HALF HOLLOW HILLS FACILITIES STUDY GROUP BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTATION
September 26, 2013 1
Introduction The Half Hollow Hills Facilities Study Group was created by the Board of Education to study the effective use of present school facilities in light of declining enrollment and budgetary concerns. We thank the Board members for involving us as stakeholders in this important work and commend them for taking this step. Recognizing the crucial nature of our task we approached it with seriousness, openness and great energy. The Half Hollow Hills Central Administration was very helpful in providing information and data and was very responsive to all our requests. 2
Study Group Members ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴
Stephen Barone Shari Brunning Carolyn Cipriano Ross Diener Tony Fede Craig Gardy Chris Genovese Stephanie Gurin Richard Haase Mary Ann Honick Neil Lederer Robin Messinger Michael Neidel Stefani Nemiroff
✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴
James Nolan Mike Petruzzelli Carolina Schaefer Kori Schneider Robert Shapiro Donna Smawley Dave Spera Mark Stone Milton Strong Joseph Tantillo Sandy Thomas Leslie Tolep Steve Troy Michael Weisbrot
3
Meeting Schedule • June 6 • June 18 • July 11 • August 1 • August 22 • September 3 • September 12 (Public Forum)* • September 19 • September 26 (Board Presentation)
Note: Many small group meetings were held in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings.
4
Guiding Principles • We seek to do what is best for all of the children of Half Hollow Hills.
• We plan for the future of our schools and for the future in which our young people will live and work.
• We are conscious of the need to plan with an eye
toward Xlexibility to adapt to possible unforeseen future factors impacting enrollment.
• We explore options that are consistent with our District’s values.
• We seek to explore changes with the awareness of the
emotion and angst we know comes about with change. 5
Guiding Principles • We recognize the need to seek alternative uses of buildings that may no longer be used as schools.
• We value diversity, keeping it in mind in any options we study. • We recognize that our goal is to investigate all plausible options while
seeking to maintain the quality of our educational offerings in a Xiscally sound manner. We understand our role to be study and investigation, not recommendation. We see our role as a resource to the Board of Education.
• We recognize the strengths and limitations of demographic planning
and enrollment predictions. SpeciXically we understand that Xive year predictions can be made with reasonable accuracy but more long-‐term predictions are prone to greater error.
• Recognizing the decrease of enrollment at the elementary level, we are guided by the need to look at the elementary population as a whole rather than the present population of any given elementary school.
6
Resources The Study Group was provided with present enrollment statistics, building Xloor plans and District maps including present attendance zones for all school facilities. The Group used the resources provided by Applied Data Services, a demographic Xirm hired by the District. Wayne Verderber, President of ADS, presented his demographic projections and explained his methodology. The Group questioned him at length about the projections, their meaning and their reliability. He later provided detailed maps to the Study Group indicating present enrollment as well as other information. The Study Group also met with Michael Murphy, VP of Douglas Elliman Real Estate. Mr. Murphy has worked with many school districts to analyze and market school properties that no longer function as school buildings. We questioned him at length regarding the potential for lease or sale of any closed buildings.
7
Methodology
The full Study Group analyzed all of the data and decided on some preliminary steps in our work. Although all buildings in the District were considered, it became apparent that the issue centered on elementary enrollment. The Study Group suggests that secondary enrollment be studied three to Xive years from now when demographic projections would be more accurate for that level. The Study Group focused its attention on the seven elementary school buildings and included a study of the Administration Center as well.
8
Methodology
Four teams (each consisting of both staff and community residents) were created to look at plausible options involving the elementary level including the Administration Center. Each team was to study four facilities in the context of looking at the District as a whole. Buildings were assigned to the teams by lot. The teams were paired such that two teams would examine the same four buildings. On August 1, we met as a full Study Group to share our Xindings and develop plausible alternatives to examine further.
9
Study Group Guidelines Our discussion was guided by the following:
•
Maximize efXiciency of the facilities within the district.
•
Geographic location.
•
Population density of surrounding area.
•
Building capacity.
•
Transportation.
•
Maintenance and security of building (post closure).
•
Age and condition of the individual buildings (our group has accepted that the individual buildings are in comparable condition as stated by the District).
•
Alternate use of building.
10
Leasability At August 22nd Meeting -‐ commercial real estate broker for Douglas Elliman, Michael Murphy presented information to the Study Group.
•
There is no existing market for an entity to take over an elementary building for a short-‐term lease.
•
The fact that the Board of Education is not interested in selling any of the buildings will limit the potential marketplace signiXicantly.
•
Broker has done very preliminary work on our district’s buildings.
•
Although the realtor did not see a current market for leasability of elementary school buildings, he did mention that location would be a factor.
•
Recommended against small scale leasing to non-‐credit worthy tenants. (i.e. a new day care center wanting 2,000 square feet in an 80,000 square foot building.
11
District Enrollment History 4614
4481
5,000
4337
Elementary
4134 3809
3,750
3090
2,5002450
3048
3166
2543
2525
3196
2550
3289
2571
3346
High School
2453
Middle
1,250
0 2007/08
3638
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13 13
Elementary Projected Enrollment 3,200
The following chart plots the projected elementary enrollment over the next four years:
3198
3,075
3002 2,950
2851
2,825
2774
2,700 2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18 14
Study Group Preliminary Findings THE FRAN GREENSPAN ADMINISTRATION CENTER
•After initial study, the closure of the Administration Center was
eliminated from further study because such a closure would not result in signiXicant savings since the Administration would need to be relocated to an existing building.
•Safety and logistical issues were also factors in eliminating this option from further study.
•No signiXicant personnel savings.
