DemographicsReportPresentationToBAC

8/3/2019 DemographicsReportPresentationToBAC

1/72

Lake Travis I.S.D.

Demographic Update

March 8, 2011


2/72

Firm OverviewDemographic Approach for L.T.I.S.D.L.T.I.S.D. Student Trends

Employment Trends (Leading Indicators)Housing ProjectionsRatios: Students per Household

Current Student CharacteristicsProjected Enrollment by Planning UnitLong Range Planning

Population & Survey Analysts


3/72

Aldine I.S.D.Allen I.S.D.Anahuac I.S.D.Angleton I.S.D.Bryan I.S.D.

Carroll I.S.D.Conroe I.S.D.Crosby I.S.D.Dallas I.S.D.Dayton I.S.D.

DeSoto I.S.D.Elgin I.S.D.Frisco I.S.D.

Galveston I.S.D.Goose Creek C.I.S.D.Hallsville I.S.D.Highland Park I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.

Klein I.S.D.Judson I.S.D.Lake Travis I.S.D.Lamar C.I.S.D.Leander I.S.D.

Lovejoy I.S.D.Manor I.S.D.Marshall I.S.D.Mansfield I.S.D.

Midway I.S.D.Montgomery I.S.D.Needville I.S.D.New Caney I.S.D.Northwest I.S.D.

Pearland I.S.D.Richardson I.S.D.Splendora I.S.D.Spring I.S.D.Spring Hill I.S.D.

Temple I.S.D.Tyler I.S.D.Waxahachie I.S.D.White House I.S.D.

Recent Clients (2009-2011)


4/72

Primary vs. SecondaryData Sources

Secondary Data:

State Data Center, Capital Area COG (CAPCOG),

and many others use extrapolation methods

Primary Data:

PASA studies the following:

Leading Indicators of Employment

Housing Starts and Planning Housing Occupancies

Ratios of Students per Occupied Home

Assessment of Regeneration/Decline for Subdivisions


5/72

Firm OverviewDemographic Approach for L.T.I.S.D.L.T.I.S.D. Demographic Trends

Employment Trends (Leading Indicators)Housing ProjectionsRatios: Students per HouseholdCurrent Student Population CharacteristicsProjected Student EnrollmentLong Range Planning



6/72

Generate Updated ArcGIS Map Layers

Geo-Code Every Student

Analyze Student Population Characteristics byPlanning Unit (ethnicity, econ. disadvantaged)

Analyze Recent Changes in Student Populationby Subdivision, Apartment -- and Planning Unit(i.e., Student Decline and Regeneration)

Section A:Assess Current Student Population


7/72

Section B:Project Future Student Enrollment

Prepare Projections of New Housing per Yearper Subdivision & Apartment

Calculate the Ratio of Students per Householdfor All Current Subdivisions and Apartmentsand Assess Trends in Ratios

Prepare Leading Indicators of Employment

Generate Projections of Student Populationby Planning Unit for Ten-Year Projection Period


8/72

Relate Student Projections to Current FacilityCapacities

Develop Long-Range Plan for the Siting andTiming of New Facilities

Options for New Attendance Zones

Real-Time Planning w/Boundary Committees

Prepare Comprehensive Report and PresentFindings to School Board

Section C:Long Range Planning


9/72

Firm OverviewDemographic Approach for L.T.I.S.D.L.T.I.S.D. Student Trends

Employment Trends (Leading Indicators)Housing ProjectionsRatios: Students per Household

Current Student Population CharacteristicsProjected Student EnrollmentLong Range Planning



