INFORMATION SHARING SESSION Ewing Township Council Ewing Township - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

INFORMATION SHARING SESSION Ewing Township Council Ewing Township Board of Education TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT & ENROLLMENT TRENDS Presented by: May 5, 2015 Michael A. Nitti, Superintendent of Schools Dennis J. Nettleton , CPA, RSBA, SFO, Business Administrator 7:00 PM

Participants Ewing Township Officials Ewing Board of Education  Anthony Messina, Board  Jennifer Keyes-Maloney, Council President President  Stephanie Staub, Board Vice  David Schroth, Council Vice- President President  Carl Benedetti  Kevin Baxter  Maria Benedetti  Sarah Steward  Kenneth Bradley  Kathy Wollert  Kevin Ewell  The Honorable Bert Steinmann, Mayor  Scott Franks  Jim McManimon, Township  Karen McKeon Business Administrator  Bruce White

Agenda  Opening Statements  Ewing Board of Education President – Mr. Anthony F. Messina  Ewing Township Council President – Ms. Jennifer Keyes- Maloney  Presentation – Impact of Township Development on the School District – Mr. Michael Nitti & Mr. Dennis J. Nettleton  Board/Council Comments  Open Public Comments

Pathway to the Meeting  Quarterly meetings with Board Leadership/Mayor/Council Leadership  GM Project announced  Board Passes resolution for joint meeting to share information  District meets with Township Planner to review project  District conducts the following  Facility Review  Capacity Analysis  Demographic Study  Enrollment Projections  All items reviewed by Board & shared with Township officials  Joint meeting between both entities

Municipal Population Trends* Year Population Change % Change Source: Data obtained from the 1930 6,942 - - U.S. Census Bureau 1940 10,146 3,204 46.15% 1950 16,840 6,697 65.98% Land Area: 15.33 Square Miles 1960 26,628 9,788 58.12% 1970 32,831 6,203 23.30% 1980 34,842 2,011 6.13% 1990 34,185 -657 -1.89% Avg. Change since 1980 = approx. 2.23% 2000 35,707 1,522 4.45% 2010 35,790 82 0.23% * All projections are based on the Demographic Study from Whitehall Associates and do not account for any Re-Development Impact.

District Facilities & Enrollment School/Building Current Enrollment Antheil Elementary School 641 Lore Elementary School 552 Parkway Elementary School 405 Fisher Middle School 870 Ewing High School 1,167 O’Brien Academy (Ryan Building) 26 Gusz Operations Building - Administration Building* - TOTAL ALL CURRENT STUDENTS 3,661 * This building is currently being leased by the district, it is not a district owned property.

Enrollment History/Trends* Enrollment History Enrollment Trends 1 Budget Year Enrollment 3800 3700 2009-10 3,707 3600 2010-11 3,719 3500 2011-12 3,695 3400 2012-13 3,657 3300 2013-14 3,609 3200 3100 2014-15 3,635 2019-20 3,355 1 2015-16 through 2019-20 are projected and based upon birth rate data * All projections are based on the Demographic Study from Whitehall Associates and do not account for any Re-Development impact.

Enrollment History/Trends* Projected Projected Projected School Starting Impact of Ending Year Enrollment GM* Enrollment 2019-20 3,452 29 3,481 2020-21 3,429 109 3,538 2021-22 3,406 - 3,406 2022-23 3,383 - 3,383 2023-24 3,360 24 3,384 2024-25 3,337 27 3,364 2025-26 3,314 - 3,314 2026-27 3,291 170 3,461 1 – Assumes declining enrollment trend continues 2 – Assumes all non-GM students arrive in 2015-16 (to effect trend) 3 – GM track is developed as presented and intended 4 – Other factors, baby boom, other, etc. * Based upon most current information provided.

Closing Points/Summarizing Statements  Based upon the work of our demographer the current trend in birthrates projects an average decline of approximately 23 students annually.  The GM Re-Development although it is anticipated to begin sometime in 2015-16, it appears that it will be sometime before the district will be impacted with students.

Closing Points/Summarizing Statements  The data presented suggests that facilities-wise, the district is in a good position to handle this development.  The majority of the students would not be expected until the latter part of the next decade.  A “baby boom” while possible is not likely  If SEPTA does improve the train station, a “transit village” situation could develop which would impact projections. DISTRICT’S NEXT STEPS : Continue to monitor the development. • Communicate with relevant stakeholders. • Forward new information to the demographer on a regular basis. • Maintain an Ad Hoc Facilities committee to hold discussions on • developments as they arise. Maintain a consistent “School-Focused” approach to the project. •