 average survival ratios for each trend are below 1.000, particularly in the middle and high

school grades, indicating a general net outward migration in the district.

Figure 3

Historical Enrollment from 2006-07 to 2011-12

3,949 3,880 3,868 3,7733,580

4,041

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

13

Tab

le 3

K

ato

na

h-L

ew

isb

oro

His

tori

ca

l E

nro

llm

en

ts f

rom

20

06

-07

to

20

11

-12

Year1

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

SE

2

K-5

T

ota

l 6-8

T

ota

l 9-1

2

To

tal

K-1

2

To

tal

20

06

-07

235

302

283

299

310

320

308

320

371

323

304

348

318

0

1,7

49

9

99

1

,29

3

4,0

41

20

07

-08

251

260

300

281

305

312

305

307

317

355

309

303

344

0

1,7

09

9

29

1

,31

1

3,9

49

20

08

-09

260

261

264

309

281

309

314

311

312

308

350

306

295

0

1,6

84

9

37

1

,25

9

3,8

80

20

09

-10

262

279

257

266

313

286

303

310

317

307

313

352

303

0

1,6

63

9

30

1

,27

5

3,8

68

20

10

-11

215

275

282

267

271

318

278

296

305

314

299

302

351

0

1,6

28

8

79

1

,26

6

3,7

73

20

11

-12

190

225

279

272

252

269

306

275

287

304

314

290

294

23

1,4

97

8

71

1

,21

2

3,5

80

Av

era

ge

5-Y

ear

Rati

os

1.28893 1.0522 1.0063 1.0102 0.9938 1.0098 0.9803 0.9932 0.9972 0.9857 0.9940 0.9826 0.9836 0.00124

Av

era

ge

6-Y

ear

Rati

os

1.26033 1.0630 1.0037 1.0067 0.9991 1.0091 0.9748 0.9939 0.9959 0.9799 0.9865 0.9854 0.9845 0.00104

ote

s: 1Data as provided by the New

York State Departm

ent of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lew

isboro Union Free School District

2Ungraded special education enrollment

3Birth-to-kindergarten ratio based on birth data five years prior

4Average proportion of self-contained special education/Ungraded students with respect to K-12 subtotals

14

Historical enrollments are also shown in Table 3 and Figure 4 by level (K-5, 6-8, and 9-

12), which represents the current configuration of the school district. Self-contained special

education/ungraded students were incorporated into the totals by level as well as for the district-

wide total.

Figure 4

Historical Enrollment by Level from 2006-07 to 2011-12

1,4971,6281,6631,6841,7091,749

929999

937 930879 871

1,275 1,2661,212

1,2591,3111,293

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

Gr. PK-5 Gr. 6-8 Gr. 9-12

At the PK-5 level, enrollment has steadily declined since 2006-07. As of October 2011,

enrollment was 1,497 students, which represents a loss of 252 students from the 2006-07 school

year.

For John Jay Middle School containing grades 6-8, enrollment has been slowly declining,

in general, since the 2006-07 school year. Grade 6-8 enrollment in the district was 871 students

in 2011-12, which represents a loss of 128 students from the 2006-07 school year.

15

For John Jay High School, which contains grades 9-12, enrollment had been relatively

stable, ranging between 1,259 and 1,311 students from 2006-07 to 2010-11 before declining in

2011-12 to 1,212 students.

It appears that the district is experiencing negative kindergarten replacement, which

occurs when the number of graduating 12th grade students is larger than the number of

kindergarten students replacing them in the next year. Since the district has a half-day

kindergarten program, it is more appropriate to compare the 12th grade student population to the

first grade student population, as the district gains a number of students from kindergarten to first

grade when parents elect to send their child to a full-day kindergarten program elsewhere before

enrolling them in the public school district for the first grade. As shown in Figure 5, the loss of

students due to this phenomenon was 126 students in 2011-12, as 351 twelfth graders graduated

in 2010-11 and were replaced by 225 first grade students in 2011-12. Negative “kindergarten”

replacement has occurred in each of the last five years, ranging between 16-126 students.

Figure 5

Historical Kindergarten Replacement

-58

-16-28

-126

-83

-155

-135

-115

-95

-75

-55

-35

-15 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

16

Birth Data

Birth data were needed to compute kindergarten enrollment, which was calculated as

follows. Birth data, lagged five years behind their respective kindergarten classes, were used to

calculate the survival ratio for each birth-to-kindergarten cohort. For instance, in 2006, there

were a combined total of 138 births in the geographical areas that send to the Katonah-

Lewisboro School District. Five years later (the 2011-12 school year), 190 children enrolled in

kindergarten, which is equal to a survival ratio of 1.377 from birth to kindergarten. Birth counts

and birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios are displayed for the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

in Table 4 and Figure 6. Values greater than 1.000 indicate that some children are born outside

of a school district’s attendance boundaries and are attending kindergarten in the school district

five years later, i.e. an inward migration of children into the district. This type of inward

migration is typical in school districts with excellent reputations, because the appeal of a good

school district draws families into the community. Inward migration is also seen in communities

where there are a large number of new housing starts, with families moving into the community

having children of age to attend kindergarten. Birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios that are

below 1.000 indicate that a number of children born within a community are not attending

kindergarten in the school district five years later. This is common in communities where a high

proportion of children attend private, parochial, or out-of-district special education facilities, or

where there is a net migration of families moving out of the community. It is also common in

school districts that have a half-day kindergarten program, where parents choose to send their

child to a private full-day kindergarten for the first year.

17

Table 4 Birth Rates and Historical Birth-to-Kindergarten Survival Ratios

in the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Birth Year1

Total Number of Births in School Attendance Area

Number of Kindergarten Students Five

Years Later

Birth-to- Kindergarten Survival Ratio

2002 219 251 1.146

2003 218 260 1.193

2004 192 262 1.365

2005 176 215 1.222

2006 138 190 1.377

2007 165 1913 1.158

2008 152 N/A N/A

2009 117 N/A N/A

2010 138 N/A N/A

2011 1362 N/A N/A

otes: 1Birth data were provided by the New York State Department of Health for 2002-2010. 2Birth rate for 2011 was estimated by computing the mean number of births from 2008-2010. 3Enrollment as of August 13, 2012

Birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios have been consistently greater than 1.000 in the

Katonah-Lewisboro School District in the last five years. Birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios

have been fairly consistent during this time period, ranging from 1.146 to 1.377.

Birth data were geocoded by the New York State Department of Health for 2002-2010 by

assigning geographic coordinates to a birth mother based on her street address. The geocoded

birth data allowed for the tabulation of births by the school district’s attendance areas. Geocoded

data were not available prior to 2002. Since birth data were not yet available for 2011, an

estimate was computed by averaging the number of births from 2008-2010. Birth rates were

needed for 2011 since this cohort will become the kindergarten class of 2016.

18

As Figure 6 shows, the number of births in the Katonah-Lewisboro attendance area has

been declining, in general, since 2002. While there were 219 births in 2002, only 138 occurred

in 2010.

Figure 6

Historical and Projected Birth Data from 2002-2011

136138117

152165

138

176

192

218219

0

50

100

150

200

250

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Bir

ths

Historical Projecte

Why have birth rates declined? It is not due to fertility rates, as the rates in Katonah and

Lewisboro are comparable to the rates in both Westchester County and the State of New York.

According to the 2006-2010 ACS, the fertility rate of women aged 15 to 50 was 58 births per

1,000 women in Katonah and 42 births per 1,000 women in Lewisboro. At the county and state

levels, the fertility rate in Westchester County in 2010 was 54 births per 1,000 women (ages 15-

50) and was 50 births per 1,000 women in New York as reported by the Census Bureau.

Further analysis of the age pyramid of males and females in Katonah (Figure 7) and

Lewisboro (Figure 8) from the 2010 Census show that there are low percentages of females in

the 20-34 age group, which corresponds to the predominant childbearing ages of females. While

the fertility rates of the communities are similar to county and state averages, there is likely not

19

enough women in this age group to have a large effect on the total number of births occurring in

the towns.

Figure 7

Population Pyramid of Katonah CDP

from 2010 Census

7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%

Under 5

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Ag

e C

lasses

Percent

Females

Males

Figure 8

Population Pyramid of the Town of Lewisboro

from 2010 Census

7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%

Under 5

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Ag

e C

lasses

Percent

Females

Males

20

Effects of Housing Growth

1. Katonah CDP

Ms. Gail Amyot, Planning Board Secretary for the Town of Bedford, provided

information regarding current and future development in the community. Ms. Amyot stated that

there is the potential for one development, Bailey Hall, consisting of 21 single-family homes in

Katonah as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Potential New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children

from New Housing Developments in Katonah

Development Number

of Units

Potential Number

of Children

(K-12)

Housing Type

Notes

Bailey Hall 21 18 Single-Family Not yet under construction. In FEIS phase (Final Environmental Impact Statement)

Total 21 18

Source: Town of Bedford Planning Board Secretary

To determine the number of children from the development, two sources of data were

considered. First, using 2010 Census data, the number of school-aged children per housing unit

was computed. There were 410 children aged 5-18 living in 589 housing units in Katonah in

2010, yielding 0.70 children per housing unit. Since this computation reflects all children and

not just those attending public school, the actual multiplier reflecting public school children

would be lower. In addition, the Census data does not specify what types of homes (single-

family, duplex, apartment, etc.) the children live. The value computed represents an average

across all home types. Based on our experience, student yield multipliers are greatest for

detached single-family homes and smallest for apartments and attached single-family homes,

such as townhouses. Since approximately 78% of homes in Katonah are detached single-family

21

homes according to the Census Bureau, the actual yield for single-family homes in Katonah is

likely to be higher than 0.70.

Second, Who Lives in �ew Jersey Housing1, published by the Rutgers University Center

for Urban Policy Research (“CUPR”), was referenced to determine the number of public school

children anticipated from the new housing units. The resource provides housing multipliers

(student yields) based on housing type, number of bedrooms, housing value, housing tenure

(ownership versus rental), and whether the housing units are market-rate or affordable.

Multipliers are also provided by the geographic location of the housing units (northern New

Jersey, central New Jersey, southern New Jersey, and the state as a whole). While this resource

provides much more specific information than the Census data, the homes under consideration

are located in New York, not New Jersey. Despite this difference in geography, the consultant

believes that the data from northern New Jersey should be used due to the socio-economic

similarities of the communities served by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District. The following

represents the multipliers used in this study as cited in Who Lives in �ew Jersey Housing.

1. For detached single-family homes consisting of 4-5 bedrooms priced above the

median, the public school student multiplier (grades K-12) is 0.878.

After considering both types of multipliers presented herein, the value from Who Lives in

�ew Jersey Housing was used as it may best reflect the number of children coming from the

Bailey Hall development. As Table 5 shows, a total of 18 children are projected from this

development.

With respect to historical new construction, the number of building permits issued for

new residential housing units in Bedford and served by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

1Listokin, David, et al. (2006). Who Lives in New Jersey Housing?, Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research.

22

has been limited as shown in Table 6. A total of 25 building permits have been issued from

2006-2012.

Table 6 Number of Building Permits by Year

Town of Bedford (Katonah-Lewisboro

sending area only)

Year Total

2006 8

2007 3

2008 2

2009 3

2010 5

2011 2

2012 (thru May 18)

2

Total 25

Source: Town of Bedford Building Department Office Manager

Since the baseline enrollment projections utilize cohort survival ratios that do take into

account prior new home construction growth, the baseline enrollment projections should only be

adjusted if the projected housing growth is significantly different than prior housing growth.

From 2006-2012, a total of 25 building permits for new housing units were issued in Bedford in

the area served by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District. Since the number of future housing

units (21) is similar to that which was built since 2006 (25), the baseline enrollment projections

were not modified to account for additional children from new housing.

Regarding growth due to home resales, it was assumed that the future home resale market

would be similar to what has occurred historically, thereby including the effect of migration due

to home resales. None of the forthcoming enrollment projection calculations account for home

resales as this was beyond the scope of our analysis.

23

2. Town of Lewisboro

Ms. Aimee Hodges, Lewisboro Planning Board Administrator, provided information

regarding current and future development in the town. A list of potential developments, number

of new housing units, and potential number of children is shown in Table 7. In Lewisboro, there

is the potential for 97 new housing units, yielding 55 children in grades K-12.

Table 7

Potential New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children from New Housing Developments in the Town of Lewisboro

Development Number

of Units

Potential Number

of Children

(K-12)

Housing Type

Notes

Falcon Ridge 18 16 Single-Family Plat filed, no construction. Roads and public improvements are under construction

Cedar Knolls 2 2 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Mumbach 3 3 Single-Family Plat filed, two units occupied

Leitner/Hubsher 2 2 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Syms 2 2 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Plechavicius 3 3 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Popoli 6 5 Single-Family Construction plans signed, plat not filed, one unit occupied

Silvermine 12 11 Single-Family Pending

Hayes Stein 3 3 Single-Family Pending, one unit occupied

Oakridge Gardens 46 8 Multi-Family 2-BR units

Re-approval pending June 2012 Planning Board Agenda

Total 97 55

As discussed previously, two sources of data were considered to determine the number of

children coming from the new developments. Using 2010 Census data, the number of school-

aged children per housing unit was computed. There were 2,990 children aged 5-18 living in

4,453 housing units in Lewisboro in 2010, yielding 0.67 children per housing unit. Since this

computation reflects all children and not just those attending public school, the actual multiplier

24

reflecting public school children should be lower. As discussed previously, the Census data does

not specify what types of homes (single-family, duplex, apartment, etc.) the children live. The

value computed represents an average across all home types. Student yield multipliers are

greatest for detached single-family homes and smallest for apartments and attached single-family

homes, such as townhouses. Since approximately 83% of homes in Lewisboro are detached

single-family homes according to the Census Bureau, the actual yield for single-family homes in

Lewisboro is likely to be higher than 0.67.

Second, Who Lives in �ew Jersey Housing2, published by CUPR, was again referenced to

determine the number of public school children anticipated from the new housing units. As

discussed previously, while this resource provides much more specific information than the

Census data, the locations of the homes under consideration are in New York, not New Jersey.

Despite the obvious difference in geography, the consultant believes that the data from northern

New Jersey should be used due to the socio-economic similarities of the communities served by

the Katonah-Lewisboro School District. The following represents the multipliers used in this

study as cited in Who Lives in �ew Jersey Housing.

1. For detached single-family homes consisting of 4-5 bedrooms priced above the

median, the public school student multiplier (grades K-12) is 0.878.

2. For multi-family homes consisting of two bedrooms priced above the median, the

public school student multiplier (grades K-12) is 0.165.

After considering both multipliers presented herein, the values from Who Lives in �ew

Jersey Housing were used as it may best reflect the number of children coming from the

developments. As Table 7 shows, a total of 55 children are projected from the new residential

developments.

25

With respect to historical new construction, the number of certificates of occupancy

(“COs”) issued for new homes in Lewisboro has been minimal as shown in Table 8. While data

were unavailable for 2006 and 2007, a total of 17 COs were issued for single-family homes from

2008-2012.

Table 8 Number of Residential Certificates of Occupancy by Year

Town of

Lewisboro

Year Total

2006 N/A

2007 N/A

2008 4

2009 3

2010 3

2011 5

2012 (thru May)

2

Total 17

Source: Town of Lewisboro Building Inspector

Since the baseline enrollment projections utilize cohort survival ratios that do take into

account prior new home construction growth, the baseline enrollment projections should only be

adjusted if the projected housing growth is significantly different than prior housing growth.

From 2008-2012, a total of 17 new housing units were built in Lewisboro, which does not

include the unavailable data from 2006 and 2007. While the number of future housing units (97)

is greater than that which was built since 2008 (17), the baseline enrollment projections were not

modified to account for additional children from new housing. While the number of future

housing units exceeds historical totals, nearly half of the proposed housing units are multi-family

units, which produce fewer children than single-family homes. In addition, since eight of the

2Listokin, David, et al. (2006). Who Lives in New Jersey Housing?, Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research.

26

units shown in the table are already occupied, children from these homes would already be

enrolled in the school district.

Regarding growth due to home resales, it was assumed that the future home resale market

would be similar to what has occurred historically, thereby including the effect of migration due

to home resales. None of the forthcoming enrollment projection calculations account for home

resales as this was beyond the scope of our analysis.

3. Town of orth Salem

Ms. Dawn Onufrik, North Salem Planning Board Secretary, provided information

regarding current and future development in the section of the town that sends to the Katonah-

Lewisboro School District. Ms. Onufrik stated that there are no potential developments in that

section of the town.

4. Town of Pound Ridge

Ms. Karen Taft, Pound Ridge Planning Board Secretary, provided information regarding

current and future development in the section of the town that sends to the Katonah-Lewisboro

School District. Ms. Taft stated that there are no potential developments in that section of the

town.

Baseline Enrollment Projections

Baseline enrollment projections were calculated using cohort-survival ratios based on the

last five and six years of historical enrollment data. Enrollments were computed for each grade

from the 2012-13 school year through the 2016-17 school year. Actual kindergarten enrollment

as of August 13, 2012 (191 students) was used in both projections. Due to the availability of the

2012-13 kindergarten counts, the most recent birth-to-kindergarten survival ratio was computed

27

and used in formulating five-year (1.280) and six-year (1.263) birth-to-kindergarten survival

ratios. These values are similar to those shown in Table 3.

Enrollments for the ungraded special education classes were computed by calculating the

historical proportion of ungraded special education students with respect to the K-12 subtotals

and multiplying that value by the future general education K-12 subtotals. The five- and six-year

average proportions displayed in Table 3 were used to estimate the future number of ungraded

special education students.

Projected K-12 enrollment for the entire district using cohort-survival ratios based on

historical data from the last five years follows in Table 9 and Figure 9. Using this method, total

enrollment is projected to decline through 2016-17, which appears to be partially due to negative

kindergarten replacement. The final projected enrollment of 2,965 students in 2016-17 would be

a loss of 615 students from the October 2011 enrollment of 3,580 students.

Table 9

Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2012-13 to 2016-17 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12 Total

2012-13 191 200 226 282 270 254 264 304 274 283 302 309 285 22 3,466

2013-14 195 201 201 228 280 273 249 262 303 270 281 297 304 22 3,366

2014-15 150 205 202 203 227 283 268 247 261 299 268 276 292 21 3,202

2015-16 177 158 206 204 202 229 277 266 246 257 297 263 271 20 3,073

2016-17 174 186 159 208 203 204 224 275 265 242 255 292 259 19 2,965

Projected K-12 enrollment for the entire district using cohort-survival ratios based on

historical data from the last six years follows in Table 10 and Figure 9. Using this method, total

enrollment is also projected to decline through 2016-17, which appears to be partially due to

28

negative kindergarten replacement. The final projected enrollment of 2,951 students in 2016-17

would be a loss of 629 students from the October 2011 enrollment of 3,580 students.

Table 10

Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2012-13 to 2016-17 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 6 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12 Total

2012-13 191 202 226 281 272 254 262 304 274 281 300 309 286 22 3,464

2013-14 192 203 203 228 281 274 248 260 303 269 277 296 304 22 3,360

2014-15 148 204 204 204 228 284 267 247 259 297 265 273 291 21 3,192

2015-16 174 157 205 205 204 230 277 265 246 254 293 261 269 20 3,060

2016-17 171 185 158 206 205 206 224 275 264 241 251 289 257 19 2,951

Figure 9

Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Baseline Enrollment Projections for 2012-13 to 2016-17

3,4643,4663,366

3,202 3,073 2,9653,0603,192

3,360

2,951

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

CSR 5-Yr. CSR 6-Yr.

In each instance, the decline in enrollment appears to be partially due to negative

kindergarten replacement, where the projected 1st grade count was used as a proxy since the

district has a half-day kindergarten program. In the next five years, the loss of students due to

29

this phenomenon ranges between 83-134 students per year (Figure 10) for each of the two

enrollment projection calculations.

Figure 10

Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Projected Kindergarten Replacement

-94

-84

-99

-134

-85-92

-83

-100

-134

-84

-150

-130

-110

-90

-70

-50

-30

-10 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

CSR 5-yr. CSR 6-yr.

Projected Enrollment by Grade Configuration

In Table 11 following, historical and projected enrollments are broken down by the

current grade configurations (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) in the Katonah-Lewisboro School District for

each of the enrollment projection calculations. Ungraded special education students were

reassigned into each of the school configurations using historical enrollment proportions.

At the elementary level containing grades K-5, enrollment is projected to decline

throughout the projection period. The CSR method based on five and six years of historical data

is projecting enrollment to be 1,140-1,143 students in 2016-17, which would represent a loss of

354-357 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 1,497 students.