10/72

Total Enrollment

(Pre-PEIMS)4th Week Survey,2010-11


11/72

Percent Change

In StudentEnrollmentFall 2009-10

to

Fall 2010-11


12/72

Percent Change


to

Fall 2010-11


13/72

Absolute Change


to

Fall 2010-11


14/72

Absolute Change


to

Fall 2010-11


15/72


16/72

Rank District Name

Total

Enrollment

Economically

Disadvantaged

Percent

Disadvantaged1 Highland Park ISD 6,448 0 0.0%

2 Carroll ISD 7,745 134 1.7%

3 Eanes ISD 7,498 191 2.5%

4 Friendswood ISD 5,970 371 6.2%

5 Coppell ISD 9,982 967 9.7%

6 Frisco ISD 33,973 4,313 12.7%

7 Lake Travis ISD 6,577 935 14.2%8 Allen ISD 18,242 2,895 15.9%

9 Grapevine-Colleyville I 13,671 2,465 18.0%

10 Keller ISD 31,569 5,834 18.5%

Economically Disadvantaged Student Population: 2009-10

* Of 170 Districts with 5,000 or more students


17/72

Percent ofStudents

Meeting 2010TAKS

Standards


18/72

Rank District Name

Total

Enrollment 2010 2009 2008 2007 20061 Highland Park ISD 6,448 98% 99% 98% 96% 97%

2 Carroll ISD 7,745 97% 95% 94% 94% 93%

3 Eanes ISD 7,496 96% 95% 94% 93% 92%

4Lake Travis ISD

6,57794% 91% 90% 90% 87%5 Coppell ISD 9,982 94% 93% 93% 93% 91%

6 Friendswood ISD 5,970 93% 93% 92% 91% 89%

7 Allen ISD 18,242 93% 91% 90% 87% 87%

8 Frisco ISD 33,973 91% 92% 89% 87% 85%

9 Boerne ISD 6,392 90% 92% 89% 85% 88%10 Montgomery ISD 6,714 90% 86% 88% 87% 85%

TAKS Passage Rate Spring 2010

* Of 170 Districts with 5,000 or more students


19/72

KindergartenStudents

as a Percent

of TotalEnrollment

Fall 2009


20/72

Comparison of 1st and 5th Gradeby Attendance Zone

Yellow = DeclineGreen = Growth


21/72

Kindergarten Compared to Births

in L.T.I.S.D.


22/72

Oct 2009% Chg 09-10 /

08-09 Oct 2010% Chg 10-11 /

09-10

EE/PK 85 N/A 104 22.35%

KN 481 5.48% 506 5.20%

1 488 4.27% 507 3.89%

2 497 5.07% 514 3.42%

3 495 -2.17% 515 4.04%

4 549 12.50% 539 -1.82%

5 519 13.82% 561 8.09%6 487 1.04% 541 11.09%

7 510 7.82% 521 2.16%

8 510 8.74% 551 8.04%

9 539 0.75% 573 6.31%

10 538 10.93% 542 0.74%

11 460 5.50% 519 12.83%

12 419 6.08% 447 6.68%

Total 6,577 7.05% 6,940 5.52%

Historical

GrowthTrends


23/72

Private Schools

School GradesCurrent

Enrollment

Estimated

KN +

Studentsfrom LTISD

Enrollmentin 5 years

KN +

Students

from LTISDin 5 years

Abercorn International 2yr - 6t h 22 8 95 34Austin Montessori P K - 9 yr 325 9 345 9Austin Waldorf K - 12th 405 5 415 5Bluebonnet Montessori P K - 4 th 70 15 80 17Cedars Montessori P K - 6 163 3 170 3

Cypress Creek Montessori 2yr - P K 62 0 100 0Dripping Springs Christian Academy K - 8th 20 0 40 0Hill Country Christian School of Austin P K - 12th 465 2 550 2Lago Vista Academy Inf - 2nd 40 0 80 0Lake Hills Montessori Inf - K 66 0 90 0Lake Hills Montessori Bee Cave Inf - 4 th 115 22 100 19Primrose School of Bee Cave Inf - K

175 9 190 27Regent School of Austin K - 12th 860 35 880 36St. Gabriel's Catholic School P K - 8 th 369 23 375 23St. Michael's Catholic Academy 9t h - 12t h 420 25 450 27St. Stephens Episcopal School 6t h - 12t h 660 7 680 7Trinity Episcopal School K - 8th 417 36 525 63

TOTAL 4,632 191 5,070 2402.70% 2.50% Percentage of MISD residents in private schools:


24/72


Demographic Characteristics ofL.T.I.S.D.