15
Study Group Preliminary Findings Given the previously discussed guidelines with primary focus on:
•Geographic location. •Population density. •Building capacity. The following schools were eliminated from the list of potential school buildings to be closed:
• Otsego • Paumanok • Sunquam
16
Study Group Preliminary Findings Evaluation of one school closure option Although closing one school is less disruptive, this course of action:
• • • •
Does not adequately resolve the usage/capacity issue. Is a short-‐term solution which may result in another closing in three to Xive years. Lacks immediate savings which can impact current programs. Risks moving the same neighborhood twice. 17
Study Group Optimal Findings The Study Group had a vigorous and detailed discussion of the following issues related to a two building closure proposal:
• Most effectively addresses issue of building usage/capacity. • Increased cost savings will reduce/eliminate any cuts in programming.
• Estimated savings between $2 million to $3 million would be realized in closing two elementary schools.
• Reduces likelihood that closure of future elementary schools will be necessary.
• District-‐wide rezoning will be necessary. • Will need to address issues of grandfathering.
18
Average School Population with Five Elementary Schools 640 640
The following chart plots the projected elementary school population over the next four years:
610
600
580
570 554
550
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18 19
Past & Future Elementary Building Averages Comparing the previous seven year school population average with the predicted four year future enrollment average, at the elementary level, there is virtually no difference on student population average per building. 700
595
591
2007 - 2013
2014 - 2018
7 Building Average
5 Building Average
550 400 250 100
20
Study Group Optimal Findings Two Building Closure:
Vanderbilt or Forest Park &
Chestnut Hill or Signal Hill 22
Vanderbilt
(maximum student capacity: 792) Reasons to Support Closing Vanderbilt:
• Low population density surrounding the school. • Close proximity to Forest Park. • Location on Deer Park Ave. (being a main roadway). -‐ Location may make school easier to protect from vandalism. -‐ Good location for alternative use. Reasons Against Closing Vanderbilt:
• Location on Deer Park Ave. -‐ Lends itself to easier transportation for students that need to be re-‐ routed from another school.
23
Forest Park
(maximum student capacity: 816) Reasons to Support Closing Forest Park:
• Close proximity to Vanderbilt. • Ease of access to other schools makes transportation of students easier.
Reasons Against Closing Forest Park:
• Location in neighborhood makes it difXicult to protect and secure. • Blue Ribbon School. • Limited alternative use. • Dense population around Forest Park.
24
Signal Hill
(maximum student capacity: 768) Reasons to Support Closing Signal Hill:
•
Light density surrounding school.
•
Close proximity to HHH High School West.
-‐
Lends itself to possible alternate use for High School West.
-‐
Security and vandalism concerns are reduced.
-‐
Field and facilities could potentially be used for High School West activities, etc.
Reasons Against Closing Signal Hill:
•
Close proximity to HHH High School West.
-‐
Questionable whether it suits the school district to have a vacant building (or a commercial lease) adjacent to the high school.
-‐
Impact of having non HHH school district personnel in close proximity of students using Xields.
-‐
Emergency evacuation of an elementary school to High School West would be possible without bussing.
25
Chestnut Hill
(maximum student capacity: 840) Reasons to Support Closing Chestnut Hill:
• Location on LIE Service Road. -‐ Location may make school easier to protect from vandalism.
-‐ Good location for alternative use. • Less dense population in surrounding area. Reasons Against Closing Chestnut Hill:
• Location in the geographic center of School District.
26
Factors/Issues to Be Considered by the Board of Education •
Declining enrollment projections; demographics – also, what are the reasons for decline, what is likelihood of a reversal?
•
Look at declining enrollment on a district-‐wide basis; need to account for the impact of potentially outdated districting decisions on a particular school.
•
Optimal capacity of each school; building capacity of remaining schools must be large enough to maintain optimal student / teacher ratios. This was one of the key takeaways from the public forum.
•
Capacity of a school to accommodate additional students – ability to expand (through portables or permanent additions); also, ability of core facilities (library, gym, cafeteria, auditorium, playground, etc.) to accommodate additional students.
•
Operating cost of each school – energy costs, maintenance, etc. 27
Factors/Issues to Be Considered by the Board of Education •
Transportation costs – what costs will be saved, what new costs will be incurred by closing a school?
•
Student proximity to other schools. Consideration should be given to maintain neighborhoods and draw district lines in a sensitive manner.
•
Ability to maximize revenues from school – what are options? Also need to consider legal and zoning restrictions on use of property.
•
What are costs associated with vacant school building (upkeep, maintenance, security, insurance, etc.).
•
One-‐time costs involved in closing a school.
•
Considerations regarding diversity of each school.
•
TrafXic study -‐ impact of any reorganization.
28
Facilities Study Group Summary We recognize that our work is a precursor to the difXicult work that the Board needs to do as it moves forward in its decision-‐making. We stand ready, if the Board so desires, to be helpful to the Board in any appropriate way as the process moves forward. We recommend that this report, our presentation slides, and the demographers report be made available to residents on-‐line after tonight’s presentation to the Board of Education. Note: The group did not entertain any timetable for implementation of any such options because it felt this was not part of the original charge to the group and such a decision would best be made by the Board of Education after its review of the options and Xinal decision-‐making. 29
Facilities Study Group Summary • “Thank You” to the HHH Community for their thoughtful comments and questions presented at the Public Forum.
The Study Group appreciates your valuable input.
• “Thank You” to the HHH Board of Education for the opportunity to prepare and deliver this presentation.
The Study Group recognizes the importance of this task and was pleased to make a contribution.
• At this time we welcome questions from the HHH Board of Education… Thank you… 30