30

Table 11 Projected Enrollments for Grades K-5, 6-8,

and 9-12 for Each Projection Method

HISTORICAL K-5 6-8 9-12

2011-12 1,497 871 1,212

PROJECTED K-5 CSR 5-YR

K-5 CSR 6-YR

6-8 CSR 5-YR

6-8 CSR 6-YR

9-12 CSR 5-YR

9-12

CSR 6-YR

2012-13 1,433 1,436 845 843 1,188 1,185

2013-14 1,388 1,391 817 814 1,161 1,155

2014-15 1,279 1,281 779 776 1,144 1,135

2015-16 1,185 1,184 792 791 1,096 1,085

2016-17 1,143 1,140 766 765 1,056 1,046

For John Jay Middle School, which contains grades 6-8, enrollment is also projected to

decline, in general, through 2016-17. The CSR method based on five and six years of historical

data is projecting enrollment to be 765-766 students in 2016-17, which would represent a loss of

105-106 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 871 students.

For John Jay High School, which contains grades 9-12, enrollment is also projected to

steadily decline through 2016-17. Enrollment is projected to be 1,046-1,056 in 2016-17, which

would represent a loss of 156-166 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 1,212 students.

31

Elementary School Projections

In Tables 12-15 following, historical and projected enrollments are broken down for each

of the four elementary schools in the district. Grades one through five were computed using

cohort survival ratios based on five historical years. Kindergarten enrollment was not computed

using birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios as performed earlier in the district-wide projections.

Instead, an average proportion was computed with respect to the district-wide total based on a

number of historical years and multiplied by the projected kindergarten enrollment shown

previously in Table 9. The actual kindergarten counts for each school, as of August 13, 2012,

were also used. Projected ungraded special education students were assigned to either Increase

Miller or Katonah Elementary Schools based on the proportions from the 2011-12 school year.

It should be noted that the sum of the projected grade counts by school does not equal the counts

shown in Table 9, but are within a reasonable tolerance.

32

1. Increase Miller Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Increase Miller Elementary School from 2006-07 to 2011-12,

and projected enrollment from 2012-13 to 2016-17, are shown below in Table 12. In 2011-12,

enrollment was 346 students. Enrollment has been steadily declining in the school, losing 42

students since 2006-07. Enrollment in the school is projected to be 271 in 2016-17, which would

be a loss of 75 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 346 students.

Table 12

Historical and Projected Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

HISTORICAL1

2006-07 51 67 62 69 70 69 0 388

2007-08 68 57 63 57 70 69 0 384

2008-09 61 69 53 63 53 67 0 366

2009-10 64 66 63 51 61 53 0 358

2010-11 62 69 61 65 52 62 0 371

2011-12 42 64 68 59 59 48 6 346

CSR 5-Yr. Ratios 0.2552 1.051 0.938 0.990 0.956 0.974 0.6003

PROJECTED

2012-13 52 44 60 67 56 57 6 342

2013-14 50 55 41 59 64 55 6 330

2014-15 38 53 52 41 56 62 5 307

2015-16 45 40 50 51 39 55 5 285

2016-17 44 47 38 50 49 38 5 271

otes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro

Union Free School District 2Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2011-12 school year

33

2. Katonah Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Katonah Elementary School from 2006-07 to 2011-12, and

projected enrollment from 2012-13 to 2016-17, are shown below in Table 13. In 2011-12,

enrollment was 445 students, which is a loss of 55 students since 2006-07. Enrollment in the

school has been slowly declining throughout this time period. Enrollment is projected to be 350

in 2016-17, which would be a loss of 95 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 445 students.

Table 13

Historical and Projected Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

HISTORICAL1

2006-07 78 81 77 85 96 83 0 500

2007-08 72 86 80 78 86 97 0 499

2008-09 80 76 90 83 80 88 0 497

2009-10 66 80 82 91 87 84 0 490

2010-11 61 72 85 84 90 86 0 478

2011-12 61 61 70 79 81 89 4 445

CSR 5-Yr. Ratios 0.3022 1.036 1.040 1.000 1.006 1.012 0.4003

PROJECTED

2012-13 54 63 63 70 80 82 4 412

2013-14 59 56 66 63 70 81 4 395

2014-15 45 61 58 66 63 71 4 364

2015-16 54 47 63 58 66 64 4 352

2016-17 53 56 49 63 58 67 4 350

otes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro

Union Free School District 2Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2011-12 school year

34

3. Lewisboro Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Lewisboro Elementary School from 2006-07 to 2011-12, and

projected enrollment from 2012-13 to 2016-17, are shown below in Table 14. In 2011-12,

enrollment was 385 students. Enrollment has been steadily declining in the school, losing 90

students since 2006-07. Enrollment in the school is projected to be 265 in 2016-17, which would

be a loss of 120 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 385 students.

Table 14

Historical and Projected Enrollments of Lewisboro Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

HISTORICAL1

2006-07 69 76 78 80 83 89 0 475

2007-08 55 74 78 79 81 84 0 451

2008-09 60 59 73 83 81 83 0 439

2009-10 69 69 58 74 89 80 0 439

2010-11 46 73 75 64 83 93 0 434

2011-12 39 53 73 77 62 81 0 385

CSR 5-Yr. Ratios 0.2102 1.108 1.014 1.051 1.046 1.008 0.0003

2012-13 46 43 54 77 81 63 0 364

2013-14 41 51 44 57 81 82 0 356

2014-15 31 45 52 46 60 82 0 316

2015-16 37 34 46 55 48 60 0 280

2016-17 36 41 34 48 58 48 0 265

otes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro

Union Free School District 2Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2011-12 school year

35

4. Meadow Pond Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Meadow Pond Elementary School from 2006-07 to 2011-12,

and projected enrollment from 2012-13 to 2016-17, are shown below in Table 15. In 2011-12,

enrollment was 321 students, which is a loss of 65 students from 2006-07. Enrollment had been

fairly stable from 2006-07 through 2009-10, ranging between 375-386 students per year, before

declining in both 2010-11 and 2011-12. Enrollment in the school is projected to be 259 in 2016-

17, which would be a loss of 62 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 321 students.

Table 15

Historical and Projected Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

HISTORICAL1

2006-07 37 78 66 65 61 79 0 386

2007-08 56 43 79 67 68 62 0 375

2008-09 59 57 48 80 67 71 0 382

2009-10 63 64 54 50 76 69 0 376

2010-11 46 61 61 54 46 77 0 345

2011-12 48 47 68 57 50 51 0 321

CSR 5-Yr. Ratios 0.2362 1.023 1.032 0.997 0.948 1.048 0.0003

2012-13 39 49 49 68 54 52 0 311

2013-14 46 40 51 49 65 57 0 308

2014-15 35 47 41 51 47 68 0 289

2015-16 42 36 49 41 48 49 0 265

2016-17 41 43 37 49 39 50 0 259

otes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro

Union Free School District 2Three-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2011-12 school year

36

Peak Enrollment

While the educational capacities of the school buildings in the Katonah-Lewisboro School

District were unavailable, Table 16 shows the peak enrollment in each of the district’s schools

from 1994 to the present in comparison to the projected enrollment in the 2016-17 school year.

As the table shows, the peak enrollment for the elementary schools, with the exception of

Meadow Pond, was in the late 1990’s. As might be expected as the large cohorts advance into

the upper grades, peak enrollment in the middle school occurred in 2001 and in the high school

in 2007. For each school, the projected enrollment in 2016-17 is well below the peak enrollment

values.

Table 16

Peak Enrollment

School Peak

Enrollment Year

Peak Enrollment

Projected Enrollment

2016-17

Increase Miller Elementary School (K-5) 1997 629 271

Katonah Elementary School (K-5) 1999 518 350

Lewisboro Elementary School (K-5) 1998 537 265

Meadow Pond Elementary School (K-5) 2005 446 259

John Jay Middle School (6-8) 2001 1,042 766

John Jay High School (9-12) 2007 1,311 1,056

37

Summary

Statistical Forecasting LLC performed two enrollment projections using the Cohort-

Survival Ratio method from 2012-13 through 2016-17 for the Katonah-Lewisboro School

District. Total enrollment is projected to be 2,951-2,965 students in 2016-17, a loss of 615-629

students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 3,580 students.

The decline in enrollment appears to be due in part to negative kindergarten replacement,

which occurs when the number of graduating 12th grade students is more than the number of

kindergarten students replacing them in the next year. In this study, the projected 1st grade count

was used as a proxy since the district has a half-day kindergarten program. In the next five

years, the projected loss of students due to this phenomenon ranges between 83-134 students per

year.

The projected decline in enrollment also appears to be partially due to the decline in the

birth rate in the Katonah-Lewisboro attendance area. While there were 219 births in 2002, only

138 occurred in 2010. The birth rate decline is likely related to the low number and percentage

of females in the 20-34 age group in both the towns of Katonah and Lewisboro, which

corresponds to the predominant childbearing ages of females.

Enrollments were also computed by the existing grade configurations. For grades K-5,

enrollment is projected to be 1,140-1,143 students in 2016-17, which would represent a loss of

354-357 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 1,497 students.

John Jay Middle School, which contains grades 6-8, is projected to have 765-766

students in 2016-17, which would represent a loss of 105-106 students from the 2011-12

enrollment of 871 students.

38

Finally, for John Jay High School containing grades 9-12, enrollment is projected to be

1,046-1,056 in 2016-17, which would represent a loss of 156-166 students from the 2011-12

enrollment of 1,212 students.

Projections were also completed for each of the district’s four elementary schools.

Enrollment is projected to decline in each of the elementary schools.

Future residential construction is projected to be greater in Lewisboro than in Katonah.

There is the potential for 21 housing units in Katonah and 97 units in Lewisboro, yielding a total

of 73 children.

The peak enrollments of the school buildings in the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

were compared to the projected enrollment in 2016-17. Due to the projected decline in

enrollment, the projected enrollment in each of the schools is well below the peak enrollment

values.

While the projection methods use the most recent data at the time of this study, there may

be inaccuracies in the enrollment figures over time for the following reasons:

• The Cohort-Survival Ratio method assumes that student progressions from one grade to the

next and the number of births will remain consistent with past trends. If future survival rates

in the district are different than that experienced historically, the accuracy of the enrollment

projections may be affected.

• Since geocoded birth data were unavailable from the New York State Department of Health

for 2011, there is greater uncertainty in the projected kindergarten class of 2016.

• Regarding growth due to home resales and housing turnover, it was assumed that the future

home resale market would be similar to what has occurred historically, thereby including the

effect of migration due to home resales. None of the preceding enrollment projection

39

calculations account for home resales as a separate issue as this was beyond the scope of our

analysis.

40

Appendix

At the request of the Katonah-Lewisboro School District, the demographic study

completed in August 2012 was expanded to include enrollment projections for the ten-year

period beginning in 2012-13 and ending in 2021-22. The following tables display the first five

years of the projection period shown in the initial demographic study, as well as the last five

years of the projection period that were completed in April 2013.

Since our initial study was released, the New York State Department of Health reported

that there were 114 births in 2011 in the geographic area served by the school district. This

value is lower than what had been estimated in our initial study, and represents approximately

100 fewer births than just ten years prior. In the process of developing the ten-year projections,

the 2011 birth data was taken into account to formulate an estimate of the future number of

births. A total of 123 births were used to estimate the number of annual births from 2012-2016

and represents an average of the actual number of births from 2009-2011.

It should be noted that the reliability of a ten-year projection is diminished and should be

used with caution. Since birth data are used to project kindergarten students five years later, the

ten-year projection relies on estimated birth counts in order to project the number of kindergarten

children. For this reason, elementary projections are much more susceptible to higher error rates

in a ten-year projection as compared to middle or high school projections, which rely on either

children that have already been born or that are currently enrolled in the district.

41

District Projections

Like the initial study, two sets of enrollment projections were completed for grades K-12.

The same survival ratios, shown previously in Table 3, were used to project enrollments for

years 6-10. The first set of projections, which follows in Table A1, used cohort-survival ratios

(CSR) based on historical data from the last five years. Using this method, total enrollment is

projected to steadily decline to 2,405 students in 2021-22, which would be a loss of 1,175

students from the October 2011 enrollment of 3,580 students. Using cohort-survival ratios based

on historical data from the last six years (Table A2), total enrollment is projected to steadily

decline to 2,388 students in 2021-22, which would be a loss of 1,192 students from the October

2011 enrollment. In both projections, the decline in the first five years of the projection period is

greater than in the last five years.

Table A1

Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2012-13 to 2021-22 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12 Total

2012-13 191 200 226 282 270 254 264 304 274 283 302 309 285 22 3,466

2013-14 195 201 201 228 280 273 249 262 303 270 281 297 304 22 3,366

2014-15 150 205 202 203 227 283 268 247 261 299 268 276 292 21 3,202

2015-16 177 158 206 204 202 229 277 266 246 257 297 263 271 20 3,073

2016-17 174 186 159 208 203 204 224 275 265 242 255 292 259 19 2,965

2017-18 157 154 187 161 207 205 200 222 274 261 241 251 287 18 2,825

2018-19 157 165 155 189 160 209 201 199 221 270 259 237 247 17 2,686

2019-20 157 165 166 157 188 162 205 200 198 218 268 255 233 17 2,589

2020-21 157 165 166 168 156 190 159 204 199 195 217 263 251 16 2,506

2021-22 157 165 166 168 167 158 186 158 203 196 194 213 259 15 2,405

42

Table A2 Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2012-13 to 2021-22

Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 6 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12 Total

2012-13 191 202 226 281 272 254 262 304 274 281 300 309 286 22 3,464

2013-14 192 203 203 228 281 274 248 260 303 269 277 296 304 22 3,360

2014-15 148 204 204 204 228 284 267 247 259 297 265 273 291 21 3,192

2015-16 174 157 205 205 204 230 277 265 246 254 293 261 269 20 3,060

2016-17 171 185 158 206 205 206 224 275 264 241 251 289 257 19 2,951

2017-18 155 153 186 159 206 207 201 223 274 259 238 247 285 18 2,811

2018-19 155 165 154 187 159 208 202 200 222 269 256 235 243 17 2,672

2019-20 155 165 166 155 187 160 203 201 199 218 265 252 231 17 2,574

2020-21 155 165 166 167 155 189 156 202 200 195 215 261 248 16 2,490

2021-22 155 165 166 167 167 156 184 155 201 196 192 212 257 15 2,388

43

Projected Enrollment By Configuration

In Table A3 following, the historical and projected enrollments are broken down by the

current grade configurations (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) in the Katonah-Lewisboro School District for

each of the enrollment projection calculations.

At the elementary level containing grades K-5, enrollment is projected to decline, in

general, throughout the projection period. The CSR method based on five and six years of

historical data is projecting enrollment to be 982-987 students in 2021-22, which would represent

a loss of 510-515 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 1,497 students. However, the decline

in the last five years is projected to be 128-131 students, which is much less than the projected

decline of 382-384 students in the first five years.

Table A3

Projected Enrollments for Grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 for Each Projection Method

HISTORICAL K-5 6-8 9-12

2011-12 1,497 871 1,212

PROJECTED K-5 CSR 5-YR

K-5 CSR 6-YR

6-8 CSR 5-YR

6-8 CSR 6-YR

9-12 CSR 5-YR

9-12

CSR 6-YR

2012-13 1,433 1,436 845 843 1,188 1,185

2013-14 1,388 1,391 817 814 1,161 1,155

2014-15 1,279 1,281 779 776 1,144 1,135

2015-16 1,185 1,184 792 791 1,096 1,085

2016-17 1,143 1,140 766 765 1,056 1,046

5-year Change -382 -384 -105 -106 -156 -166

2017-18 1,079 1,074 698 700 1,048 1,037

2018-19 1,043 1,036 623 626 1,020 1,010

2019-20 1,003 996 605 605 981 973

2020-21 1,009 1,004 564 560 933 926

2021-22 987 982 549 542 869 864

5-year Change -128 -131 -217 -223 -187 -182

10-year Change -510 -515 -322 -329 -343 -348

44

For John Jay Middle School (grades 6-8), enrollment is also projected to decline, in

general, through 2021-22. The CSR method based on five and six years of historical data is

projecting enrollment to be 542-549 students in 2021-22, which would represent a loss of 322-

329 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 871 students. Unlike the elementary configuration,

the decline in the last five years is projected to be much greater, 217-223 students, as compared

to the decline projected for the first five years (105-106 students). This is due to the smaller

elementary cohorts fully advancing into the middle school grades.

For John Jay High School (grades 9-12), enrollment is also projected to steadily decline

through 2021-22. Enrollment is projected to be 864-869 in 2021-22, which would represent a

loss of 343-348 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 1,212 students. The decline in

enrollment is fairly similar in the first five years (156-166 students) as compared to the last five

years of the projection period (182-187 students).

Elementary School Projections

Using the same methodology as discussed in the report, the projected enrollments from

Table A1 were broken down for each of the four elementary schools in the district and are shown

in Tables A4-A7. In each instance, the projected decline in enrollment is greater in the first five

years as compared to the last five years of the projection period. While the sums of the projected

grade counts by school do not exactly equal the K-5 counts shown in Table A3, they are within a

reasonable tolerance.

45

1. Increase Miller Elementary School

Enrollment is projected to decline to 235 students in 2021-22 at Increase Miller

Elementary School, which would be a loss of 111 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 346

students as shown in Table A4. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 75

students is projected. A smaller decline of 36 students is projected in the last five years of the

projection period.

Table A4

Projected Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

2012-13 52 44 60 67 56 57 6 342

2013-14 50 55 41 59 64 55 6 330

2014-15 38 53 52 41 56 62 5 307

2015-16 45 40 50 51 39 55 5 285

2016-17 44 47 38 50 49 38 5 271

5-year Change -75

2017-18 40 39 44 38 48 48 5 262

2018-19 40 42 37 44 36 47 5 251

2019-20 40 42 39 37 42 35 5 240

2020-21 40 42 39 39 35 41 4 240

2021-22 40 42 39 39 37 34 4 235

5-year Change -36

10-year Change -111

46

2. Katonah Elementary School

Enrollment is projected to decline to 300 students in 2021-22 at Katonah Elementary

School, which would be a loss of 145 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of 445 students as

shown in Table A5. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 95 students is

projected while a smaller decline of 50 students is projected in the last five years of the

projection period.

Table A5

Projected Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

2012-13 54 63 63 70 80 82 4 412

2013-14 59 56 66 63 70 81 4 395

2014-15 45 61 58 66 63 71 4 364

2015-16 54 47 63 58 66 64 4 352

2016-17 53 56 49 63 58 67 4 350

5-year Change -95

2017-18 47 46 58 49 63 59 3 325

2018-19 47 49 48 58 49 64 3 318

2019-20 47 49 51 48 58 50 3 306

2020-21 47 49 51 51 48 59 3 308

2021-22 47 49 51 51 51 49 2 300

5-year Change -50

10-year Change -145

47

3. Lewisboro Elementary School

As shown in Table A6, enrollment in Lewisboro Elementary School is projected to

decline to 228 in 2021-22, which would be a loss of 157 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of

385 students. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 120 students is projected

while a smaller decline of 37 students is projected in the last five years of the projection period.

Table A6

Projected Enrollments of Lewisboro Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

2012-13 46 43 54 77 81 63 0 364

2013-14 41 51 44 57 81 82 0 356

2014-15 31 45 52 46 60 82 0 316

2015-16 37 34 46 55 48 60 0 280

2016-17 36 41 34 48 58 48 0 265

5-year Change -120

2017-18 33 34 42 36 50 58 0 253

2018-19 33 37 34 44 38 50 0 236

2019-20 33 37 38 36 46 38 0 228

2020-21 33 37 38 40 38 46 0 232

2021-22 33 37 38 40 42 38 0 228

5-year Change -37

10-year Change -157

48

4. Meadow Pond Elementary School

As shown in Table A7, enrollment at Meadow Pond Elementary School is projected to

decline to 226 in 2021-22, which would be a loss of 95 students from the 2011-12 enrollment of

321 students. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 62 students is projected

while a smaller decline of 33 students is projected in the last five years of the projection period.

Table A7

Projected Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Ungraded K-5

Total

2012-13 39 49 49 68 54 52 0 311

2013-14 46 40 51 49 65 57 0 308

2014-15 35 47 41 51 47 68 0 289

2015-16 42 36 49 41 48 49 0 265

2016-17 41 43 37 49 39 50 0 259

5-year Change -62

2017-18 37 35 44 37 47 41 0 241

2018-19 37 38 36 44 35 49 0 239

2019-20 37 38 39 36 42 37 0 229

2020-21 37 38 39 39 34 44 0 231

2021-22 37 38 39 39 37 36 0 226

5-year Change -33

10-year Change -95

Demographic Study Update

for the

Katonah-Lewisboro

Union Free School District

November 2013

Prepared By:

Richard S. Grip, Ed.D.