Employment Trends

Housing ProjectionsRatios: Students per HouseholdTrends in Student PopulationProjected Student EnrollmentLong Range Planning


25/72

Annual Employment Trends

December June December 6-Month Annual

2009 2010 2010 Change Change

City of Austin

Employment 406,068 402,620 403,615 -0.85% -0.60%Unemployment Rate 6.2 6.9 6.3

Travis County

Employment 527,234 525,438 526,736 -0.34% -0.09%Unemployment Rate 6.6 7.2 6.6


26/72

L.T.I.S.D., Metro, & State Employment Trends

L.T.I.S.D. Gained ~20% employment in 3 yrs.

(American Community Survey) L.T.I.S.D.Potential for new normal due to

Prolonged higher unemployment Lack of immigration National debt

L.T.I.S.D. The new hospital (Ph. I & Ph. II) will yield ~2,618 jobsplus associated employment impacts = 3 times that number.(Developers suggest Ph. I & Ph. II will have $172 million directimpact and $222 million total impact)

L.T.I.S.D. only10% are employed in Government

Manor I.S.D. (24%) Austin I.S.D. (17%)Hays C.I.S.D. (20%) Eanes I.S.D. (13%)


27/72

L.T.I.S.D., Metro, & StateEmployment Trends

Austin Metro Area As of Dec., 2010, Austin has been labeled bymany economists as the healthiest metro area in regard to new

job formation.

Austin Metro AreaMoodys Economy (Ed Friedman) suggeststhat Austin has the best fundamentals in the U.S. such asstrong population growth and a well-educated base.

Austin Metro Area The local economy has grown more than

any of the largest 100 American metro areas during a periodwhen 95% of these metro economies contracted (BrookingsInstitution).


28/72

L.T.I.S.D., Metro, & StateEmployment Trends

Texas Leading in job formations & leading in recovery

Texas High-tech industries are leading us out of therecession in terms of overall exports from the State

Texas 3rdto 4thyear of a recovery cycle that took 8-11years(for recovery in the late 1980s & early 1990s downturn)

Texas Up to 48% of metro jobs (prior to 2007) = were related toconstruction prior to downturn


29/72

Pie chartEmployment

L di I di t (Shift Sh ) A l i f


30/72

Employ. Employ. Abs. Change Pct Change

2007-09 2018 2009-2018 2009-2018

Agriculture, fores try, fishing, hunting,

mining 130 138 8 6%Construction 1,096 1,552 459 42%Manufacturing 1,760 2,538 778 44%Wholesale trade 739 793 54 7%

Retail trade 1,854 2,550 696 38%Transportation, warehousing, utilities 261 478 217 83%Information 389 692 303 78%Finance, insurance, re al estate, rental,

leasing 2,170 2,869 699 32%Profess ional, scientific, managment,

admin., waste m anagement 3,406 7,371 3,965 116%Educational se rvices, health care, social

assistance 2,607 5,124 2,517 97%Arts, entertainme nt, recreation,

accomodation, food services 1,228 1,807 579 47%Other services 683 1,057 374 55%Government 712 1,064 353 50%

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 17,032 28,036 11,004 65%

Industry

Leading Indicators (Shift-Share) Analysis ofEmployment Trends for Residents in L.T.I.S.D.


31/72



Employment Trends

Housing ProjectionsRatios: Students per HouseholdTrends in Student Population

Projected Student EnrollmentLong Range Planning


32/72

Transitioning Suburbs

Beginning this decade, a slight majority of suburban districts in theU.S. are transitioning to become homes for a younger, mainlyminority population.

Travel time to workLake Travis I.S.D. 29 minutes to work

Leander I.S.D. 27.6 minutesEanes I.S.D. 21 minutes

But travel times in Lake Travis I.S.D. will become shorter with moreoffice space and retail space opening in the District.

New housing including apartments being built today in L.T.I.S.D.will, to a great extent, determine the configuration of growth andsocioeconomic composition in the District 10 yrs. forward.