2

Table of Contents

Page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................... 6 Enrollment Projections from August 2012 Report ............................................................. 6 Demographic Characteristics of the Geographical Area Served by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District ......................................................................... 7 District Overview ..................................................................................................... 9 Explanation of the Cohort-Survival Ratio Method ............................................................... 11 Historical Enrollment Trends .............................................................................................. 12 Student Withdrawals and New Registrants ......................................................................... 17 First Grade Replacement ................................................................................................... 18 Birth Data ................................................................................................................... 21 Effects of Housing Growth ................................................................................................... 25 1. Katonah CDP ......................................................................................... 25 2. Town of Lewisboro ............................................................................... 26 3. Town of North Salem ............................................................................ 28 4. Town of Pound Ridge .......................................................................... 28 Homes Sales ................................................................................................... 28 Vacant Housing Units ................................................................................................... 29 Baseline Enrollment Projections ........................................................................................... 30 Projected Enrollment by Grade Configuration ..................................................................... 34 Elementary School Projections ............................................................................................ 35 1. Increase Miller Elementary School ....................................................... 36 2. Katonah Elementary School .................................................................. 38 3. Lewisboro Elementary School ............................................................. 40 4. Meadow Pond Elementary School ....................................................... 42 Appendix: Full-Day Kindergarten Projections ................................................................... 44

3

List of Tables Table

1. Comparison of Projected to Actual Enrollment from August 2012 Report .............................. 6

2. Demographic Characteristics of the Geographical Area Served by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District .................................................................................... 8 3. Katonah-Lewisboro Historical Enrollments from 1994-95 to 2013-14 .................................... 13 4. Historical Survival Ratios from 1994-95 to 2013-14 ................................................................ 14

5. Birth Rates and Historical Birth-to-Kindergarten Survival Ratios in the Katonah-Lewisboro School District .................................................................................. 22

6. Projected New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children from New Housing Developments in Katonah ................................................................ 25 7. Number of Building Permits by Year ....................................................................................... 26

8. Projected New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children from New Housing Developments in the Town of Lewisboro ........................................ 27 9. Number of Residential Certificates of Occupancy by Year ...................................................... 27

10. Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2014-15 to 2023-24 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data ........................................................................................... 31

11. Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2014-15 to 2023-24 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 6 Years of Historical Data ....................................................................................... 32

12. Projected Enrollments for Grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 for Each Projection Method ............ 34

13. Historical Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School ........................................ 36 14. Projected Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School ........................................ 37 15. Historical Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School .................................................. 38 16. Projected Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School ................................................... 39 17. Historical Enrollments of Lewisboro Elementary School ............................................... 40 18. Projected Enrollments of Lewisboro Elementary School ............................................... 41 19. Historical Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School ......................................... 42 20. Projected Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School ......................................... 43

4

Executive Summary

Statistical Forecasting LLC completed a demographic study for the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District as an update to the August 2012 study. Two enrollment projections were completed from 2014-15 through 2023-24. In the first five years, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,635-2,650 in 2018-19, which would be a loss of 724-739 students from the September 2013 enrollment of 3,374 students. In the last five years of the projection period, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,172-2,181 in 2023-24, which would be an additional loss of 463-469 students. Over the ten-year projection period, enrollment is projected to decline by 1,193-1,202 students.

Historically, enrollment peaked in the district in 2005-06 when there were 4,115 students.

Enrollment began declining in 2006-07 and has declined in each of the last eight years. Since peak enrollment occurred in 2005-06, the district has lost 741 students.

The decline in enrollment appears to be due in part to negative first grade replacement,

which occurs when the number of graduating 12th grade students is more than the number of first grade students replacing them in the next year. In this study, the projected 1st grade count was used instead of kindergarten since the district has a half-day kindergarten program, whereby some parents elect to send their child to a full-day kindergarten program elsewhere before enrolling them in the public school district for the first grade. The district has experienced negative first grade replacement since 2006-07, ranging between 13-126 students per year. In the next ten years, the projected loss of students due to this phenomenon ranges between 50-144 students per year.

The projected decline in enrollment is also likely due to the decline in the birth rate in the

Katonah-Lewisboro attendance area. While there were 219 births in 2002, only 114 occurred in 2011. It appears that the decline in birth rates may be due to the changing age structure in the Katonah-Lewisboro area from 1990 to the present. The population has aged in the last 20 years, characterized by a reduction of people in their 20s and 30s and an increase of people in their 40s and 50s. The decreasing number of females aged 20-39 has likely led to a reduction of births.

Enrollments were also computed by the existing grade configurations. For grades K-5,

enrollment is projected to decline through 2019-20 before stabilizing. Enrollment is projected to be 983-986 students in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 400-403 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,386 students. Projections were also completed for each of the district’s four elementary schools and enrollment is projected to decline at each school. For John Jay Middle School (grades 6-8), enrollment is also projected to decline, in general, through 2023-24. Enrollment is projected to be 486-487 students in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 325-326 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 812 students. For John Jay High School (grades 9-12), enrollment is projected to steadily decline through 2023-24. Enrollment is projected to be 699-712 in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 464-477 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,176 students.

5

Regarding the impact of new housing, when comparing to our previous study, there is only one additional proposed residential subdivision consisting of three single-family homes in Lewisboro. In general, little has changed since the last report. In Katonah, the potential remains for one development, Bailey Hall, consisting of 21 single-family homes. In Lewisboro, the potential exists for 100 new housing units, where approximately half are multi-family units. There are no pending residential subdivisions in Pound Ridge or North Salem that would impact the school district. In total, it is estimated that the potential 121 new housing units would generate approximately 79 children.

Housing occupancy rates in the Katonah-Lewisboro sending area were compared from

the 2000 Census and the 2007-2011 American Community Survey. During this time period, the occupancy rate declined from 94.5% to 91.9%. If the occupancy rate returns to that of 2000 (94.5%), there is the potential for an additional 179 occupied units yielding 111 schoolchildren. This would be an increase of approximately 8.5 children per grade level (13 grades, K-12) for the entire district. Since there are four school buildings at the elementary level, the impact would be an additional 2.1 children per grade level per building.

In the appendix, two enrollment projections were computed for 2014-15 through 2023-24

assuming implementation of a full-day kindergarten program in 2014-15. In comparing the full-day kindergarten projections with the comparable half-day kindergarten projections, there is very little difference in the projections. An additional 17-29 students are projected to be in the district in 2018-19 and an additional 27-44 children in 2023-24 at the end of the ten-year projection period.

6

Introduction

Statistical Forecasting LLC completed a demographic study update for the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District (subsequently referred to as Katonah-Lewisboro). The previous study was completed for the district in August 2012. The purpose of the current study is to compute grade-by-grade enrollment projections for 2014-15 through 2023-24. Information was collected related to community population trends and age structure, birth rates, historical enrollment data, house sales, and new housing starts. The update should serve as a planning tool for the future direction of the district.

Enrollment Projections from August 2012 Report

In our previous demographic study, enrollments were projected from 2012-13 through 2016-17, and were later expanded to include an additional five years through 2021-22. Table 1 below compares the actual enrollments to the projected enrollments for the first two years of the projection period. Since two different sets of projections were computed in the previous study, the table shows the percent error by year for each of the projections.

Table 1 Comparison of Projected to Actual Enrollment

from August 2012 Report

Year Actual

Enrollment

Projected Enrollment (CSR 5-Yr)

% Error CSR (5-Yr)

Projected Enrollment (CSR 6-Yr)

% Error CSR (6-Yr)

2012-13 3,484 3,466 -0.5% 3,464 -0.6%

2013-14 3,374 3,366 -0.2% 3,360 -0.4%

In our previous study, enrollment was predicted to decline steadily for the entire ten-year projection period. While the decline in enrollment has come to fruition, the projected enrollments for the district were slightly less than the actual enrollments, indicating that enrollment has declined less than anticipated. Error rates ranged between -0.2% to -0.5% for the method using cohort-survival ratios based on an average of five years of historical data, and ranged between -0.4% to -0.6% for the method using six years of historical data. Positive error rates indicate over-projections while negative error rates indicate under-projections. Expressed in whole numbers, the five-year projections differed from actual enrollment by only 8-18 students, while the six-year projections differed by 14-20 students. In a survey of educational planners who complete enrollment projections, two-thirds believe that an error rate of 1% per year is acceptable1. For a ten-year projection, this would mean that a 10% error rate would be acceptable. Both projections are well within this parameter in each year.

1 Schellenberg, S. J., & Stephens, C. E. (1987). Enrollment projection: variations on a theme. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington D.C., (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 879)

7

Demographic Characteristics of the Geographical Area Served by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

The National Center for Education Statistics compiles Census data by school district geographical boundaries, since many school district boundaries are often not contiguous with municipal boundaries. The following information is different than that presented in the August 2012 report, which looked solely at the demographic data of the communities of Katonah and Lewisboro. In Table 2 following, selected demographic characteristics of the geographical area served by Katonah-Lewisboro (subsequently referred to as “Katonah-Lewisboro area”) are compared from the 2000 Census and the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (“ACS”), also published by the United States Census Bureau. The information reflects the entire population served by the school district and is not restricted to schoolchildren. The ACS replaced the long form of the Census, last administered in 2000 to approximately 16% of the population in the United States. For small geographic areas such as the one served by the school district, ACS data represent a sample collected over a five-year time period, where the estimates represent the average characteristics between January 2007 and December 2011. This information does not represent a single point in time like the long form of earlier Censuses. Regarding the population of the Katonah-Lewisboro area, there were 17,930 residents identified in the 2007-2011 ACS, which is a small decline of 240 persons (-1.3%) when compared to the 2000 Census data.

With respect to race, the Katonah-Lewisboro area is nearly entirely White. In the 2007-2011 ACS, the Katonah-Lewisboro area was 91.4% White as compared to 95.0% in the 2000 Census. Asians made up the largest minority group at 3.5% in the 2007-2011 ACS, which is more than double the 1.6% that existed in the 2000 Census. The Census Bureau does not consider Hispanic as a separate race; rather it identifies the percentage of people having Hispanic origin. Hispanics in the Census population can be part of the White, Black, Asian, or any of the other race categories. It is not a mutually exclusive race category. The concentration of persons having Hispanic origin increased from 3.2% in the 2000 Census to 3.9% in the 2007-2011 ACS. In comparing the 2000 Census to the 2007-2011 ACS, the percentage of people under the age of 18 declined from 30.7% to 29.7%. However, the number of public school children per household (ages 5-17) increased from 0.586 to 0.620. Regarding educational attainment for adults aged 25 and over, 69.3% of the population had a bachelor’s degree or higher in the 2007-2011 ACS as compared to 65.2% in the 2000 Census, indicating a well-educated population. Persons with graduate or professional degrees slightly increased from 30.8% to 33.7% during this time period. Median family income increased from $126,669 in the 2000 Census to $180,159 in the 2007-2011 ACS, a gain of 42.2%. The percentage of children under the age of 18 that were in poverty has been minimal and was constant at 0.7% over this time period.

8

Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of the Geographical Area Served

by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

2000 Census 2007-2011 ACS Total Population 18,170 17,930

Race Origin White 95.0% 91.4%

Black/African American 1.3% 0.9% American Indian/ Alaska Native 0.1% 0.0%

Asian 1.6% 3.5% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0%

Other race 0.8% 1.7% Two or more races 1.2% 2.4%

Total 100.0%1 100.0%1

Hispanic origin 3.2% 3.9% Age

Under 18 30.7% 29.7% 18-64 60.6% 59.5%

65 and over 8.6% 10.8% Public-school children per household

(ages 5-17) 0.586 0.620

Educational Attainment Bachelor’s degree or higher 65.2% 69.3%

Graduate or professional degree 30.8% 33.7% Income

Median family income $126,669 $180,159 Percentage of persons in poverty

under age 18 0.7% 0.7%

Housing Units Total number 6,605 6,796

Occupied units 6,240 (94.5%) 6,243 (91.9%) Vacant units 360 (5.5%) 553 (8.1%)

Owner-occupied units 5,495 (88.0%) 5,681(91.0%) Renter-occupied units 750 (12.0%) 562 (9.0%)

Median value of an owner-occupied unit $400,600 $715,400 Housing Type1

1-unit, attached or detached 90.2% 91.9% 2-4 units 5.8% 4.4% 5-9 units 2.1% 0.8%

10-19 units 0.7% 0.7% 20 or more units 0.9% 1.5%

Mobile home, boat, RV, van, etc. 0.2% 0.8% Source: National Center for Education Statistics Note: 1Data may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

9

Regarding housing, there were 6,796 housing units in the Katonah-Lewisboro area in the 2007-2011 ACS, which is a gain of 191 units (+2.9%) since the 2000 Census. During this time period, the occupancy rate declined from 94.5% to 91.9%. While not shown in the table, there were 739 new housing units built in the 1990s, as compared to 277 new units built in the 2000s. A total of 174 units were built from 2000-2004 while 103 units were built after 2004. Regarding occupied units, 9.0% of the occupied units consisted of renters in the 2007-2011 ACS, which is a decline from the 2000 Census percentage (12.0%). The median home price of an owner-occupied unit in the 2007-2011 ACS was $715,400, which was a 78.6% gain from the value reported in the 2000 Census ($400,600). With respect to housing type, approximately 92% of the homes in the 2007-2011 ACS are one-unit, either attached or detached, which is a 1.7 percentage point gain from the 2000 Census. Housing with 2-4 units consisted of 4.4% of the housing stock in the 2007-2011 ACS, which is a 1.4 percentage point decline from the 2000 Census. Housing with more than four units is minimal in the Katonah-Lewisboro area.

District Overview

Katonah-Lewisboro has six schools that serve children in grades kindergarten through twelve. The district receives children from the unincorporated hamlet of Katonah in the Town of Bedford, approximately the northern one-third of the Town of Bedford, the Town of Lewisboro, and also small sections of the towns of Pound Ridge and North Salem. There are four elementary schools containing grades K-5 (Increase Miller, Katonah, Lewisboro, and Meadow Pond). John Jay Middle School contains grades 6-8 while John Jay High School contains grades 9-12. Locations of the schools are shown in Figure 1. In this study, historical enrollments from 1994-95 through 2013-14 were obtained from the New York State BEDS reports and Katonah-Lewisboro and were used to project enrollments for ten years into the future. Future enrollments were projected using the Cohort-Survival Ratio method.

10

Figure 1 School Locations - Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District

11

Explanation of the Cohort-Survival Ratio Method

In 1930, Dublin and Lodka provided an explicit age breakdown, which enabled analysts to follow each cohort through its life stages and apply appropriate birth and death rates for each generation. A descendant of this process is the Cohort-Survival Ratio (“CSR”) method, which is used to project public school enrollments. In this method, a survival ratio is computed for each grade progression, which essentially compares the number of students in a particular grade to the number of students in the previous grade during the previous year. The survival ratio indicates whether the enrollment is stable, increasing, or decreasing. A survival ratio of one indicates stable enrollment, less than one indicates declining enrollment, while greater than one indicates increasing enrollment. If, for example, a school district had 100 fourth graders and the next year only had 95 fifth graders, the survival ratio would be 0.95.

The CSR method assumes that what happened in the past will also happen in the future.

In essence, this method provides a linear projection of the population. The CSR method is most applicable for districts that have relatively stable increasing or decreasing trends without any major unpredictable fluctuations from year to year. In school districts encountering rapid growth not experienced historically (a change in the historical trend), the CSR method must be modified and supplemented with additional information.

In this study, survival ratios were calculated using historical data from the last twenty

years for birth to kindergarten, kindergarten to first grade, first grade to second grade, etc. Due to the fluctuation in survival ratios from year to year, it is appropriate to calculate an average survival ratio, which is then used to calculate grade enrollments ten years into the future.

12

Historical Enrollment Trends Historical enrollment for Katonah-Lewisboro from 1994-95 through 2013-14 are shown in Figure 2 and Table 3. Figure 3 following shows the change in K-12 enrollment by year. Enrollment increased in the district through 2002-03 where it was then essentially constant for three years. Peak enrollment occurred in 2005-06 when there were 4,115 students in the district. Enrollment began declining in 2006-07 and has declined in each of the last eight years. Enrollment in the district as of September 2013 was 3,374 students, which represents a loss of 741 students since the peak enrollment in 2005-06. Table 3 also shows computed average survival ratios based on the last five and six years of historical data, which will be used to project future enrollment. The average survival ratios also indicate the net migration by grade, where values over 1.000 reflect inward migration, while values below 1.000 reflect outward migration. Nine of the 13 average survival ratios in the five-year trend were below 1.000 (for grades 4 and up), indicating a general net outward migration in the district. Table 4 shows computed grade-by-grade survival ratios for the past twenty years, 1994-95 to 2013-14. In addition, the average, minimum, and maximum survival ratios are shown for the past twenty years along with the five- and six-year averages used in this study to project enrollment. Survival ratios from birth-to-kindergarten could not be computed for the entire twenty-year period since birth data by the school district’s geographical boundaries were not available prior to 2002. Finally, the differences between the six-year averages and twenty-year averages were computed for each grade progression. The differences were very small, indicating the long-term stability of the survival ratios over different periods of enrollment growth and decline in the district.

Figure 2Historical K-12 Enrollment from 1994-95 to 2013-14

3,3043,449

3,6563,787

3,9103,9874,112

3,9493,8803,868

4,1154,1114,048

3,141

4,109 4,041

3,3743,4843,580

3,773

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

13

Table 3 Katonah-Lewisboro Historical Enrollments from 1994-95 to 2013-14

Year1 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SE2 K-5 Total

6-8 Total

9-12 Total

K-12 Total

1994-95 330 282 249 254 246 225 247 257 217 232 185 194 161 62 1,648 721 772 3,141 1995-96 308 340 290 251 264 244 232 245 260 217 233 179 193 48 1,745 737 822 3,304 1996-97 288 327 339 298 263 265 260 237 247 261 222 219 178 45 1,825 744 880 3,449 1997-98 301 321 342 350 301 278 279 271 241 250 261 205 218 38 1,931 791 934 3,656 1998-99 329 320 330 361 355 319 288 277 268 230 251 254 203 2 2,016 833 938 3,787 1999-00 300 353 315 337 351 354 332 292 279 271 227 251 244 4 2,014 903 993 3,910 2000-01 302 321 354 321 346 357 350 343 290 288 265 218 229 3 2,004 983 1,000 3,987 2001-02 297 318 325 363 315 349 356 346 340 289 285 251 211 3 1,970 1,042 1,036 4,048 2002-03 298 323 313 325 355 311 330 355 346 328 285 283 257 3 1,928 1,031 1,153 4,112 2003-04 268 317 315 309 327 362 321 327 352 334 321 269 284 5 1,903 1,000 1,208 4,111 2004-05 269 287 315 318 307 328 367 319 319 362 328 316 267 7 1,831 1,005 1,273 4,109 2005-06 285 294 289 306 320 305 318 369 319 310 349 327 315 9 1,800 1,006 1,309 4,115 2006-07 235 302 283 299 310 320 308 320 371 323 304 348 318 0 1,749 999 1,293 4,041 2007-08 251 260 300 281 305 312 305 307 317 355 309 303 344 0 1,709 929 1,311 3,949 2008-09 260 261 264 309 281 309 314 311 312 308 350 306 295 0 1,684 937 1,259 3,880 2009-10 262 279 257 266 313 286 303 310 317 307 313 352 303 0 1,663 930 1,275 3,868 2010-11 215 275 282 267 271 318 278 296 305 314 299 302 351 0 1,628 879 1,266 3,773 2011-12 190 225 279 272 252 269 306 275 287 304 314 290 294 23 1,497 871 1,212 3,580 2012-13 189 197 230 280 278 248 265 308 285 273 299 319 288 25 1,437 858 1,189 3,484 2013-14 174 210 195 233 279 277 242 267 303 279 275 300 322 18 1,386 812 1,176 3,374 Average

5-Year Ratios 1.25063 1.0610 1.0093 1.0050 0.9952 0.9972 0.9738 0.9950 0.9934 0.9793 0.9912 0.9885 0.9932 0.00754 Average

6-Year Ratios 1.24093 1.0634 1.0044 1.0055 0.9988 1.0013 0.9751 0.9934 0.9985 0.9802 0.9962 0.9919 0.9926 0.00754

Notes: 1Data were obtained from the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District 2Ungraded special education enrollment

3Birth-to-kindergarten ratio based on birth data five years prior 4Average proportion of self-contained special education/Ungraded students with respect to K-12 subtotals based on three years of historical data

14

Table 4

Historical Survival Ratios from 1994-95 to 2013-14

Progression Years B-K K-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12

1994-95 to 1995-96 N/A 1.0303030 1.0283687 1.0080321 1.03937 0.9918699 1.0311111 0.9919028 1.011673 1 1.00431 0.967568 0.994845

1995-96 to 1996-97 N/A 1.0616883 0.9970588 1.0275862 1.047809 1.0037878 1.0655737 1.0215517 1.008163 1.003846 1.023041 0.939914 0.994413

1996-97 to 1997-98 N/A 1.1145833 1.0458715 1.0324483 1.010067 1.0570342 1.0528301 1.0423076 1.016878 1.012146 1 0.923423 0.995434

1997-98 to 1998-99 N/A 1.0631229 1.0280373 1.0555555 1.014286 1.0598006 1.0359712 0.9928315 0.98893 0.954357 1.004 0.97318 0.990244

1998-99 to 1999-00 N/A 1.0729483 0.984375 1.0212121 0.972299 0.9971830 1.0407523 1.0138888 1.00722 1.011194 0.986957 1 0.96063

1999-00 to 2000-01 N/A 1.07 1.0028328 1.0190476 1.026706 1.0170940 0.9887005 1.0331325 0.993151 1.032258 0.97786 0.960352 0.912351

2000-01 to 2001-02 N/A 1.0529801 1.0124610 1.0254237 0.981308 1.0086705 0.9971988 0.9885714 0.991254 0.996552 0.989583 0.94717 0.96789

2001-02 to 2002-03 N/A 1.0875420 0.9842767 1 0.977961 0.9873015 0.9455587 0.9971910 1 0.964706 0.986159 0.992982 1.023904

2002-03 to 2003-04 N/A 1.0637583 0.9752321 0.9872204 1.006154 1.0197183 1.0321543 0.9909090 0.991549 0.965318 0.978659 0.94386 1.003534

2003-04 to 2004-05 N/A 1.0708955 0.9936908 1.0095238 0.993528 1.0030581 1.0138121 0.9937694 0.975535 1.028409 0.982036 0.984424 0.992565

2004-05 to 2005-06 N/A 1.0929368 1.0069686 0.9714285 1.006289 0.9934853 0.9695121 1.0054495 1 0.971787 0.964088 0.996951 0.996835

2005-06 to 2006-07 N/A 1.0596491 0.9625850 1.0346020 1.013072 1 1.0098360 1.0062893 1.00542 1.012539 0.980645 0.997135 0.972477

2006-07 to 2007-08 1.1461187 1.1063829 0.9933774 0.9929328 1.020067 1.0064516 0.953125 0.9967532 0.990625 0.956873 0.956656 0.996711 0.988506

2007-08 to 2008-09 1.1926605 1.0398406 1.0153846 1.03 1 1.0131147 1.0064102 1.0196721 1.016287 0.971609 0.985915 0.990291 0.973597

2008-09 to 2009-10 1.3645833 1.0730769 0.9846743 1.0075757 1.012945 1.0177935 0.9805825 0.9872611 1.019293 0.983974 1.016234 1.005714 0.990196

2009-10 to 2010-11 1.2215909 1.0496183 1.0107526 1.0389105 1.018797 1.0159744 0.9720279 0.9768976 0.983871 0.990536 0.973941 0.964856 0.997159

2010-11 to 2011-12 1.3768115 1.0465116 1.0145454 0.9645390 0.94382 0.9926199 0.9622641 0.9892086 0.969595 0.996721 1 0.9699 0.97351

2011-12 to 2012-13 1.1454545 1.0368421 1.0222222 1.0035842 1.022059 0.9841269 0.9851301 1.0065359 1.036364 0.95122 0.983553 1.015924 0.993103

2012-13 to 2013-14 1.1447368 1.1111111 0.9898477 1.0130434 0.996429 0.9964028 0.9758064 1.0075471 0.983766 0.978947 1.007326 1.003344 1.009404

Avg. 20-Year Ratios N/A 1.0686206 1.0027664 1.0127719 1.005419 1.0087098 1.0009662 1.0032458 0.999451 0.988579 0.989524 0.977563 0.985821

Maximum Ratio 1.3768115 1.1145833 1.0458715 1.0555555 1.047809 1.0598006 1.0655737 1.0423076 1.036364 1.032258 1.023041 1.015924 1.023904

Minimum Ratio 1.1447368 1.0303030 0.9625850 0.9645390 0.94382 0.9841269 0.9455587 0.9768976 0.969595 0.95122 0.956656 0.923423 0.912351

Avg. 5-Year Ratios 1.2506354 1.0610207 1.0093420 1.0050193 0.995276 0.9972810 0.9738071 0.9950473 0.993399 0.979356 0.991205 0.988506 0.993294

Avg. 6-Year Ratios 1.2409729 1.0634320 1.0044084 1.0055305 0.99881 1.0013835 0.9751622 0.9934901 0.998578 0.98028 0.996211 0.991948 0.992675Diff. Between 6-Year and 20-Year Ratios

N/A -0.0051886 0.0016419 -0.0072413 -0.00661 -0.0073263 -0.0258039 -0.0097557 -0.00087 -0.0083 0.006686 0.014385 0.006854

15

Figure 3Change in Enrollment by Year

163

207

131 123

7761 64

6

-95 -96-110

-193

-69-92

-74

-12-2

-1

145

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

16

Historical enrollments are also shown in Table 3 and Figure 4 by level (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12), which represents the current configuration of the school district. Self-contained special education/ungraded students were incorporated into the totals by level as well as for the district-wide total.

Figure 4Historical Enrollment by Level from 1994-95 to 2013-14

1,3861,437

1,497

1,6281,6631,6841,709

1,7491,8001,831

1,9031,9281,970

2,0042,014

2,0161,931

1,8251,745

1,648

1,042

1,0311,000 1,005 1,006 999

929 937 930879 871 858

812737

983

721 744791

833903

1,0361,000

1,1761,1891,212

1,2661,2751,2591,3111,2931,309

1,2731,208

1,153

934 938 993880

822772

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

Gr. K-5 Gr. 6-8 Gr. 9-12

At the K-5 level, enrollment increased through 1998-99, peaking at 2,016 students. For

the past fourteen years (1999-2013), enrollment has been declining. As of September 2013, enrollment was 1,386 students, which represents a loss of 630 students from the peak enrollment in 1998-99.

17

For John Jay Middle School containing grades 6-8, enrollment increased through 2001-02, peaking at 1,042 students. While enrollment was essentially constant at approximately 1,000 students from 2003-04 to 2006-07, enrollment has been declining since. Grade 6-8 enrollment in the district was 812 students in 2013-14, which represents a loss of 230 students from the peak enrollment in 2001-02.

For John Jay High School, which contains grades 9-12, enrollment increased, in general

through 2007-08, peaking at 1,311 students. Enrollment was fairly stable from 2008-09 through 2010-11 before declining in the last three years. The high school has had the smallest enrollment decline of the three grade configurations. As of September 2013, enrollment was 1,176 students, which represents a loss of 135 students from the peak enrollment in 2007-08.

Student Withdrawals and New Registrants

Student withdrawals and new registrants were reviewed from the end of the 2012-13 school year through September 10, 2013. A total of 96 students withdrew from the district during this time period while 104 new students entered the district. Of the 96 withdrawals, 44 students (46%) moved out of the district. The remaining 52 students are either being home-schooled or are now attending private or parochial schools. Twelve of these students (23%) left Katonah-Lewisboro to attend the Harvey School in Katonah.

18

First Grade Replacement

The district has experienced negative first grade replacement since 2006-07, ranging between 13-126 students per year. Negative first grade replacement occurs when the number of graduating 12th grade students is larger than the number of first grade students replacing them in the next year. Positive first grade replacement occurs when the number of graduating 12th grade students is less than the number of first grade students entering the district in the next year. Positive first grade replacement occurred when the district was growing in the 1990s and early 2000s. Typically, the outgoing 12th grade student population is compared to the incoming kindergarten class. However, since Katonah-Lewisboro has a half-day kindergarten program, it is more appropriate to compare the 12th grade student population to the first grade student population, as the district gains a number of students from kindergarten to first grade when parents elect to send their child to a full-day kindergarten program elsewhere before enrolling them in the public school district for the first grade. As shown in Figure 5, the loss of students due to first grade replacement was 78 students in 2013-14, as 288 twelfth graders graduated in 2012-13 and were replaced by 210 first grade students in 2013-14. How much of the district’s enrollment change can be attributed to first grade replacement? Using the data from Figures 3 and 5, Figure 6 shows the annual change in enrollment compared to first grade replacement. As Figure 6 shows, there is a strong relationship between the district’s annual change in enrollment and first grade replacement. In the recent instances where the change in enrollment exceeded the negative first grade replacement, this indicates that the district is also experiencing a net outward migration of students in the other grades as well. This was confirmed earlier as nine of 13 average survival ratios in the five-year trend were below 1.000 (Table 3).

19

Figure 5Historical First Grade Replacement

143

102

150

7789

112

60

3

27

-13

-58

-83

-16-28

-97-78

179

-126

134

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

Figure 6Comparison of K-12 Enrollment Change

and First Grade Replacement

163145

207

131

61 64

-1 -2

6

-74-92

-69-95

-193

-110

179

143

102

150

89112

60

327

-13

-58-83

-28

-126

-97-78

123

77

-96

-12

77

-16

134

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

Enrollment Change First Grade Replacement

21

Birth Data

Birth data were needed to compute kindergarten enrollment, which was calculated as follows. Birth data, lagged five years behind their respective kindergarten classes, were used to calculate the survival ratio for each birth-to-kindergarten cohort. For instance, in 2008, there were a combined total of 152 births in the Katonah-Lewisboro area. Five years later (the 2013-14 school year), 174 children enrolled in kindergarten, which is equal to a survival ratio of 1.145 from birth to kindergarten. Birth counts and birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios are displayed in Table 5 and Figure 7. Values greater than 1.000 indicate that some children are born outside of a school district’s attendance boundaries and are attending kindergarten in the school district five years later, i.e. an inward migration of children into the district. This type of inward migration is typical in school districts with excellent reputations, because the appeal of a good school district draws families into the community. Inward migration is also seen in communities where there are a large number of new housing starts, with families moving into the community having children of age to attend kindergarten. Birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios that are below 1.000 indicate that a number of children born within a community are not attending kindergarten in the school district five years later. This is common in communities where a high proportion of children attend private, parochial, or out-of-district special education facilities, or where there is a net migration of families moving out of the community. It is also common in school districts that have a half-day kindergarten program, where parents choose to send their child to a private full-day kindergarten for the first year.

Birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios have been consistently greater than 1.000 in

Katonah-Lewisboro and have ranged from 1.145 to 1.377 in the last seven years. Since birth data by the district’s geographical area were not available prior to 2002, birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios could not be computed prior to 2002.

Birth data were geocoded by the New York State Department of Health for 2002-2011 by

assigning geographic coordinates to a birth mother based on her street address. Birth data were not yet available for 2012. The geocoded birth data allowed for the tabulation of births by the school district’s attendance area. Birth rates were estimated for 2012-2018 since these cohorts will become the kindergarten classes of 2017-2023. The estimate was computed by averaging the number of births from 2009-2011 and using this value (123) over the entire timeframe.

22

Table 5 Birth Rates and Historical Birth-to-Kindergarten Survival Ratios

in the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Birth Year1 Total Number of Births in School Attendance Area

Number of Kindergarten Students Five

Years Later

Birth-to- Kindergarten Survival Ratio

2002 219 251 1.146

2003 218 260 1.193

2004 192 262 1.365

2005 176 215 1.222

2006 138 190 1.377

2007 165 189 1.158

2008 152 174 1.145

2009 117 N/A N/A

2010 138 N/A N/A

2011 114 N/A N/A

Notes: 1Birth data were provided by the New York State Department of Health for 2002-2011.

As Figure 7 shows, the number of births in the Katonah-Lewisboro attendance area has been declining, in general, since 2002. While there were 219 births in 2002, only 114 occurred in 2011, which is a decline of more than 100 births in a decade.

Figure 7Historical Birth Data from 2002-2011

114

138

117

152165

138

176192

218219

0

50

100

150

200

250

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f B

irth

s

23

It appears that the decline in birth rates may be due to the changing age structure in the Katonah-Lewisboro area. The age pyramid of males and females in the Katonah-Lewisboro area from the 1990 Census, 2000 Census, and 2007-2011 ACS are shown in Figures 8-10. The figures show the aging population of the Katonah-Lewisboro area in the last 20 years, characterized by a reduction of people in their 20s and 30s and an increase of people in their 40s and 50s. The decreasing number of females aged 20-39 has likely led to a reduction of births.

Figure 8Population Pyramid of Geographical Area

of Katonah-Lewisboro School District 1990 Census

7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%

Under 5

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

Ag

e C

lass

es

Percent

Females

Males

24

Figure 9Population Pyramid of Geographical Area

of Katonah-Lewisboro School District 2000 Census

7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%

Under 5

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Ag

e C

lass

es

Percent

Females

Males

Figure 10Population Pyramid of Geographical Area

of Katonah-Lewisboro School District 2007-2011 ACS Data

7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%

Under 5

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Ag

e C

lass

es

Percent

Females

Males

25

Effects of Housing Growth

Planning and Zoning Departments were contacted in Bedford, Lewisboro, Pound Ridge, and North Salem to provide a status update regarding the potential for new housing as reported in the August 2012 demographic study. In general, little has changed since the last report.

1. Katonah CDP

Ms. Gail Amyot, Planning Board Secretary for the Town of Bedford, provided information regarding current and future development in the hamlet of Katonah. In Table 6 following, a list of proposed housing developments is reproduced from the last study and the potential number of children that may come from the development. Ms. Amyot stated that there is the potential for one development, Bailey Hall, consisting of 21 single-family homes in Katonah, which is unchanged from the last demographic study. There are no other residential subdivision applications before the planning board. It is estimated that a total of 18 children would come from Bailey Hall based on a student yield of 0.878 children2 (grades K-12) per single-family home.

Table 6 Potential New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children

from New Housing Developments in Katonah

Development Number of Units

Potential Number

of Children

(K-12)

Housing Type

Notes

Bailey Hall 21 18 Single-Family Not yet under construction. In FEIS phase (Final Environmental Impact Statement). No change in status since 2012 report.

Total 21 18

Source: Town of Bedford Planning Board Secretary

2Listokin, David, et al. (2006). Who Lives in New Jersey Housing?, Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research.

26

With respect to historical new construction, the number of building permits issued for new residential housing units in Bedford and served by the Katonah-Lewisboro School District has been limited as shown in Table 7. A total of 14 building permits have been issued from 2008-2013.

Table 7

Number of Building Permits by Year

Town of Bedford (Katonah-Lewisboro sending area only)

Year Total 2008 2 2009 3 2010 5 2011 2 2012 1 2013

(through 10/25) 1

Total 14 Source: Town of Bedford Building Department

2. Town of Lewisboro

Ms. Lisa Pisera, Lewisboro Planning Board Secretary, provided information regarding current and future development in the community. A list of potential developments, number of new housing units, and potential number of children is shown in Table 8. The table is identical to the one produced in the August 2012 demographic study with two exceptions. First, Oakridge Gardens has now been approved. Second, a new subdivision has been added to the table, Todd Management Subdivision, which will contain three new single-family homes. It is estimated that a total of 61 children in grades K-12 would come from the 100 new housing units, based on a student yield of 0.878 children per single-family home and 0.234 children per multi-family home, the latter of which was derived from 65 K-12 children currently living in 278 units in Oakridge Gardens.

With respect to historical new construction, the number of certificates of occupancy (“COs”) issued for new homes in Lewisboro has been minimal as shown in Table 9. A total of 20 COs were issued for single-family homes from 2008-2013.

27

Table 8 Potential New Residential Subdivisions and Projected Number of Children

from New Housing Developments in the Town of Lewisboro

Development Number of Units

Potential Number

of Children

(K-12)

Housing Type

Notes

Falcon Ridge 18 16 Single-Family Plat filed, no construction. Roads and public improvements are under construction

Cedar Knolls 2 2 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Mumbach 3 3 Single-Family Plat filed, two units occupied

Leitner/Hubsher 2 2 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Syms 2 2 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Plechavicius 3 3 Single-Family Plat filed, one unit occupied

Popoli 6 5 Single-Family Construction plans signed, plat not filed, one unit occupied

Silvermine 12 11 Single-Family Pending

Hayes Stein 3 3 Single-Family Pending, one unit occupied

Oakridge Gardens 46 11 Multi-Family 2-BR units Approved

Todd Management Subdivision

3 3 Single-Family Pending

Total 100 61 Source: Lewisboro Planning Board Secretary

Table 9

Number of Residential Certificates of Occupancy by Year

Town of

Lewisboro

Year Total 2008 4 2009 3 2010 3 2011 5 20121 3 20131 2 Total 20

Source: Town of Lewisboro Building Inspector Note: 1As estimated by Lewisboro Building Inspector

28

3. Town of North Salem

Ms. Cynthia Curtis, North Salem Planning Board Chairwoman, provided information regarding current and future development in the section of the town that sends to Katonah-Lewisboro. Ms. Curtis stated that there are no potential developments in that section of the town, which is unchanged from our last demographic study. 4. Town of Pound Ridge

Ms. Karen Taft, Pound Ridge Planning Board Secretary, provided information regarding current and future development in the section of the town that sends to Katonah-Lewisboro School. Ms. Taft stated that there are no potential developments in that section of the town, which is unchanged from our last demographic study.

Home Sales In Figure 11 following, the number of annual homes sales is shown from 2000-2013 for the area served by Katonah-Lewisboro. Homes sales are broken down for single-family homes and for condos as of March 2013. As the table shows, home sales peaked in 2004 with 318 sales but declined steeply beginning in 2008 during the banking and financial crisis. There were only 131 home sales in 2009, which is nearly a 59% decline since 2004. There were a total of 197 home sales in 2012, which is nearly a 30% gain from 2011. Despite the increased number of home sales, it is unclear what the impact will be on enrollment, if any, on Katonah-Lewisboro. When a home is sold, one of three things may occur. First, homes may be sold by families with children and purchased by people without children resulting in a net loss of children. Second, a home may be sold by “empty-nesters” and purchased by families with children resulting in a net gain of children. Finally, there are situations where homes are sold by families with children and purchased by families with children, potentially resulting in no net change in the number of children if their families are the same size. It is not correct to assume that a home sold will result in a net gain of children, or to possibly assume that all homes are being sold by retirees and purchased by families with children. Since the demographic characteristics of the buyer and sellers (i.e., family size) are not collected from any source, it is unclear whether the district has been losing or gaining students as a result of home sales.

29

Figure 11Home Sales from 2000 to 2013

267 275

219

168

27

197

152131

167

250

299318

297283

26

181

141155

242 240257

229

272260

187

219

147

115

11611131620

313239464640

2741

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

Ho

me

Sal

es

Total Single-Family Condos

Vacant Housing Units

As discussed earlier in the report, the occupancy rate in the area served by the school district is 91.9% from the 2007-2011 ACS data source. If the occupancy rate returns to that of 2000 (94.5%), what potentially could be the impact upon the district? Using the 2007-2011 ACS data, there are 6,796 housing units in the Katonah-Lewisboro sending area. If the occupancy rate of 2000 is reached, there would be 6,422 occupied units, which is 179 more units than reported in the 2007-11 ACS data. As shown in Table 2, there are approximately 0.620 public school children per household (ages 5-17) in the Katonah-Lewisboro sending area. Multiplying this value by the additional 179 units yields the potential for an additional 111 schoolchildren. This would be an increase of approximately 8.5 children per grade level (13 grades, K-12) for the entire district. Since there are four school buildings at the elementary level, the impact would be an additional 2.1 children per grade level per building.

30

Baseline Enrollment Projections

Baseline enrollment projections were calculated using cohort-survival ratios based on the last five and six years of historical enrollment data. Enrollments were computed for each grade for the ten-year period of 2014-15 through 2023-24. It should be noted that a five-year projection is more reliable than a ten-year projection. Since birth data are used to project kindergarten students five years later, the ten-year projection in years 6-10 relies on estimated birth counts in order to project the number of kindergarten students. For instance, in the 6th year of the ten-year projection, which corresponds to 2019-20, birth data from 2014 would be used to project the number of kindergarten students, and would therefore need to be estimated. For this reason, elementary projections are much more susceptible to higher error rates in a ten-year projection as compared to middle or high school projections, which rely on either children that have already been born or that are currently enrolled in the district.