33/72

Major Aquifers

inCentral Texas


34/72

Sq.Mi.%

District

Parks 6 5%Preserves 8.5 7%

Water/Rivers 6.2 5%

Contributing

Zone29.3 25%

Inhibitors to

Development


35/72

Student

Distribution byMunicipalJurisdiction

JurisdictionLTISD

StudentCity of Lakeway 30.1%

City of Austin ETJ 16.5%

City of Bee Cave ETJ 13.2%

City of Bee Cave 12.2%

Unincorporated 10.6%

Village of The Hills 7.2%

City of Lakeway ETJ 5.9%

Village of Briarcliff 3.1%


36/72

DevelopmentDensity

Jurisdiction %District

Built-Out 29%

Developing 6%

Planned Dev. 13%

Undeveloped 32%

Rural Housing 3%Lakes/Rivers 5%

Parks 5%

Preserves 7%


37/72

Changing Housing Characteristics

The trend of students moving into existing housing units isconsistently occurring throughout the State.

Older, built-out subdivisions added 35% of all new students this yr.(Hills of Lakeway, Apache Shores, Lake Pointe The Estates,and Travis Landing)

Existing apartment complexes, condos, and townhomes alsogained in students adding 10% of all new students.

New housing developments added the most students (51%)(Apache Shores, Falconhead West, Ridge at Alta Vista,Falconhead, West Cypress Hills, and Paleface Ranch)

New housing (including apartments) being built today in L.T.I.S.D.will, to a great extent, determine the configuration of growth andsocioeconomic composition in the District 10 yrs. forward.


38/72

Austin Area Housing Downturn = Still a Challenge

Ted Wilson of Residential Strategies:Austin area builders started ~1,400 homes 3Q 2010

2,300 starts in the 3Q 2009Builders are in a recharging mode, since the housing tax creditsexpired several months ago.

MetroStudys Eldon Rude:

New home inventory represents the lowest level of inventory in 13 years3,200 new homes in inventory in the 3Q 20109,000 hew homes in 2006

That 3,200 represents a 6.5 month supply of homes

Austin has the shortest time on the market of the 5 major metro areas in

TexasNew home sales are down 60% from 4 years ago.

There is continuing low consumer confidence and an ever-tighteningmortgage underwriting criteria.


39/72

Largest Residential Developments

(Single Family and Multi-Family)

2010-15 2015-20 2010-20

3D Sweetwater Ranch (SF) 147 425 5723A West Cypress Hills (SF) 197 335 532

2C Rough Hollow (SF) 125 357 4825B Alta Vista Reserve (SF) 225 150 375

3B Sweetwater Ranch (MF) 100 250 350

3H Cassandra Interests parcel (MF) 100 250 350

2C Rough Hollow (MF) 70 250 320

8D Serene Hills (MF) 100 220 3203D Artie, Robert & Grumbles parcels (MF) 50 250 300

New Housing OccupanciesSubdivisionPU


40/72

Projected NewHousing

Occupancies

December 2010to

October 2011


41/72


Occupancies

December 2010to

October 2015


42/72


Occupancies

October 2016to

October 2020


43/72


Occupancies

December 2010to

October 2020


44/72


Occupancies

October 2020to

Built-Out


45/72

Water, Wastewater, Topographic, and Environmental ChallengesAffecting Housing Construction and Build-Out of the District: Part One

There are no commitments for water and wastewater available for the majority of theundeveloped parcels remaining in the District.

And, LCRA is emphasizing that they will soon reach their capacity to provide waterfor as-yet-developed subdivisions.

Likewise, LCRA seeks to have a lessened (or no) responsibility for water andwastewater supply entities and to concentrate on electrical utility provision.

The Trinity Aquifer and even the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer will become more importantwater sources for the Districts undeveloped parcels.

The City of Austins Smart Growth Initiative, prepared in 2004, and implemented overthe last 8 years, encourages growth to the east of IH-35. This is both due to theEdwards Aquifer (and its contributory zone), and also the topographic challenges,as well as the general aesthetics of the western portions of the Citys ETJ and of the

County due to this topography.

But, despite this emphasis on eastern sector growth, the demand for housing inaesthetically pleasing locations near Lake Austin and Lake Travis has remainedhigh, even during the economic downturn.

Water, Wastewater, Topographic, and Environmental Challenges


46/72

Water, Wastewater, Topographic, and Environmental ChallengesAffecting Housing Construction, and Build-Out of the District : Part Two

Many large tracts, particularly on Lake Austin and Barton Creek, could becomeconservation districts, preserves, or parks. It is difficult to estimate which of theseparcels will be taken out of potential markets for residential development.