Enrollments for the ungraded special education classes were computed by calculating the

historical proportion of ungraded special education students with respect to the K-12 subtotals and multiplying that value by the future general education K-12 subtotals. Since the district has only reported ungraded special education students in the last three years, the three-year average proportion displayed in Table 3 was used to estimate the future number of ungraded special education students in both enrollment projection calculations.

Projected K-12 enrollment for the entire district using cohort-survival ratios based on

historical data from the last five years follows in Table 10 and Figure 12. Using this method, total enrollment is projected to decline throughout the projection period, which appears to be partially due to negative first grade replacement. In the first five years, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,635 in 2018-19, which would be a loss of 739 students from the September 2013 enrollment of 3,374 students. In the last five years of the projection period, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,172 in 2023-24, which would be an additional loss of 463 students. Over the ten-year projection period, enrollment is projected to decline by 1,202 students.

31

Table 10 Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2014-15 to 2023-24

Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12Total

2014-15 146 185 212 196 232 278 270 241 265 297 277 272 298 20 3,189

2015-16 173 155 187 213 195 231 271 269 239 260 294 274 270 19 3,050

2016-17 143 184 156 188 212 194 225 270 267 234 258 291 272 18 2,912

2017-18 154 152 186 157 187 211 189 224 268 261 232 255 289 18 2,783

2018-19 154 163 153 187 156 186 205 188 223 262 259 229 253 17 2,635

2019-20 154 163 165 154 186 156 181 204 187 218 260 256 227 16 2,527

2020-21 154 163 165 166 153 185 152 180 203 183 216 257 254 15 2,446

2021-22 154 163 165 166 165 153 180 151 179 199 181 214 255 15 2,340

2022-23 154 163 165 166 165 165 149 179 150 175 197 179 213 14 2,234

2023-24 154 163 165 166 165 165 161 148 178 147 173 195 178 14 2,172

Figure 12Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Baseline Enrollment Projections for 2014-15 to 2023-24

2,1722,234

2,3402,4462,527

3,1893,050

2,9122,783

2,635

2,920

2,1812,2452,354

2,4632,542

2,794

3,0563,192

2,650

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

CSR 5-Yr. CSR 6-Yr.

32

Projected K-12 enrollment for the entire district using cohort-survival ratios based on historical data from the last six years follows in Table 11 and Figure 12. Using this method, total enrollment is again projected to decline throughout the projection period, which appears to be partially due to negative first grade replacement. The projections in Table 11 are very similar to those in the previous table. In the first five years, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,650 in 2018-19, which would be a loss of 724 students from the September 2013 enrollment of 3,374 students. In the last five years of the projection period, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,181 in 2023-24, which would be an additional loss of 469 students. Over the ten-year projection period, enrollment is projected to decline by 1,193 students.

Table 11 Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments for 2014-15 to 2023-24

Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 6 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12Total

2014-15 145 185 211 196 233 279 270 240 267 297 278 273 298 20 3,192

2015-16 171 154 186 212 196 233 272 268 240 262 296 276 271 19 3,056

2016-17 141 182 155 187 212 196 227 270 268 235 261 294 274 18 2,920

2017-18 153 150 183 156 187 212 191 226 270 263 234 259 292 18 2,794

2018-19 153 163 151 184 156 187 207 190 226 265 262 232 257 17 2,650

2019-20 153 163 164 152 184 156 182 206 190 222 264 260 230 16 2,542

2020-21 153 163 164 165 152 184 152 181 206 186 221 262 258 16 2,463

2021-22 153 163 164 165 165 152 179 151 181 202 185 219 260 15 2,354

2022-23 153 163 164 165 165 165 148 178 151 177 201 184 217 14 2,245

2023-24 153 163 164 165 165 165 161 147 178 148 176 199 183 14 2,181

33

In each instance, the decline in enrollment appears to be partially due to negative first grade replacement. In the next ten years, the loss of students due to this phenomenon ranges between 50-144 students per year (Figure 13) for each of the two enrollment projection calculations.

Figure 13Katonah-Lewisboro School DistrictProjected First Grade Replacement

-86 -90-89-94

-50

-92-91

-64

-126-120

-143-137

-54

-97-95

-67

-129-124

-144-137

-170

-150

-130

-110

-90

-70

-50

-30

-10 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

CSR 5-yr. CSR 6-yr.

34

Projected Enrollment By Configuration

In Table 12 following, historical and projected enrollments are broken down by the current grade configurations (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) in Katonah-Lewisboro for each of the enrollment projection calculations. Ungraded special education students were reassigned into each of the school configurations using historical enrollment proportions.

Table 12

Projected Enrollments for Grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 for Each Projection Method

HISTORICAL K-5 6-8 9-12

2013-14 1,386 812 1,176

PROJECTED K-5 CSR 5-YR

K-5 CSR 6-YR

6-8 CSR 5-YR

6-8 CSR 6-YR

9-12 CSR 5-YR

9-12

CSR 6-YR

2014-15 1,261 1,261 776 777 1,152 1,154

2015-16 1,165 1,163 779 780 1,106 1,113

2016-17 1,088 1,084 762 765 1,062 1,071

2017-18 1,058 1,052 681 687 1,044 1,055

2018-19 1,009 1,004 616 623 1,010 1,023

5-year Change -377 -382 -196 -189 -166 -153 2019-20 988 982 572 578 967 982

2020-21 995 991 535 539 916 933

2021-22 975 971 510 511 855 872

2022-23 986 983 478 477 770 785

2023-24 986 983 487 486 699 712

5-year Change -23 -21 -129 -137 -311 -311 10-year Change -400 -403 -325 -326 -477 -464

At the elementary level containing grades K-5, enrollment is projected to decline through 2019-20 before stabilizing. The stabilization in enrollment is related to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades. The CSR method based on five and six years of historical data is projecting enrollment to be 983-986 students in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 400-403 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,386 students. In the last five years, the decline is projected to be 21-23 students, which is much less than the projected decline of 377-382 students in the first five years.

For John Jay Middle School (grades 6-8), enrollment is also projected to decline, in

general, through 2023-24. The CSR method based on five and six years of historical data is projecting enrollment to be 486-487 students in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 325-

35

326 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 812 students. Like the elementary configuration, the decline in the first five years is projected to be greater, 189-196 students, as compared to the decline in the last five years (129-137 students).

For John Jay High School (grades 9-12), enrollment is projected to steadily decline

through 2023-24. Enrollment is projected to be 699-712 in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 464-477 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,176 students. The decline in enrollment is projected to be smaller in the first five years (153-166 students) as compared to the last five years of the projection period (311 students).

Elementary School Projections

In Tables 13-20 following, historical and projected enrollments are broken down for each of the four elementary schools in the district. Grades one through five were computed using cohort survival ratios based on the last six years. Kindergarten enrollment was not computed using birth-to-kindergarten survival ratios as performed earlier in the district-wide projections. Instead, historical proportions of the number of kindergarten students in each elementary school were used and multiplied by the projected kindergarten enrollment shown previously in Table 11 (the six-year trend). Projected ungraded special education students were assigned to either Increase Miller or Katonah Elementary Schools based on the proportions from the 2012-13 school year, as BEDS data was not available for 2013-14. While the sums of the projected grade counts by school do not exactly equal the K-5 counts shown in Table 12, they are within a reasonable tolerance.

36

1. Increase Miller Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Increase Miller Elementary School from 2008-09 to 2013-14 is shown in Table 13. In 2013-14, enrollment was 356 students. Enrollment has ranged between 346-371 students per year since 2008-09 with no clear pattern of increasing or declining enrollment.

Table 13

Historical Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School

Year1 K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2008-09 61 69 53 63 53 67 0 366

2009-10 64 66 63 51 61 53 0 358

2010-11 62 69 61 65 52 62 0 371

2011-12 42 64 68 59 59 48 6 346

2012-13 52 46 59 64 61 60 11 353

2013-14 51 63 42 56 63 63 18 356

CSR 6-Yr. Ratios 0.28412 1.0998 0.9315 0.9703 0.9828 0.9978 0.73333

Notes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District 2Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2012-13 school year

37

Enrollment is projected to decline to 267 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 89 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 356 students as shown in Table 14. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 80 students is projected. A smaller decline of nine students is projected in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 14

Projected Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 41 56 59 41 55 63 9 324

2015-16 49 45 52 57 40 55 8 306

2016-17 40 54 42 50 56 40 8 290

2017-18 43 44 50 41 49 56 8 291

2018-19 43 47 41 49 40 49 7 276

5-year Change -80

2019-20 43 47 44 40 48 40 7 269

2020-21 43 47 44 43 39 48 7 271

2021-22 43 47 44 43 42 39 7 265

2022-23 43 47 44 43 42 42 6 267

2023-24 43 47 44 43 42 42 6 267

5-year Change -9

10-year Change -89

38

2. Katonah Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Katonah Elementary School from 2008-09 to 2013-14 are shown below in Table 15. In 2013-14, enrollment was 372 students, which is a loss of 125 students since 2008-09. Most of the enrollment decline has occurred in the last three years, as enrollment has dropped by 106 students.

Table 15

Historical Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School

Year1 K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2008-09 80 76 90 83 80 88 0 497

2009-10 66 80 82 91 87 84 0 490

2010-11 61 72 85 84 90 86 0 478

2011-12 61 61 70 79 81 89 4 445

2012-13 54 60 63 69 80 77 4 407

2013-14 44 54 62 64 69 79 0 372

CSR 6-Yr. Ratios 0.26932 1.0149 1.0359 0.9933 1.0028 0.9931 0.26673

Notes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District 2Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2012-13 school year

39

Enrollment is projected to decline to 261 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 111 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 372 students as shown in Table 16. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 109 students is projected while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 16

Projected Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 39 45 56 62 64 69 3 338

2015-16 46 40 47 56 62 64 3 318

2016-17 38 47 41 47 56 62 3 294

2017-18 41 39 49 41 47 56 3 276

2018-19 41 42 40 49 41 47 3 263

5-year Change -109

2019-20 41 42 44 40 49 41 3 260

2020-21 41 42 44 44 40 49 3 263

2021-22 41 42 44 44 44 40 2 257

2022-23 41 42 44 44 44 44 2 261

2023-24 41 42 44 44 44 44 2 261

5-year Change -2

10-year Change -111

40

3. Lewisboro Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Lewisboro Elementary School from 2008-09 to 2013-14 are shown below in Table 17. In 2013-14, enrollment was 350 students. Enrollment has been steadily declining in the school, losing 89 students since 2008-09. Most of the enrollment decline has occurred in the last three years, as enrollment has dropped by 84 students.

Table 17

Historical Enrollments of Lewisboro Elementary School

Year1 K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2008-09 60 59 73 83 81 83 0 439

2009-10 69 69 58 74 89 80 0 439

2010-11 46 73 75 64 83 93 0 434

2011-12 39 53 73 77 62 81 0 385

2012-13 43 45 59 79 79 60 0 365

2013-14 48 47 45 58 76 76 0 350

CSR 6-Yr. Ratios 0.25172 1.1214 1.0366 1.0418 1.0301 0.9876 0.00003

Notes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District 2Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2012-13 school year

41

As shown in Table 18, enrollment in Lewisboro Elementary School is projected to decline to 274 in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 76 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 350 students. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 72 students is projected while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 18

Projected Enrollments of Lewisboro Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 36 54 49 47 60 75 0 321

2015-16 43 40 56 51 48 59 0 297

2016-17 35 48 41 58 53 47 0 282

2017-18 39 39 50 43 60 52 0 283

2018-19 39 44 40 52 44 59 0 278

5-year Change -72

2019-20 39 44 46 42 54 43 0 268

2020-21 39 44 46 48 43 53 0 273

2021-22 39 44 46 48 49 42 0 268

2022-23 39 44 46 48 49 48 0 274

2023-24 39 44 46 48 49 48 0 274

5-year Change -4

10-year Change -76

42

4. Meadow Pond Elementary School

Historical enrollment for Meadow Pond Elementary School from 2008-09 to 2013-14 are shown below in Table 19. In 2013-14, enrollment was 308 students, which is a loss of 74 students from 2008-09. Enrollment has been steadily declining in the school over this time period.

Table 19

Historical Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School

Year1 K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2008-09 59 57 48 80 67 71 0 382

2009-10 63 64 54 50 76 69 0 376

2010-11 46 61 61 54 46 77 0 345

2011-12 48 47 68 57 50 51 0 321

2012-13 40 46 49 68 58 51 0 312

2013-14 31 46 46 55 71 59 0 308

CSR 6-Yr. Ratios 0.19492 1.0366 1.0115 1.0197 0.9715 1.0377 0.00003

Notes: 1Data as provided by the New York State Department of Education BEDS reports and the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District 2Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals 3Proportion of ungraded elementary students in 2012-13 school year

43

As shown in Table 20, enrollment at Meadow Pond Elementary School is projected to decline to 187 in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 121 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 308 students. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 122 students is projected while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 20

Projected Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 28 32 47 47 53 74 0 281

2015-16 33 29 32 48 46 55 0 243

2016-17 27 34 29 33 47 48 0 218

2017-18 30 28 34 30 32 49 0 203

2018-19 30 31 28 35 29 33 0 186

5-year Change -122

2019-20 30 31 31 29 34 30 0 185

2020-21 30 31 31 32 28 35 0 187

2021-22 30 31 31 32 31 29 0 184

2022-23 30 31 31 32 31 32 0 187

2023-24 30 31 31 32 31 32 0 187

5-year Change +1

10-year Change -121

44

Appendix: Full-Day Kindergarten Projections

The following section provides enrollment projections for 2014-15 through 2023-24 assuming implementation of a full-day kindergarten program in 2014-15. To complete the projections, historical birth-to-first grade survival ratios were computed and used to project the number of full-day kindergarten students. It was assumed that the total number of students attending in the first grade would be comparable to a full-day kindergarten program. Once the program is implemented, the district is no longer likely to see an increase in the number of students from kindergarten to first grade. For this reason, the kindergarten-to-first grade survival ratio was changed to 1.000, as there is no historical data to determine what this survival ratio will be.

District Projections

Two sets of enrollment projections were completed for grades K-12. The survival ratios shown previously in Table 3 were also used in this analysis, with the exception of the birth-to- kindergarten and kindergarten-to-first grade ratios.

In Table A1 following, cohort-survival ratios based on historical data from the last five

years were used to project enrollment. Total enrollment is projected to decline throughout the projection period. In the first five years, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,652 in 2018-19, which would be a loss of 722 students from the September 2013 enrollment of 3,374 students. In the last five years of the projection period, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,199 in 2023-24, which would be an additional loss of 453 students. Over the ten-year projection period, enrollment is projected to decline by 1,175 students.

Table A1 Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten for

2014-15 to 2023-24 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12Total

2014-15 157 185 212 196 232 278 270 241 265 297 277 272 298 20 3,200 2015-16 185 157 187 213 195 231 271 269 239 260 294 274 270 19 3,064 2016-17 153 185 158 188 212 194 225 270 267 234 258 291 272 18 2,925 2017-18 165 153 187 159 187 211 189 224 268 261 232 255 289 18 2,798 2018-19 165 165 154 188 158 186 205 188 223 262 259 229 253 17 2,652 2019-20 165 165 167 155 187 158 181 204 187 218 260 256 227 16 2,546 2020-21 165 165 167 168 154 186 154 180 203 183 216 257 254 16 2,468 2021-22 165 165 167 168 167 154 181 153 179 199 181 214 255 15 2,363 2022-23 165 165 167 168 167 167 150 180 152 175 197 179 213 14 2,259 2023-24 165 165 167 168 167 167 163 149 179 149 173 195 178 14 2,199

45

In comparing the full-day kindergarten projections (Table A1) with the comparable half-day kindergarten projections (Table 10), there is very little difference in the projections. An additional 17 students are projected to be in the district in 2018-19 and an additional 27 children in 2023-24 at the end of the ten-year projection period.

In Table A2 following, enrollments were projected using cohort-survival ratios based on

historical data from the last six years. Total enrollment is also projected to decline throughout the projection period. In the first five years, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,679 in 2018-19, which would be a loss of 695 students from the September 2013 enrollment of 3,374 students. In the last five years of the projection period, enrollment is projected to decline to 2,225 in 2023-24, which would be an additional loss of 454 students. Over the ten-year projection period, enrollment is projected to decline by 1,149 students.

Table A2

Projected Grade K-12 Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten for 2014-15 to 2023-24 Using Cohort-Survival Ratios and 6 Years of Historical Data

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sp. Ed

K-12Total

2014-15 158 185 211 196 233 279 270 240 267 297 278 273 298 20 3,205 2015-16 187 158 186 212 196 233 272 268 240 262 296 276 271 19 3,076 2016-17 154 187 159 187 212 196 227 270 268 235 261 294 274 19 2,943 2017-18 166 154 188 160 187 212 191 226 270 263 234 259 292 18 2,820 2018-19 166 166 155 189 160 187 207 190 226 265 262 232 257 17 2,679 2019-20 166 166 167 156 189 160 182 206 190 222 264 260 230 16 2,574 2020-21 166 166 167 168 156 189 156 181 206 186 221 262 258 16 2,498 2021-22 166 166 167 168 168 156 184 155 181 202 185 219 260 15 2,392 2022-23 166 166 167 168 168 168 152 183 155 177 201 184 217 14 2,286 2023-24 166 166 167 168 168 168 164 151 183 152 176 199 183 14 2,225

In comparing these full-day kindergarten projections (Table A2) with the comparable half-day kindergarten projections (Table 11), there is also very little difference in the projections. An additional 29 students are projected to be in the district in 2018-19 and an additional 44 children in 2023-24 at the end of the ten-year projection period.

46

Projected Enrollment By Configuration

In Table A3 following, the historical and projected enrollments are broken down by the current grade configurations (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) in Katonah-Lewisboro for each of the enrollment projection calculations.

Table A3

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten for Grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 for Each Projection Method

HISTORICAL K-5 6-8 9-12

2013-14 1,386 812 1,176

PROJECTED K-5 CSR 5-YR

K-5 CSR 6-YR

6-8 CSR 5-YR

6-8 CSR 6-YR

9-12 CSR 5-YR

9-12

CSR 6-YR

2014-15 1,272 1,274 776 777 1,152 1,154

2015-16 1,179 1,183 779 780 1,106 1,113

2016-17 1,101 1,106 762 765 1,062 1,072

2017-18 1,073 1,078 681 687 1,044 1,055

2018-19 1,026 1,033 616 623 1,010 1,023

5-year Change -360 -353 -196 -189 -166 -153 2019-20 1,007 1,014 572 578 967 982

2020-21 1,015 1,022 537 543 916 933

2021-22 995 1,000 513 520 855 872

2022-23 1,007 1,011 482 490 770 785

2023-24 1,007 1,011 491 498 701 716

5-year Change -19 -22 -125 -125 -309 -307 10-year Change -379 -375 -321 -314 -475 -460

At the elementary level K-5, enrollment is projected to decline through 2019-20 before stabilizing. The CSR method based on five and six years of historical data is projecting enrollment to be 1,007-1,011 students in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 375-379 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,386 students. While the decline in the first five years is projected to be 353-360 students, the decline in the last five years is projected to be only 19-22 students. Like the projections earlier in the report that considered only half-day kindergarten, the stabilization in enrollment is related to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

For John Jay Middle School (grades 6-8), enrollment is also projected to decline, in

general, through 2023-24. The CSR method based on five and six years of historical data is

47

projecting enrollment to be 491-498 students in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 314-321 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 812 students. The decline in the first five years (189-196 students) is projected to be greater than that in the last five years (125 students).

For John Jay High School (grades 9-12), enrollment is projected to steadily decline

through 2023-24. Enrollment is projected to be 701-716 in 2023-24, which would represent a loss of 460-475 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,176 students. Unlike the middle school, the decline in enrollment is projected to be smaller in the first five years (153-166 students) as compared to the last five years (307-309 students) of the projection period.

Elementary School Projections

Using the same methodology as discussed earlier in the report, the projected enrollments from Table A2 were broken down for each of the four elementary schools in the district and are shown in Tables A4-A7. In each instance, the projected decline in enrollment is greater in the first five years as compared to the last five years of the projection period, where enrollments are relatively stable. The stabilization in enrollment is related to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades. While the sums of the projected grade counts by school do not exactly equal the K-5 counts shown in Table A3, they are within a reasonable tolerance.

48

1. Increase Miller Elementary School

Enrollment at Increase Miller Elementary School is projected to decline to 271 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 85 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 356 students as shown in Table A4. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 77 students is projected while a small decline of eight students is projected in the last five years of the projection period.

Table A4

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten Increase Miller Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 45 56 59 41 55 63 9 328

2015-16 53 45 52 57 40 55 8 310

2016-17 44 53 42 50 56 40 8 293

2017-18 47 44 49 41 49 56 8 294

2018-19 47 47 41 48 40 49 7 279

5-year Change -77

2019-20 47 47 44 40 47 40 7 272

2020-21 47 47 44 43 39 47 7 274

2021-22 47 47 44 43 42 39 7 269

2022-23 47 47 44 43 42 42 6 271

2023-24 47 47 44 43 42 42 6 271

5-year Change -8

10-year Change -85

49

2. Katonah Elementary School

Enrollment at Katonah Elementary School is projected to decline to 280 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 92 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 372 students as shown in Table A5. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 93 students is projected while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period.

Table A5

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten Katonah Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 43 45 56 62 64 69 3 342

2015-16 50 43 47 56 62 64 3 325

2016-17 41 50 45 47 56 62 3 304

2017-18 45 41 52 45 47 56 3 289

2018-19 45 45 42 52 45 47 3 279

5-year Change -93

2019-20 45 45 47 42 52 45 3 279

2020-21 45 45 47 47 42 52 3 281

2021-22 45 45 47 47 47 42 2 275

2022-23 45 45 47 47 47 47 2 280

2023-24 45 45 47 47 47 47 2 280

5-year Change +1

10-year Change -92

50

3. Lewisboro Elementary School

As shown in Table A6, enrollment in Lewisboro Elementary School is projected to decline to 267 in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 83 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 350 students. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 72 students is projected while a small decline of eleven students is projected in the last five years of the projection period.

Table A6

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten Lewisboro Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 40 54 49 47 60 75 0 325

2015-16 47 40 56 51 48 59 0 301

2016-17 39 47 41 58 53 47 0 285

2017-18 42 39 49 43 60 52 0 285

2018-19 42 42 40 51 44 59 0 278

5-year Change -72

2019-20 42 42 44 42 53 43 0 266

2020-21 42 42 44 46 43 52 0 269

2021-22 42 42 44 46 47 42 0 263

2022-23 42 42 44 46 47 46 0 267

2023-24 42 42 44 46 47 46 0 267

5-year Change -11

10-year Change -83

51

4. Meadow Pond Elementary School

As shown in Table A7, enrollment at Meadow Pond Elementary School is projected to decline to 194 in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 114 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 308 students. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 113 students is projected while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period.

Table A7

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten Meadow Pond Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 Sp. Ed K-5 Total

2014-15 31 32 47 47 53 74 0 284

2015-16 36 31 32 48 46 55 0 248

2016-17 30 36 31 33 47 48 0 225

2017-18 32 30 36 32 32 49 0 211

2018-19 32 32 30 37 31 33 0 195

5-year Change -113

2019-20 32 32 32 31 36 32 0 195

2020-21 32 32 32 33 30 37 0 196

2021-22 32 32 32 33 32 31 0 192

2022-23 32 32 32 33 32 33 0 194

2023-24 32 32 32 33 32 33 0 194

5-year Change -1

10-year Change -114

3 School Sectioning

ACTUAL SECTIONING WILL VARY BASED ON BOARD OF EDUCATION AND SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDATION

Increase Miller Elementary School 27‐Nov‐13 Increase Miller Elementary School Increase Miller Elementary School Increase Miller Elementary School Increase Miller Elementary School Current

Grade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing

K 51 1.5/3 Sect. 18-19 56 3 18-19 66 3 22 54 3 18 59 3 19-20 59 3 19-201 63 3 21-22 76 4 19 56 3 18-19 66 3 22 54 3 18 59 3 19-20

The projected enrollments do not contain ungraded special education students.  This results 

in small differences between these projections and projections previously provided

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Projected September

2015

Average Class Size

Projected September

2016

Average Class Size

Projected September

2018

Average Class Size

Projected September

2017

Average Class Size

2 42 2 22 72 4 18 74 4 18-19 55 3 18-19 64 3 21-22 53 3 17-183 56 3 19 59 3 19-20 73 3 24-25 75 3 25 55 3 18-19 64 3 21-224 63 3 22-23 76 3 25-26 61 3 20-21 75 3 25 77 3 25-26 56 3 18-195 63 3 22-23 100 4 25 75 3 25 60 3 20 74 3 24-25 76 3 25-26

Sub Total 338 15.5 439 21 405 19 385 18 383 18 367 18Ungraded 18Katonah Elementary School Katonah Elementary School Katonah Elementary School Katonah Elementary School Katonah Elementary School

CurrentGrade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing

K 44 1.5/3 Sect. 14-15 59 3 19-20 70 4 17-18 58 3 19-20 62 3 20-21 62 3 20-211 54 3 18 66 3 22 59 3 19-20 70 4 17-18 58 3 19-20 62 3 20-212 62 3 20-21 74 4 18-19 67 4 16-17 60 3 20 71 4 17-18 59 3 19-203 64 3 21-22 80 4 20 74 3 24-25 67 3 22-23 60 3 20 71 3 23-244 69 3 23 85 4 21-22 78 4 19-20 72 3 24 65 3 21-22 58 3 19-20

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Projected September

2015

Average Class Size

Projected September

2016

Average Class Size

Projected September

2018

Average Class Size

Projected September

2017

Average Class Size

5 79 4 19-20 90 4 22-23 85 4 21-22 78 4 19-20 72 3 24 65 3 21-22Sub Total 372 17.5 454 22 433 22 405 20 388 19 377 18Ungraded 0Lewisboro Elementary School Lewisboro Elementary School Lewisboro Elementary School Lewisboro Elementary School Lewisboro Elementary School

CurrentGrade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing

K 48 1.5/3 Sect. 161 47 3 15-162 45 3 153 58 3 19-204 76 4 195 76 4 19

Sub Total 350 18.5Ungraded 0

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Average Class Size

Projected September

2015

Average Class Size

Projected September

2016

Projected September

2018

Average Class Size

Projected September

2017

Average Class Size

Ungraded 0Meadow Pond Elementary School Meadow Pond Elementary School Meadow Pond Elementary School Meadow Pond Elementary School Meadow Pond Elementary School

CurrentGrade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing

K 31 1.0/2 Sect. 15-16 43 2 21-22 51 3 17 42 2 21 45 3 15-16 45 3 151 46 3 15-16 50 3 16-17 43 2 21-22 51 3 17 42 2 21 45 3 152 46 3 15-16 64 3 21-22 51 3 17 44 2 22 52 3 17-18 43 2 21-223 55 3 18-19 59 3 19-20 66 3 22 53 3 17-18 46 2 23 54 3 184 71 3 23.24 76 3 25-26 60 3 20 67 3 22-23 54 3 18 47 2 23-245 59 3 19-20 95 4 23-24 79 4 19-20 62 3 20-21 69 3 23 56 3 18-19

Sub Total 308 16 387 18 350 18 319 16 308 16 290 16Ungraded 0Grand totals 1386 67.5 20.53 1280 61 20.98 1188 59 20.14 1109 54 20.54 1079 53 20.36 1034 52 19.88

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Projected September

2016

Average Class Size

Projected September

2015

Average Class Size

Projected September

2017

Average Class Size

Projected September

2018

Average Class Size

Elementary Class Size Projections and SectioningIncrease Miller Elementary School 2‐Dec‐13

Current

Grade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing StaffingK 51 1.5/3 Sect. 18-19 45 3 15 53 3 17-18 44 2 22 47 3 15-16 47 3 15-161 63 3 21-22 56 3 18-19 45 2 22-23 53 3 17-18 44 2 22 47 3 15-162 42 2 22 59 3 19-20 52 3 17-18 42 2 21 49 3 16-17 41 2 20-213 56 3 19 41 2 20-21 57 3 19 50 2 25 41 2 20-21 48 2 244 63 3 22-23 55 3 18-19 40 2 20 56 3 18-19 49 2 24-25 40 2 205 63 3 22-23 63 3 21 55 3 18-19 40 2 20 56 3 18-19 49 2 24-25

Sub Total 338 15.5 319 17 302 16 285 14 286 15 272 14Ungraded 18 9 8 8 8 7Katonah Elementary School

Current

Grade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing StaffingK 44 1.5/3 Sect. 14-15 43 2 21-22 50 3 16-17 41 2 20-21 45 2 22-23 45 2 22-231 54 3 18 45 3 15 43 2 21-22 50 3 16-17 41 2 20-21 45 2 22-232 62 3 20-21 56 3 18-19 47 3 15-16 45 2 22-23 52 3 17-18 42 2 213 64 3 21-22 62 3 20-21 56 3 18-19 47 2 23-24 45 2 22-23 52 2 264 69 3 23 64 3 21-22 62 3 20-21 56 3 18-19 47 2 23-24 45 2 22-235 79 4 19-20 69 3 23 64 3 21-22 62 3 20-21 56 3 18-19 47 2 23-24

Sub Total 372 17.5 339 17 322 17 301 15 286 14 276 12Ungraded 0 3 3 3 3 3Lewisboro Elementary School

Current

Grade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing StaffingK 48 1.5/3 Sect. 16 40 2 20 47 3 15-16 39 2 19-20 42 2 21 42 2 211 47 3 15-16 54 3 18 40 2 20 47 3 15-16 39 2 19-20 42 2 212 45 3 15 49 3 16-17 56 3 18-19 41 2 20-21 49 3 16-17 40 2 203 58 3 19-20 47 2 23-24 51 2 25-26 58 3 19-20 43 2 21-22 51 2 25-264 76 4 19 60 3 20 48 2 24 53 2 26-27 60 3 20 44 2 225 76 4 19 75 3 25 59 3 19-20 47 2 23-24 52 2 26 59 3 19-20

Sub Total 350 18.5 325 16 301 15 285 14 285 14 278 13

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0 0Meadow Pond Elementary School

Current

Grade 1-Oct-13 Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing Staffing StaffingK 31 1.0/2 Sect. 15-16 31 2 15-16 36 2 18 30 2 15 32 2 16 32 2 161 46 3 15-16 32 2 16 31 2 15-16 36 2 18 30 2 15 32 2 162 46 3 15-16 47 3 15-16 32 2 16 31 2 15-16 36 2 18 30 2 153 55 3 18-19 47 2 23-24 48 2 24 33 2 16-17 32 2 16 37 2 18-194 71 3 23.24 53 2 26-27 46 2 23 47 2 23-24 32 2 16 31 2 15-165 59 3 19-20 74 3 24-25 55 3 18-19 48 2 24 49 2 24-25 33 2 16-17

Sub Total 308 16 284 14 248 13 225 12 211 12 195 12

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0 0Grand totals 1386 67.5 20.53 1279 64 19.98 1184 61 19.41 1107 55 20.13 1079 55 19.62 1031 51 20.22

For 2014‐15 ‐ Used Demographers Figures

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Average Class Size

Projected September 2014

Average Class Size

Projected September 2015

Average Class Size

Projected September 2016

Average Class Size

Projected September 2016

Average Class Size

Projected September 2016

Average Class Size

Projected September 2016

Average Class Size

Projected September 2015

Average Class Size

Projected September 2015

Average Class Size

Projected September 2015

Average Class Size

Projected September 2017

Average Class Size

Projected September 2018

Average Class Size

Projected September 2018

Average Class Size

Projected September 2018

Average Class Size

Projected September 2018

Average Class Size

Projected September 2017

Average Class Size

Projected September 2017

Average Class Size

Projected September 2017

Average Class Size

Facilities Assessment Facilities Assessment

Presented by Michael D. JumperJune 6 2013June 6, 2013

Board Goal #4Board Goal #4Board Goal #4Board Goal #4

By June 30, 2013 develop and make public a comprehensive assessment of p pexisting school district facilities

School BuildingsSchool Buildings In total the Katonah-Lewisboro School

District is comprised of six school buildings p gjust under 655,000 sq. ft. The entire district property consists of 173 acres.

In addition, there are several modular classrooms and/or separate buildings located classrooms and/or separate buildings located throughout the district. They are as follows:

Modular Classroom at John Jay High School Modular Classroom at John Jay High School Shady Lane Facilities Operations and Maintenance Building (I Building)p g ( g) Transportation Office Bus Garage

School Building SummarySchool Building Summary

Building Acreage Square FootageEnrollment

As of 10/1/12

John Jay High SchoolJ J y g60 North Salem RoadCross River, NY 116.7 191,606 1,192

John Jay Middle School40 North Salem Road40 North Salem RoadCross River, NY Includes JJHS 178,605 858

Increase Miller Elementary186 Waccabuc RoadGoldens Bridge, NY 14.0 73,287 337

Katonah Elementary106 Huntville RoadKatonah, NY 20.3 82,804 396Katonah, NY 20.3 82,804 396

Lewisboro Elementary79 Bouton RoadSouth Salem, NY 9.7 61,513 364

Meadow Pond Elementary185 Smith Ridge RoadSouth Salem, NY 12.1 67,310 311

Peak EnrollmentPeak EnrollmentE ll t *P k P k E ll t

BuildingEnrollment

As of 10/1/12*Peak

EnrollmentPeak Enrollment

Year

John Jay High School60 N h S l R d 1 192 1 311 200760 North Salem RoadCross River, NY

1,192 1,311 2007

John Jay Middle School40 North Salem RoadCross River NY

858 1,042 2001Cross River, NY

Increase Miller Elementary186 Waccabuc RoadGoldens Bridge, NY

337 629 1997

Katonah Elementary106 Huntville RoadKatonah, NY

396 518 1999

Lewisboro Elementaryy79 Bouton RoadSouth Salem, NY

364 537 1998

Meadow Pond Elementary185 Smith Ridge Road 311 446 2005South Salem, NY

*Peak Enrollment ≠ Capacity

John Jay High SchoolJohn Jay High SchoolJohn Jay High SchoolJohn Jay High SchoolJohn Jay High School was built in 1956 and expanded by building additions in 1959, 1997 & 2003. The building is generally in good condition and listed as satisfactory on the Building Condition Survey. The Library roof is holding water with some leaking. All of the systems deemed "Health, Safety & Structural" by SED were generally observed to be in satisfactory condition. The following items of significant cost are of particular concern and should be addressed within five years of this plan to help preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to years of this plan to help preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to maintain an environment in overall good condition. Emergency Lighting - Buildings A, B & E should have additional emergency lighting installed to

meet current codeFi Al Th i ti fi l t i ti f t Vi l l d i h ld b i t ll d Fire Alarm - The existing fire alarm system is satisfactory. Visual alarm devices should be installed in classrooms to comply with recent upgrades in code and visual alarm devices should be lowered in several corridor areas to meet ADA requirements

Fire Rating & Safety Glazing - Buildings A, B, C, H have areas of non-safety glazing and non fire rated walls that divide classrooms to corridors & storage spaces which should be brought up rated walls that divide classrooms to corridors & storage spaces which should be brought up meet code.

Paving - Asphalt paving in selected parking lots, driveways and walkways should be considered Roofing - Replace all foam roofing areas with EPDM membrane type

Value of work Identified in 5Value of work Identified in 5--Year Capital Year Capital Improvement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement Plan

John Jay High SchoolEstimated Value of Work Identified October 2011y g

Priority 1 $ 214,861

Priority 2 $ 1,400,880

P i it 3 $ 4 531 175Priority 3 $ 4,531,175

Priority 4 $ 7,859

Bldg. Totals $ 6,154,775

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement Plan

John Jay High SchoolEstimated Value of Work Remaining June 2014y g g

Priority 1 $ 13,953

Priority 2 $ 1,060,358

P i it 3 $ 4 385 893Priority 3 $ 4,385,893

Priority 4 $ 7,859

Bldg. Totals $ 5,468,063

John Jay Middle SchoolJohn Jay Middle SchoolJohn Jay Middle SchoolJohn Jay Middle SchoolBuilding Summary:

John Jay Middle School was built in 1966, with major additions in 1972, 1996, 2003. The building is generally listed in Satisfactory condition, however as the aging boilers have been categorized as "Health, Safety & Structural" by SED the building is listed as Unsatisfactory on the Building Condition Survey. g y g yAdditionally, some heat piping needs to be replaced. The following items of significant cost are of particular concern and should be addressed within five years of this plan to help preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to maintain an environment in overall good condition:g

Roofing - Replace foam roofing with EPDM

Exterior - Rebuild original East Gym parapet

Boilers - Replace original boilers

Interior - Replace original casework, sills, ceilings

Windows - Replace single glazing

Value of work Identified in 5Value of work Identified in 5--Year Capital Year Capital Improvement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement Plan

John Jay Middle SchoolEstimated Value of Work Identified October 2011

$Priority 1 $ 1,325,440

Priority 2 $ 132,186

Priority 3 $ 3,840,987

Priority 4 $ 515,568Priority 4 $ 515,568

Bldg. Totals $ 5,814,181

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement Plan

John Jay Middle SchoolEstimated Value of Work Remaining June 2014

Priority 1 $ 0

Priority 2 $ 11,495

Priority 3 $ 1,857,702

P i it 4 $ 515 568Priority 4 $ 515,568

Bldg. Totals $ 2,384,765

Increase Miller Elementary SchoolIncrease Miller Elementary SchoolIncrease Miller lementary SchoolIncrease Miller lementary SchoolBuilding Summary:

Increase Miller Elementary School was built in 1963 and expanded by building additions in 1968 &1997. (Similar in age, type & design as Meadow Pond Elementary School.) It is in generally good condition and has been rated as Satisfactory on the Building Condition Survey. The following items y g y gof significant cost are of particular concern and should be addressed within five years of this plan to help preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to maintain an environment in overall good condition:

Boilers - Replace original boilers

Emergency Lighting - Supplement emergency lighting & provide over exits

Mechanical - Replace Cafetorium air handlers

Windows Interior - Replace with safety glazing

Windows - Replace single glazing

Roofing - Replace foam roofing with EPDM

Value of work Identified in 5Value of work Identified in 5--Year Capital Year Capital Improvement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement Plan

Increase Miller Elementary School

Estimated Value of Work Identified October 2011

$Priority 1 $ 920,832

Priority 2 $ 1,984,221

Priority 3 $ 1,206,951

Priority 4 $ 77,021Priority 4 $ 77,021

Bldg. Totals $ 4,189,025

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement Plan

Increase Miller Elementary School

Estimated Value of Work Remaining June 2014

Priority 1 $ 0

Priority 2 $ 442,535

Priority 3 $ 1,126,848

P i it 4 $ 70 734Priority 4 $ 70,734

Bldg. Totals $ 1,640,117

Katonah Elementary SchoolKatonah Elementary SchoolKatonah Elementary SchoolKatonah Elementary SchoolBuilding Summary:

Katonah Elementary School was built in 1939 and expanded by building additions in 1997. The building is in generally good condition and is listed Satisfactory on the Building Condition Survey. Several original systems are past their useful life and are in need of replacement. The following items of p p gsignificant cost are of particular concern and should be addressed within five years of this plan to help preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to maintain an environment in overall good condition:

Roofing - Replace foam roofing with EPDM

Emergency Lighting - Supplement emergency lighting & provide over exits

General - Replace interior doors

General - Replace Public Address & Clock systems

General - Replace Asphalt pavement & Concrete walkways

Fire alarm - The existing fire alarm system is satisfactory, but visual alarm devices should be installed in classrooms to comply with recent upgrades to codes.