Among these parcels with unknown futures are Patricia Murfins two tracts in PlanningUnits 61 and 5B (on Lake Austin), Patricia and Robert Ayers tracts in 3F and 3E (onBarton Creek), Mitchell Wongs tracts in 3G (on Barton Creek), and other similar parcels.It is likely that some portions of these tracts will be used for residential development,while other portions will be set aside for conservation purposes.

Some of these tracts listed above are already adjacent to the City of Austin, Travis

County, or the University of Texas-owned parcels.

Many parcels west of RR 620 on both sides of SH 71 have no sewer and no water supply.LCRA may provide wastewater pipelines within 5 or more years, and this could drasticallychange the density levels of new housing if this occurs prior to other land uses.

It should be emphasized that multi-family developments will sprout up within theDistrict in locations where PASA cannot now project with over 50% certainty. In the

current build-out projections, many of these MF units will be omitted, thus under-estimating total future student population.

The build-out projections will change on a constant basis, and will have to be revisedregularly. These long-term projections simply point to the locational configuration oflong-term growth.

N


47/72

ProjectedNew HousingOccupancies2010 2020

Year Ending in

October:

Single

Family

Multi-

Family

New

Housing

Units

2011 437 17 454

2012 549 35 584

2013 731 51 782

2014 888 252 1,140

2015 993 358 1,351

2016 1,068 355 1,4232017 1,094 324 1,418

2018 1,016 349 1,365

2019 1,024 352 1,376

2020 1,064 324 1,3882010-2015 3,598 713 4,311

2015-2020 5,266 1,704 6,970

2010-2020 8,864 2,417 11,281

H i U it i LTISD


48/72

Housing Units in LTISDCurrent and Future

# % # %Most Recent ACS

(2007-09) 13,562 88% 1,934 12%

Projected Added

(2008-2020)9,264 77% 2,717 23%

Projected Total

(2020)23,298 83% 4,745 17%

Multi-FamilySingle-Family


49/72



Employment Trends

Housing ProjectionsRatios: Students per HouseholdHistorical Trends in Student Population



50/72

Ratios of Students per Household

2009-10

0.44students per home

0.13

students per unit

Single-FamilyHomes

Apartments

2010-11

0.57students per home

0.11

students per unit


51/72



Employment Trends




52/72

Student Growth by

Type of Housing

# %

Apartments

143 156 13 9% 3%TH/Condos - built-out 160 189 29 18% 6%TH/Condos - actively building 10 26 16 160% 3%MHP 10 16 6 60% 1%

Subdivisions - built-out 4,106 4,274 168 4% 35%Subdivisions - actively building 1,604 1,847 243 15% 51%

Percent

of

Growth

Added Students

2009 to 2010Resident

Students

in 2010

Resident

Students

in 2009


53/72

Absolute and

Percent Change

EE-12

th

Gradeby Subdivision

Fall 2009

Spring 2011


54/72

Absolute& PercentChange in

EE-12th

GradeStudents

September

2009 toJanuary

2011


55/72

Absolute

& PercentChange in

EE-5th

GradeStudents

September

2009 toJanuary2011


56/72

Absolute& PercentChange in

6th-8th

GradeStudents

September

2009 toJanuary

2011


57/72



Employment Trends



Model for Developing Student Projections


58/72

Model for Developing Student Projections

New Housing Growth

454addedhousingoccupancies by Oct. 20114,311 added housing occupancies by Oct. 20156,970added housing occupancies 2016-202011,281 TOTAL ADDED OCCUPANCIES BY 2020

Increasing Ratios of Students per House2009-10:0.44students per house2010-11:0.57students per house

Increasing Density of Students in Existing Homes35%of new students last year moved intobuilt-out subdivisions

M d t G th S i A ti


59/72

Housing demand increases slightly each year with thecreeping economic recovery

KN growth remains same but, slowly increases as entry-level mortgages are more available

Unemployment remains at 7% in Austin and then slowlyreturns to 4% or 4.5% over the next 4 years

A slight increase in immigration into Austin spawns anincrease in (indirect) demand for housing in L.T.I.S.D.