Value of work Identified in 5Value of work Identified in 5--Year Capital Year Capital Improvement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement Plan

Katonah Elementary SchoolEstimated Value of Work Identified October 2011

$Priority 1 $ 1,159,411

Priority 2 $ 349,142

Priority 3 $ 1,520,301

Priority 4 $ 107,672Priority 4 $ 107,672

Bldg. Totals $ 3,136,526

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement Plan

Katonah Elementary SchoolEstimated Value of Work Remaining June 2014

Priority 1 $ 0

Priority 2 $ 349,142

Priority 3 $ 630,205

P i it 4 $ 107 672Priority 4 $ 107,672

Bldg. Totals $ 1,087,019

LewisboroLewisboro Elementary SchoolElementary SchoolLewisboroLewisboro Elementary SchoolElementary SchoolBuilding Summary:

L i b El t S h l b ilt i 1940 d d d b b ildi Lewisboro Elementary School was built in 1940 and expanded by building additions in 1951 & 2003. The building is in generally good condition it is listed Satisfactory on the Building Condition Survey. Several original systems are past their useful life and are in need of replacement. The following items of significant cost are of particular concern and should be addressed within five years of this plan to help preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to maintain an environment in overall good condition:

Emergency Lighting - Supplement emergency lighting & provide over exits Exterior - Exterior doors which are past useful life are in need of replacement Electrical - Provide upgrades to branch feeders & panelboards HVAC - Replace original ventilation system which is past useful life Lighting - General lighting is near end of useful lifeLighting General lighting is near end of useful life Fire Alarm - Replacement with new addressable system General - Replace interior doors and metal ceilings Roofing - Replace foam roofing with EPDM

Value of work Identified in 5Value of work Identified in 5--Year Capital Year Capital Improvement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement Plan

Lewisboro Elementary SchoolEstimated Value of Work Identified October 2011

$Priority 1 $ 152,077

Priority 2 $ 1,178,607

Priority 3 $ 675,916

Priority 4 $ 1,342,501Priority 4 $ 1,342,501

Bldg. Totals $ 3,349,101

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement Plan

Lewisboro Elementary SchoolEstimated Value of Work Remaining June 2014

Priority 1 $ 0

Priority 2 $ 1,167,113

Priority 3 $ 675,916

P i it 4 $ 1 295 345Priority 4 $ 1,295,345

Bldg. Totals $ 3,138,374

Meadow Pond Elementary SchoolMeadow Pond Elementary SchoolMeadow Pond lementary SchoolMeadow Pond lementary SchoolBuilding Summary:

Meadow Pond Elementary School was built in 1967 and expanded by building additions in 1997 & 2003. (Similar in age, type & design as Increase Miller Elementary School) It is in generally good condition and has been rated as Satisfactory on the Building Condition Survey. Several original systems are y g y g ypast their useful life and are in need of replacement. The following items of significant cost are of particular concern and should be addressed within five years of this plan to help preserve the longevity of the building and to continue to maintain an environment in overall good condition:g

Boilers - Replace original boilers

Emergency Lighting - Supplement emergency lighting & provide over exits

Mechanical - Replace Cafetorium air handlers

Windows - Interior - Replace with Safety glazing

Windows - Replace single glazing

Value of work Identified in 5Value of work Identified in 5--Year Capital Year Capital Improvement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement PlanImprovement Plan

Meadow Pond Elementary SchoolEstimated Value of Work Identified October 2011

$Priority 1 $ 920,832

Priority 2 $ 975,587

Priority 3 $ 4,026,711

Priority 4 $ 879,955Priority 4 $ 879,955

Bldg. Totals $ 6,803,085

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement PlanYear Capital Improvement Plan

Meadow Pond Elementary SchoolEstimated Value of Work Remaining June 2014

Priority 1 $ 0

Priority 2 $ 472,707

Priority 3 $ 3,010,318

P i it 4 $ 879 955Priority 4 $ 879,955

Bldg. Totals $ 4,362,980

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement Plan by Priority Year Capital Improvement Plan by Priority

LevelLevelEstimated Value of Estimated Value of

All Schools

Estimated Value of Work Identified October 2011

Estimated Value of Work Remaining June 2014

Priority 1 $ 4,693,453 $ 13,953

Priority 2 $ 6,020,623 $ 3,503,350

Priority 3 $ 15,802,041 $ 11,686,882

P i it 4 $ 2 930 576 $ 2 877 133Priority 4 $ 2,930,576 $ 2,877,133

Bldg. Totals $ 29,446,693 $ 18,081,318

Work completed since October 2011 $11,365,375

Remaining Remaining --Value of Work Identified in 5Value of Work Identified in 5--Year Capital Improvement Plan by SchoolYear Capital Improvement Plan by SchoolYear Capital Improvement Plan by SchoolYear Capital Improvement Plan by School

Estimated Value of Work Identified

Estimated Value of Work Remaining

SchoolsWork Identified October 2011

Work Remaining June 2014

JJHS $ 6,154,775 $ 5,468,063

JJMS $ 5,814,181 $ 2,384,765

IMES $ 4,189,025 $ 1,640,117

KES $ 3,136,526 $ 1,087,019KES $ 3,136,526 $ 1,087,019

LES $ 3,349,101 $ 3,138,374MPES $ 6,803,085 $ 4,362,980

Bldg. Totals $ 29,446,693 $ 18,081,318

Work completed since October 2011 $11,365,375

Energy Benchmarking SummaryEnergy Benchmarking Summary

US EPA Portfolio Manager

Total Energy

UseElectricity

UseWeather Adj. Heating Fuel

Total Energy Manager

ScoreUse

kBtu/ft2Use

kWh/ft2Heating FuelBtu/HDD/ft2

Energy Cost$/ft2

NY Average 75 64 5 5 7 7 $1 29NY Average 75 64 5.5 7.7 $1.29

District Average 34* 78 10.9 11.2 $1.65

Increase Miller 34 67 7.2 11.8 $1.61Increase Miller 34 67 7.2 11.8 $1.61

John Jay High 35 84 14.1 9.9 $1.75

John Jay Middle 27 84 14.4 9.6 $1.51

Katonah 64 60 4.9 12.0 $1.44

Lewisboro 12 82 7.9 15.3 $1.97

M d P d 33 71 6 3 13 6 $1 71Meadow Pond 33 71 6.3 13.6 $1.71

*District average Portfolio Manager Score is a weighted average of the schools in the district based on school floor area (sq. ft.)

Pervious and Impervious GroundsPervious and Impervious Groundspp

LocationTotal

ImperviousTotal

PerviousTotal Acreage

Impervious Pervious

JJ CAMPUS

17.9 98.8 116.7CAMPUS

KES 3.1 17.2 20.3

LES 3.5 6.2 9.7

IMES 4 0 10 0 14 0IMES 4.0 10.0 14.0

MPES 4.1 8.0 12.1

Totals 32.6 140.2 172.8

Field ConditionField ConditionField ConditionField Condition

The following 12 slides represent and g pexplain the condition of each field at the six schools of the Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Costs associated with renovations on any of these fields would need to be estimatedthese fields would need to be estimated

AP Farm Multi-Purpose Field• AP Farm Multi-Purpose Field is a synthetic turf with a virgin rubber/sand mix.

20’ hi h f t tti t d f th t t d li t th t t d li • 20’ high safety netting extends from the twenty yard line to the twenty yard line in a horseshoe pattern. There is an additional 120’ of 20’ high safety netting on the route 121 side.

• The field is in outstanding condition!!g• It is recommended that a larger bleacher section be purchased because the

current bleacher size is too small for the number of spectators.• Field need annual professional reconditioning.

AP Farm Softball Field• AP Farm Softball Field is a skin infield with a natural grass

outfield.• Clay infield needs to be watered and rolled on a regular basis• Clay infield needs to be watered and rolled on a regular basis.• Field is in excellent condition.

John Jay High School Baseball Field• John Jay High School baseball field is natural grass with a clay infield.• The District is currently working with Eberlin and Eberlin to address concerns

with the infield clay – playing very soft and sandy-like.• A fully renovated batting cage has recently been completed• Clay infield will need to be watered and rolled on a regular basis.• Outfield and warning track areas should be rolled on a regular basis.• Once above concerns are addressed this field will be in outstanding condition.

John Jay High School Contest Field and TrackJJHS Contest FieldJJHS Contest Field

• Contest Field is a synthetic multi-purpose field.• The synthetic turf is at the end of its life span. This field has multiple tears, numerous

seams need adhesive, and field fibers have split and consistently release from the turf. The repair work will be completed by April 2013 Upon completion the field will be repair work will be completed by April 2013. Upon completion the field will be professionally cleaned and reconditioned.

• The synthetic turf has reached the end of its life span and turf replacement should take place no later than the summer of 2014.

TrackTrack• The rubberized track had its final spray two years ago and moving towards the end of its

life span. This track should be ground down and replaced no later than the summer of 2015.

J h J Hi h S h l Pi Fi ldJohn Jay High School Pit Field• JJHS Pit Field is a natural grass field.• There is a large amount of useable field space, but the field is currently in poor conditionThere is a large amount of useable field space, but the field is currently in poor condition• A septic field, supporting the high school, is located under a portion of the field.• This field needs to be rolled, top dressed with top soil, seeded, and irrigated. Irrigation

plan would have to include septic concern.• Most of the sand/dirt area to the right of the above photo has been removed allowing for

increased field space.• The field has potential to be a great space but needs considerable work.

John Jay High School Softball Field• JJHS Softball Field is a natural grass field with a skinned clay infield.

• This site has multiple topographical concerns and needs additional fill to address concerns.

• This field is in Below Average condition

• This is the likely site for the tennis court facility. Clay should be dug out and moved to new location behind Middle School where the field could be re-established.

John Jay Middle School Athletic Field• JJMS Athletic Field is a natural grass multi-purpose field with an additional space to re-establish the JJ g p p p

current softball field located in the front of the school.• This field is heavily worn and in Below Average to Poor condition• A septic field, supporting the Middle School, is located underneath a large portion of the field.• It is recommended that sod be installed from football hash mark to hash mark and an irrigation plan It is recommended that sod be installed from football hash mark to hash mark and an irrigation plan

be developed that addresses the septic requirements. In addition, this field should be rolled at least four times per year.

• 20’ safety netting needs to be installed from the 20 yard line to the 20 yard line in a horseshoe pattern.

• Last year a portion of the hill that supports the back side of the field washed away. We need to look into taking the necessary steps to ensure the field’s stability. Further wash out will directly impact the field.

• This could also be the site for an Adventure Education High Ropes course.

Katonah Elementary Athletic Field• Katonah Elementary School Multi-Purpose field is comprised of natural grass.

• Overall, the field is in Good condition. Recommend top dressing, overseeding, aerating regularly, pruning back some of the overgrown tree limbs, and installation of an irrigation system to maximize field conditions.

• 20’ safety netting needs to be installed from the 20 yard line to the 20 yard line in a horseshoe pattern. This would limit balls from entering the heavily wooded areas

di h fi ldsurrounding the field.

• Field should be rolled at least four times per year.

• A great space that needs a small upgrade.

Lewisboro Elementary Athletic Fieldy

• This is a small multi-purpose field that is used for physical education classes and youth sports practice.

• Overall this field is in Good condition.

• Aerating regularly and overseeding program is sufficient.

Meadow Pond Athletic Field 1

• This field is the best natural grass field in the district.

• These fields are aerated and over seeded on a regular basis.

• Field should be rolled at least four times per year.p y

• To maximize this space a 20’ high safety netting needs to be installed behind each of the goals and an irrigation system should also be installed.

Meadow Pond Athletic Field 2Meadow Pond Athletic Field 2• This is the smaller of the two fields.

• This field has a significant pitch and needs to leveled out to be utilized more This field has a significant pitch and needs to leveled out to be utilized more efficiently .

• Due to the pitch of the field it falls into the Below Average category.

Meadow Pond Baseball/Softball Field

• This is a small Little League-sized baseball field that is often utilized by the youth leagues.

• This field was dedicated in the memory of Yolanda M. Haight whom had passed away years ago. The field has not been maintained and is in Poor condition.

Board Goal #4Board Goal #4Board Goal #4Board Goal #4

By June 30, 2013 develop and make public a comprehensive assessment of p pexisting school district facilities

Questions and AnswersQuestions and Answers

AppendixAppendix

Information and dates have been provided by numerous sources –Accuracy of information may be compromised slightly as a result of this.

Short History of KatonahShort History of Katonah--Lewisboro Lewisboro School Buildings and UsageSchool Buildings and Usage

Prior to 1941:Prior to 1941: Lewisboro consists of up to 7 small one room

school houses with students bused to Katonah High School, Ridgefield High School or New Canaan High School

1922: consolidation is proposed within L i b d l d t b ildi f L i b Lewisboro and leads to building of Lewisboro School on Bouton Road

1939: Lewisboro School construction begins

1938: Katonah (Union Free School District #10) enrolled 363 students

An additional 168 students in the district d d hi l/ i h lattended parochial/private schools

1939 H t ill R d S h l ( tl K t h 1939: Huntville Road School (presently Katonah Elementary School) opens housing grades K-12. This takes the place of Katonah High School on This takes the place of Katonah High School on Bedford Road (presently the site of Katonah Fire Department)

1940: Lewisboro School houses grades K-8 with students bused to area high schools as above

1941 1941 -- PresentPresent During WWII school populations dropped as

people relocated for war work, but increased people relocated for war work, but increased after 1945

Lewisboro School had a population of 240 students in 1948 and 60 Lewisboro students students in 1948 and 60 Lewisboro students attended Katonah High School

1951 two new wings added to Lewisboro School

In 1951 Katonah (Union Free School District #10) enrolled 618 students#10) enrolled 618 students

Studies completed in 1951 on growth of Studies completed in 1951 on growth of Northern Westchester and recommended the need to consolidate the many small the need to consolidate the many small school houses in the area

A 7-12 high school was recommended to be build in Bedford Village to serve what is now gboth the Bedford Central Schools and Katonah-Lewisboro. This referendum was defeated and the current districts were proposed and adopted by 1952

In 1952 the Katonah School housing grades K 12 d dK-12 was overcrowded

In 1953 110 acres were purchased in Cross River

In October 1954 the open campus design p p gfor John Jay High School was approved. This was the lowest cost construction optionp

In October 1956 John Jay High School In October 1956 John Jay High School opened housing grades 7-12

In 1963 Increase Miller opened with an ddi i b il i 1968addition built in 1968

In 1967 Meadow Pond Elementary School opened with 350 students. Enrollment in p1976 increased by 110 students for a total of 460

September 1966 John Jay Junior High School September 1966 John Jay Junior High School opened for grades 7-8

In 1972 John Jay Junior High School built J J y J gadditions to bring in grade 9 (addition to the right as you go up the main stairwell) g y g p )The addition included a new library and classrooms.

Former library converted to guidance suite Former library converted to guidance suite

I 1984 ll t t J h J J i Hi h In 1984 enrollment at John Jay Junior High School was 852

In 1990 John Jay Junior High School becomes John Jay Middle SchoolJohn Jay Middle School

Grade 9 moves up to the John Jay High Grade 9 moves up to the John Jay High school and grade 6 moves to John Jay Middle School.School.

Formerly departmentalized junior high school Formerly departmentalized junior high school is reconfigured around interdisciplinary teams

In 1997 a major overhaul of the John Jay High School campus is completed to enclose the School campus is completed to enclose the open campus floor plan and add space

In 1997 an addition to John Jay Middle School includes new music rooms, home and career rooms, science labs, art rooms, guidance suite and libraryg y

In 1997 elementary schools expanded and In 1997 elementary schools expanded and renovated

In 2003 a new front entry, gym and l i dd d J h J classroom wing was added to John Jay

Middle School

Katonah School Katonah School –– This postcard was postmarked This postcard was postmarked M h 18 1914M h 18 1914March 18, 1914March 18, 1914

John Jay High SchoolJohn Jay High SchoolJohn Jay High SchoolJohn Jay High School

Jennifer Lembo Project Coordinator

TRC Energy Services 10 Maxwell Drive, Suite 200

Clifton Park, NY 12065 518-688-3126

Paul Christensen Energy Educator/Manager 60 North Salem Road Cross River, NY 10518

September 24, 2012 Subject: Energy Benchmarking Reports, Katonah Lewisboro School District Dear Paul, As we discussed, I am enclosing two copies of each Energy Benchmarking Report for the following Katonah Lewisboro schools:

Increase Miller Elementary School John Jay High School John Jay Middle School

Katonah Elementary School Lewisboro Elementary School Meadow Pond Elementary School

The Energy Benchmarking Reports are based on your utility bills from July 2008 - June 2012 as well as any data you have provided in previous years. Also enclosed is a snapshot of the energy indicators for each school. Note that lower figures are better for all metrics except the EPA Portfolio Manager Score. Energy indicators for several of the district’s buildings show significant opportunities for cost-effective improvements. Recommendations for NYSERDA supported onsite audits and improvements are contained in their respective reports. Please let us know if you wish to take advantage of any of NYSERDA’s programs, and we will help you identify the best opportunities as well as support you throughout the application process. We encourage you to send us the following year of bills when the time comes so we can provide you with multiyear reports that compare trends in energy use and cost over time. Outstanding improvements may qualify for national recognition from the US Environmental Protection Agency ENERGY STAR® program. We value and look forward to any comments you may have about these reports or any questions on their content. Please feel free to contact me at 518-688-3126 or jelembo@trcsolutions.com If there is anything else we can do to support your energy efficiency efforts, don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jennifer Lembo Project Coordinator

Energy Benchmarking Report District Summary NYSERDA Energy Smart Schools Program

Katonah Lewisboro South Salem, NY Analysis Period: July 2008 - June 2012 Prepared by TRC Energy Services

Energy Benchmarking Summary Katonah Lewisboro School District

* District average Portfolio Manager Score is a weighted average of the schools in the district based on school floor area (square feet).

TRC Energy Services 1

District Summary: 7/2011 - 6/2012

U.S. EPA Portfolio Manager Score

Total Energy

Use (kBtu/ft2)

Electricity Use

(kWh/ft2)

Weather Adj. Heating Fuel

Use (Btu/ft2/HDD)

Total Energy Cost ($/ft2)

Total Energy Cost

($/student)

NY Average 75 64 5.5 7.7 $1.29 $237

District Average 34* 78 10.9 11.2 $1.65 $310

Increase Miller Elementary School 34 67 7.2 11.8 $1.61 $313

John Jay High School 35 84 14.1 9.9 $1.75 $282

John Jay Middle School 27 84 14.4 9.6 $1.51 $299

Katonah Elementary School 64 60 4.9 12.0 $1.44 $288

Lewisboro Elementary School 12 82 7.9 15.3 $1.97 $393

Meadow Pond Elementary School 33 71 6.3 13.6 $1.71 $385

District Summary: 7/2010 - 6/2011

U.S. EPA Portfolio Manager Score

Total Energy

Use (kBtu/ft2)

Electricity Use

(kWh/ft2)

Weather Adj. Heating Fuel

Use (Btu/ft2/HDD)

Total Energy Cost ($/ft2)

Total Energy Cost

($/student)

NY Average 69 68 5.7 7.3 $1.25 $226

District Average 29* 85 8.9 12.0 $1.95 $365

Increase Miller Elementary School 21 92 6.6 15.3 $2.07 $403

John Jay High School 36 81 11.9 8.9 $1.93 $311

John Jay Middle School 25 87 9.4 12.0 $1.94 $385

Katonah Elementary School 52 73 5.0 12.3 $1.64 $327

Lewisboro Elementary School 6 99 8.8 15.1 $2.23 $445

Meadow Pond Elementary School 22 87 6.5 14.3 $1.98 $445

Energy Benchmarking Summary Katonah Lewisboro School District

* District average Portfolio Manager Score is a weighted average of the schools in the district based on school floor area (square feet).

TRC Energy Services 2

District Summary: 7/2009 - 6/2010

U.S. EPA Portfolio Manager Score

Total Energy

Use (kBtu/ft2)

Electricity Use

(kWh/ft2)

Weather Adj. Heating Fuel

Use (Btu/ft2/HDD)

Total Energy Cost ($/ft2)

Total Energy Cost

($/student)

NY Average 68 69 5.7 7.8 $1.34 $237

District Average 28* 80 9.3 11.3 $1.65 $310

Increase Miller Elementary School 23 85 6.9 14.5 $1.79 $349

John Jay High School 29 83 12.7 9.3 $1.69 $273

John Jay Middle School 26 74 9.4 10.0 $1.52 $301

Katonah Elementary School 57 65 5.2 11.2 $1.40 $281

Lewisboro Elementary School 4 96 10.1 14.6 $2.00 $398

Meadow Pond Elementary School 27 80 6.3 13.8 $1.67 $375

District Summary: 7/2008 - 6/2009

U.S. EPA Portfolio Manager Score

Total Energy

Use (kBtu/ft2)

Electricity Use

(kWh/ft2)

Weather Adj. Heating Fuel

Use (Btu/ft2/HDD)

Total Energy Cost ($/ft2)

Total Energy Cost

($/student)

NY Average 62 71 6.0 7.7 $1.47 $256

District Average 27* 83 9.3 10.9 $1.56 $293

Increase Miller Elementary School 32 75 6.9 10.8 $1.50 $293

John Jay High School 35 80 11.9 8.4 $1.53 $247

John Jay Middle School 18 87 9.7 11.5 $1.55 $307

Katonah Elementary School 54 64 5.9 9.4 $1.27 $255

Lewisboro Elementary School 7 94 8.9 13.5 $1.84 $366

Meadow Pond Elementary School 13 98 7.3 15.5 $1.79 $403

Energy Benchmarking Summary Katonah Lewisboro School District

TRC Energy Services 3

7.2

14.1 14.4

4.9

7.96.3

District Average

State Average

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

02

46

810

1214

1618

20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

kWh

/ squ

are

foot

Electricity Use by School

11.89.9 9.6

12.0

15.313.6

District Average

State Average

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Btu

/ sq.

ft. /

HD

D

Weather Adjusted Heating Fuel Use by School

Energy Benchmarking Summary Katonah Lewisboro School District

TRC Energy Services 4

$105,92710%

$337,98032%

$256,56924%

$117,747.4611%

$132,702.1212%

$118,485.6011%

District Total Energy Cost by Schooldollars / school

Increase Miller Elementary School

John Jay High School

John Jay Middle School

Katonah Elementary School

Lewisboro Elementary School

Meadow Pond Elementary School

Appendix P: Activities Associated With Transition from Four to Three Elementary Schools 

Some of the activities listed below (e.g. pen‐pals) are being implemented regardless of whether the Board of Education 

decides to consolidate to three schools.  Other activities are suggested for implementation if the Board of Education 

decides to consolidate: 

Activity  Timeline  Person(s) Responsible  Independent of Decision to Close 

Plan for curriculum‐based overlap programs(e.g., butterfly study) 

Ongoing  Building Admin  X 

Establish Pen‐Pal program across elementary schools 

Fall 2013  Building Admin  X 

Communicate Final Redistricting Plan to Families 

February 2014  Central Admin   

Create District Elementary Transition Team 

Develop and communicate schedule of planned events (e.g., joint assemblies, tours, etc.) to families in each building as appropriate 

Develop plans to create new hybrid culture that incorporates aspects of previous cultures  

Coordinate with Staff and Parent Council Subcommittees as appropriate 

February 2014   Spring 2014     Spring 2014    Spring 2014  

Central Admin, Building Admin, Psychologists, Social Workers, other staff as appropriate 

 

Create Staff Transition Sub‐Committee (with liaison to District Team above) 

Develop and communicate needs and schedule of planned activities  

Coordinate with District Elementary Transition Team as appropriate 

February 2014  Central Admin, Building and Dept. Admin, staff as appropriate 

 

Create Parent Council Transition Sub‐Committee (with liaison to District Team above) 

Develop and communicate schedule of planned activities  

Coordinate with District Elementary Transition Team as appropriate 

February 2014  Parent Council   

Plan for transition of staff 

Finalize staff assignments 

Develop transition plan for reassigned staff 

Summer 2014  Central Admin, Building Admin, other staff as appropriate 

 

Finalize transportation routes and notify families 

Summer 2014  Central Admin  X 

 

Appendix Q: Composition of School Utilization Committee and School Closure Task Force (see 

below) 

The composition of the School Utilization Committee was as follows: 

Board of Education Chairperson   Janet Harckham  

Board of Education Trustees   Marjorie Schiff  

Stephanie Tobin  

   

Superintendent of Schools   Paul Kreutzer  

Assistant Superintendent for Business   Michael Jumper  

Assistant Superintendent for Instruction   Alice Cronin  

Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources   Scott Persampieri  

   

Director of Special Services   Connie Hayes  

Director of Athletics, Physical Education   Christian McCarthy  

Director of Operations & Maintenance   Thomas Psomas  

Director of Transportation   Patricia Kristoferson  

   

Interim Principal, John Jay High School   John Goetz  

Principal, John Jay Middle School   Rich Leprine  

Principal, Increase Miller Elementary   Kerry Ford  

Principal, Katonah Elementary   Jessica Godin  

Principal, Lewisboro Elementary   Cristy Harris  

Principal, Meadow Pond Elementary   Carolann Castellano  

KLAAS Member  Gil Cass 

KLDTA Member  Sandy Grebinar 

KLSSA Member  Jeani Granelli 

   

Nurses  Pamela Hagele, Karen Greenwood 

Support Staff Member  Steve DiGangi, Kathy Downz 

Elementary Teachers  Linda DiGregoria, Shari Robinson,  

Christine Samuelsohn 

Middle School Teacher  Laura Atwell 

High School Teacher  Linda Burke 

Special Area Teachers   Nick Savasatano, Jean Capuano 

Special Education Teacher  Christine Ferrarone 

PTO/PTA Parent Members 

 

John Goodman, Ashley Murphy,  

Leah Pizer, Nelson Salazar 

 

Community Member  Robert Kesten 

 

 

The composition of the School Closure Task Force was established as follows: 

3 BOE Trustees: Ms. Janet Harckham, Chair; Ms. Marjorie Schiff; Mr. Richard Stone 

Superintendent, Dr. Paul Kreutzer 

Assistant Superintendent for Business, Mr. Michael Jumper 

Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, Ms. Alice Cronin 

Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Mr. Harry LeFevre 

Director of Transportation, Ms. Patricia Kristoferson 

Director of Operations and Maintenance, Mr. Thomas Psomas 

 Parent Council President or designee – Ms. Mary Gaza 

1 KLDTA representative, Ms. Sandy Grebinar 

1 KLSSA representative, Ms. Jeani Granelli (or designee Mr. Steve DiGangi) 

1 KLAAS representative, Ms. Carolann Castellano (or designee Mr. Gil Cass) 

1 KLAAS Special Education representative, Ms. Connie Hayes (or designee Ms. Cindy 

Greenberg) 

October 17, 2013 –Board of Education resolution to add immediate Past Parent Council 

member to composition of School Closure Task Force – Ms. Ashley Murphy 

 

Proposed KES/IMES border change BIG PICTURE

RED line is new IMES/KES boundaryGREEN line is former LES boundaryGREEN line is former LES boundaryPINK line is former IMES boundary

Proposed KES/IMES border

RED line shows former KES/IMES boundaryRED line shows former KES/IMES boundaryPURPLE line shows new KES/IMES boundaryPINK region is former IMES, new KES

Proposed KES/IMES border

RED line shows former KES/IMES boundaryRED line shows former KES/IMES boundaryPURPLE line shows new KES/IMES boundaryPINK region is former IMES, new KES

Proposed KES/IMES border

RED line shows former KES/IMES boundaryPURPLE line shows new KES/IMES boundaryPINK region is former IMES, new KES

Proposed KES/IMES border

RED line shows former KES/IMES boundaryPURPLE line shows new KES/IMES boundaryPINK region is former IMES, new KESYELLOW region is former LES, new KES

Proposed KES/IMES border

RED line shows former LES/IMES boundaryPURPLE line shows new KES/IMES boundaryPINK region is former IMES, new KESYELLOW region is former LES new KESYELLOW region is former LES, new KES

Proposed KES/IMES border

RED line shows former LES/IMES boundaryPURPLE li h KES/IMES b dPURPLE line shows new KES/IMES boundaryPINK region is former IMES, new KESYELLOW region is former LES, new KES

Proposed MPES border change Big Picture

RED line shows former MPES/LES boundaryPURPLE line shows new MPES/IMES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

Proposed MPES border change

RED line shows former MPES/LES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

Proposed MPES border change

RED line shows former MPES/LES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

RED line shows former MPES/LES boundaryPURPLE line shows new MPES/IMES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

Proposed MPES border change

RED line shows former MPES/LES boundaryPURPLE line shows new MPES/IMES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

Proposed MPES border change

RED line shows former MPES/LES boundaryPURPLE line shows new MPES/IMES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

Proposed MPES border change

PURPLE line shows new MPES/IMES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

Proposed MPES border change

PURPLE line shows new MPES/IMES boundaryYELLOW region is former LES, new MPES

Redistricting Analysis

for the

Katonah-Lewisboro

Union Free School District

December 2013

Prepared By:

Richard S. Grip, Ed.D.

2

Table of Contents

Page Summary ................................................................................................... 3 Elementary School Projections Using Proposed Boundaries ............................................... 7 1. Increase Miller Elementary School ....................................................... 8 2. Katonah Elementary School .................................................................. 9 3. Meadow Pond Elementary School ....................................................... 10 Full-Day Kindergarten Projections ..................................................................................... 11 1. Increase Miller Elementary School ....................................................... 11 2. Katonah Elementary School .................................................................. 12 3. Meadow Pond Elementary School ....................................................... 13 Actual and Projected Enrollment Compared to Peak Enrollment ....................................... 14

3

Summary

Statistical Forecasting LLC completed a redistricting analysis for the Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District (subsequently referred to as Katonah-Lewisboro). The purpose of the study is to compute enrollment for grades K-5 for 2014-15 through 2023-24 with the revised elementary attendance boundaries, whereby Lewisboro Elementary School would be closed. Student addresses from Katonah-Lewisboro were geocoded or “pin-mapped” from 2008-09 through 2013-14 using mapping software. Figure 1 following shows the current elementary attendance boundaries in 2013-14, where each elementary student lives, and the number of students attending each school. It should be noted a small number of students do not attend their assigned elementary school, or live outside of the school district’s boundaries yet attend Katonah-Lewisboro. These students include children who receive their educational program in a location other than their “home” school, or children of employees. Figure 2 shows the proposed elementary attendance boundaries superimposed on the old attendance boundaries. The figure also shows the students that would need to change schools, and the number of students that would be in the remaining three elementary schools based on 2013-14 enrollment. All students currently attending Lewisboro Elementary School would be affected by the school closure, as well as a small number of students currently attending Increase Miller on the southern border of Increase Miller’s existing elementary attendance boundary.

4

Figure 1 Current Elementary Attendance Boundaries and 2013-14 Students

5

Figure 2 Proposed Elementary Attendance Boundaries and 2013-14 Students

6

In Table 1 below, the 2013-14 elementary school enrollments are shown for the existing and proposed boundaries. After consolidating the elementary schools and changing the boundary lines, enrollment at the remaining three elementary schools will increase uniformly by 114-119 students.

Table 1

Elementary School Enrollment Existing vs. Proposed Boundaries

School

Enrollment 2013-14 Existing

Boundaries

Enrollment 2013-14

Proposed Boundaries

Change

Increase Miller Elementary School (K-5) 356 470 +114

Katonah Elementary School (K-5) 373 490 +117

Lewisboro Elementary School (K-5) 350 CLOSED -350

Meadow Pond Elementary School (K-5) 307 426 +119

Total Elementary Enrollment (K-5) 1,386 1,386

If Lewisboro Elementary School is closed, 396 of the district’s 1,386 elementary school

students would need to change schools, resulting in an overall disruption factor of 28.6% as shown in Table 2. At the school level, all of Lewisboro’s 350 students would be affected, resulting in a disruption factor of 100.0%. Approximately 12.9% of students at Increase Miller would be disrupted, while no students would be affected who currently attend Katonah or Meadow Pond Elementary Schools.

Table 2

Disruption Factor by School

School Enrollment

2013-14

Number of Students

Affected by Boundary Change

Percent Affected

Increase Miller Elementary School (K-5) 356 46 12.9%

Katonah Elementary School (K-5) 373 0 0.0%

Lewisboro Elementary School (K-5) 350 350 100.0%

Meadow Pond Elementary School (K-5) 307 0 0.0%

Total Elementary Enrollment (K-5) 1,386 396 28.6%

7

Elementary School Projections Using Proposed Boundaries

In Tables 3-5 following, historical and projected enrollments are broken down for each of the remaining three elementary schools in the district. To complete this task, the proposed boundaries were used to tabulate the number of students in each grade who would have attended Katonah, Increase Miller, or Meadow Pond Elementary Schools from 2008-09 to 2013-14. For students who live outside of the school district’s boundaries yet attend Katonah-Lewisboro, they were assigned to the school they currently attend. In the few cases where these students attended Lewisboro Elementary School, they were assigned to the closest elementary school.

Enrollments were projected for each of the three elementary schools from 2014-15 to

2023-24 for both the existing half-day kindergarten program, as well as a proposed full-day kindergarten program. Total projected half-day kindergarten enrollment (6-year trend) from the November 2013 demographic study was used and proportioned into each elementary school based on an average proportion of the last two years of data. Grades one through five were computed using cohort survival ratios based on the last six years. The historical and projected enrollments do not contain any ungraded special education students, as all of the geocoded students had a grade assigned and were included in the regular education counts. This results in small differences in comparing the grade-by-grade historical enrollments from this analysis and those from the November 2013 demographic study.

In summary, each elementary school’s enrollment is projected to decline. The largest

declines are projected to occur in the first five years as compared to the last five years of the projection period, where enrollments are relatively stable. As previously stated in the November 2013 demographic study, stabilization in enrollment is related to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

8

1. Increase Miller Elementary School

Historical enrollments from 2008-09 to 2013-14 for Increase Miller Elementary School based on the new attendance boundaries are shown in Table 3. In 2013-14, enrollment would have been 470 students. Enrollment is projected to decline to 354 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 116 students from the 2013-14 enrollment. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 100 students is projected. A smaller decline of 16 students is projected in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 3

Historical and Projected Enrollments of Increase Miller Elementary School

HISTORICAL

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total2008-09 77 93 85 107 98 115 575 2009-10 84 85 89 81 107 94 540 2010-11 70 93 86 94 84 111 538 2011-12 55 78 91 88 89 81 482 2012-13 63 65 79 97 97 90 491 2013-14 67 74 59 74 101 95 470

CSR 6-Yr. Ratios 0.35381 1.136349 0.973552 1.007004 1.025471 0.990294

PROJECTED

2014-15 51 76 72 59 76 100 434 2015-16 61 58 74 73 61 75 402 2016-17 50 69 56 75 75 60 385 2017-18 54 57 67 56 77 74 385 2018-19 54 61 55 67 57 76 370

5-year Change -100

2019-20 54 61 59 55 69 56 354 2020-21 54 61 59 59 56 68 357 2021-22 54 61 59 59 61 55 349 2022-23 54 61 59 59 61 60 354 2023-24 54 61 59 59 61 60 354

5-year Change -16

10-year Change -116

Note: 1Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals

9

2. Katonah Elementary School

Historical enrollments for Katonah Elementary School from 2008-09 to 2013-14 based on the new attendance boundaries are shown in Table 4. In 2013-14, enrollment would have been 490 students. Enrollment is projected to decline to 347 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 143 students from the 2013-14 enrollment. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 134 students is projected, while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 4

Historical and Projected Enrollments of Katonah Elementary School

HISTORICAL

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total2008-09 100 94 111 105 104 106 620 2009-10 95 102 96 111 106 111 621 2010-11 84 101 104 99 110 104 602 2011-12 79 83 101 99 99 108 569 2012-13 73 78 85 98 94 94 522 2013-14 65 73 80 87 90 95 490

CSR 6-Yr. Ratios 0.37471 1.011719 1.018124 0.9954 0.973675 0.998078

PROJECTED

2014-15 54 66 74 80 85 90 449 2015-16 64 55 67 74 78 85 423 2016-17 53 65 56 67 72 78 391 2017-18 57 54 66 56 65 72 370 2018-19 57 58 55 66 55 65 356

5-year Change -134

2019-20 57 58 59 55 64 55 348 2020-21 57 58 59 59 54 64 351 2021-22 57 58 59 59 57 54 344 2022-23 57 58 59 59 57 57 347 2023-24 57 58 59 59 57 57 347

5-year Change -9

10-year Change -143

Note: 1Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals

10

3. Meadow Pond Elementary School

Historical enrollments for Meadow Pond Elementary School from 2008-09 to 2013-14 based on the new attendance area are shown in Table 5. In 2013-14, enrollment would have been 426 students. Enrollment is projected to decline to 281 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 145 students from the 2013-14 enrollment. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 143 students is projected, while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 5

Historical and Projected Enrollments of Meadow Pond Elementary School

HISTORICAL

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total2008-09 80 77 69 98 78 87 489 2009-10 83 92 72 74 100 80 501 2010-11 60 81 92 73 77 103 486 2011-12 56 63 87 88 69 81 444 2012-13 53 55 66 88 89 72 423 2013-14 47 63 57 75 92 92 426

CSR 6-Yr. Ratios 0.27151 1.069345 1.018624 1.038146 1.012594 1.036955

PROJECTED

2014-15 39 50 64 59 76 95 383 2015-16 46 42 51 66 60 79 344 2016-17 38 49 43 53 67 62 312 2017-18 42 41 50 45 54 69 301 2018-19 42 45 42 52 46 56 283

5-year Change -143

2019-20 42 45 46 44 53 48 278 2020-21 42 45 46 48 45 55 281 2021-22 42 45 46 48 49 47 277 2022-23 42 45 46 48 49 51 281 2023-24 42 45 46 48 49 51 281

5-year Change -2

10-year Change -145

Note: 1Two-year average proportion of kindergarten students with respect to district totals

11

Full-Day Kindergarten Projections

The following section provides enrollment projections for 2014-15 through 2023-24 assuming implementation of a full-day kindergarten program in 2014-15. Total projected full-day kindergarten enrollment (6-year trend) from the November 2013 demographic study was used and proportioned into each elementary school based on an average proportion of the last two years of data. Once the program is implemented, the district is no longer likely to see an increase in the number of students from kindergarten to first grade. For this reason, the kindergarten-to-first grade survival ratio was changed to 1.000, as there is no historical data to determine what this survival ratio will be.

1. Increase Miller Elementary School

As shown in Table 6, enrollment in Increase Miller Elementary School is projected to decline to 347 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 123 students from the 2013-14 enrollment. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 103 students is projected, while a small decline of 20 students is projected in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 6

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten Increase Miller Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total

2014-15 56 76 72 59 76 100 439

2015-16 66 56 74 73 61 75 405

2016-17 54 66 55 75 75 60 385

2017-18 59 54 64 55 77 74 383

2018-19 59 59 53 64 56 76 367

5-year Change -103

2019-20 59 59 57 53 66 55 349

2020-21 59 59 57 57 54 65 351

2021-22 59 59 57 57 58 53 343

2022-23 59 59 57 57 58 57 347

2023-24 59 59 57 57 58 57 347

5-year Change -20

10-year Change -123

12

2. Katonah Elementary School

Enrollment in Katonah Elementary School is projected to decline to 372 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 118 students from the 2013-14 enrollment as shown in Table 7. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 113 students is projected, while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 7

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten Katonah Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total

2014-15 59 66 74 80 85 90 454

2015-16 70 59 67 74 78 85 433

2016-17 58 70 60 67 72 78 405

2017-18 62 58 71 60 65 72 388

2018-19 62 62 59 71 58 65 377

5-year Change -113

2019-20 62 62 63 59 69 58 373

2020-21 62 62 63 63 57 69 376

2021-22 62 62 63 63 61 57 368

2022-23 62 62 63 63 61 61 372

2023-24 62 62 63 63 61 61 372

5-year Change -5

10-year Change -118

13

3. Meadow Pond Elementary School

Enrollment in Meadow Pond Elementary School is projected to decline to 284 students in 2023-24, which would be a loss of 142 students from the 2013-14 enrollment as shown in Table 8. In the first five years of the projection period, a loss of 136 students is projected, while enrollment is projected to be essentially constant in the last five years of the projection period due to holding the projected number of births from 2012-2018 constant, which results in constant kindergarten counts five years later and subsequent elementary grades.

Table 8

Projected Enrollments with Full-Day Kindergarten Meadow Pond Elementary School

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total

2014-15 43 50 64 59 76 95 387

2015-16 51 43 51 66 60 79 350

2016-17 42 51 44 53 67 62 319

2017-18 45 42 52 46 54 69 308

2018-19 45 45 43 54 47 56 290

5-year Change -136

2019-20 45 45 46 45 55 49 285

2020-21 45 45 46 48 46 57 287

2021-22 45 45 46 48 49 48 281

2022-23 45 45 46 48 49 51 284

2023-24 45 45 46 48 49 51 284

5-year Change -6

10-year Change -142

14

Actual and Projected Enrollment Compared to Peak Enrollment

In Table 9, 2013-14 enrollment using the proposed boundaries is compared to the peak enrollment that occurred in each of the remaining elementary schools. In each instance, the enrollment at each school would have been less than its peak enrollment. Since each elementary school’s enrollment is projected to decline, enrollment in 2023-24, assuming a full-day kindergarten program, is projected to be significantly below peak enrollment.

Table 9

Comparison of Actual and Projected Enrollment to Peak Enrollment

School Peak

Enrollment Year

Peak Enrollment

Enrollment 2013-14

Enrollment 2023-24

Increase Miller Elementary School (K-5)

1997 629 470 347

Katonah Elementary School (K-5)

1999 518 490 372

Meadow Pond Elementary School (K-5)

2005 446 426 284