Employment growth will reflect increases in specific sectorsand new employment centers (medical/health, for example)

Interest rates remain within 2% of current levels

Middle Eastern and other global concerns do not accelerate

Moderate Growth Scenario: Assumptions

Projected Enrollment


60/72

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

20075,871

20117,4537,3507,247

20106,940

20159,8429,263

8,681

202013,692

12,34410,915

junder

Three Scenarios of Growth


61/72


Demographic Characteristics ofL.T.I.S.D

Employment Trends




62/72

ProjectedResident

EE-5thGrade

Students

2011,2015, and

2020

Long Range Planning


63/72

g g gElementary Schools

,

,

,

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

,

,

,

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

,

,

,

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Projected Students vs. Current Capacity

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Lake Pointe Lake TravisBee Cave

Serene HillsLakeway

Capacity = 850

High Growth

Moderate Growth

Low Growth

2,000

1,000

2,000

1,000

Long Range Planning


64/72

g g gElementary Schools


High Growth

Moderate Growth

Low Growth

Capacity = 4,250


65/72

ProjectedResident

6th-8thGrade

Students

2011,2015, and

2020

Long Range Planning


66/72

Long Range Planning

Middle Schools

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Students Projected 904 939 948 968 1,011 1,061 1,106 1,150 1,200 1,246

Percent Utilization 100% 104% 105% 108% 112% 118% 123% 128% 133% 138%

Student Margin -4 -39 -48 -68 -111 -161 -206 -250 -300 -346

Students Projected 816 896 964 1,000 1,066 1,164 1,271 1,383 1,483 1,584

Percent Utilization 91% 100% 107% 111% 118% 129% 141% 154% 165% 176%

Student Margin 84 4 -64 -100 -166 -264 -371 -483 -583 -684

Practical Capacity 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800

Students Projected 1,720 1,835 1,912 1,968 2,077 2,225 2,377 2,533 2,683 2,830

Student Margin 80 -35 -112 -168 -277 -425 -577 -733 -883 -1,030

Hudson Bend Middle School (Capacity = 900)

Lake Travis Middle School (Capacity = 900)

Total


Long Range Planning


67/72

Long Range Planning

Middle Schools

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Students Projected 948 968 1,011 1,061 1,106 1,150 1,200 1,246

Percent Utilization 79% 81% 84% 88% 92% 96% 100% 104%

Student Margin -48 -68 -111 -161 -206 -250 -300 -346

Students Projected 964 1,000 1,066 1,164 1,271 1,383 1,483 1,584

Percent Utilization 80% 83% 89% 97% 106% 115% 124% 132%

Student Margin -64 -100 -166 -264 -371 -483 -583 -684

Practical Capacity 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800

Students Projected 1,912 1,968 2,077 2,225 2,377 2,533 2,683 2,830

Student Margin -112 -168 -277 -425 -577 -733 -883 -1,030

Hudson Bend Middle School (Capacity = 1,200)

Lake Travis Middle School(Capacity = 1,200)

Total

Projected Students vs. Alternative Facility Utilization

Long Range Planning


68/72

Long Range Planning

Middle Schools


Capacity Capacity

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Capacity Capacity

Hudson BendMiddle School

Lake TravisMiddle School

HighGrowth

HighGrowth

ModerateGrowth

ModerateGrowth

LowGrowth

LowGrowth

Long Range Planning


69/72

Long Range Planning

Middle Schools

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Lake TravisMiddle School

Hudson BendMiddle School

Projected Students vs. Alternative Facility Utilization

HighGrowth

HighGrowth

ModerateGrowth

Moderate

Growth

LowGrowth

LowGrowth

Capacity Capacity

Long Range Planning


70/72

Long Range Planning

High School

Capacity Capacity

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

HighGrowth

HighGrowth

ModerateGrowth

ModerateGrowth

LowGrowthLow

Growth

Capacity = 2,500

Capacity = 3,500

AlternativeFacility

Utilization

Current


71/72

Lake Travis I.S.D.

Demographic Update

March 8, 2011


72/72

DemographicsReportPresentationToBAC

Documents

Transcript of DemographicsReportPresentationToBAC