Granbury ISD demographic study projects modest near-term student growth, flags 30 active subdivisions and conservative yields

Granbury Independent School District trustees on Monday heard a detailed demographic and housing analysis from Zonda Education that projects modest near-term student growth driven by expanding housing stock but lower-than-historic student yields per home.

The presentation, led by a Zonda demographer, said “you have approximately about 64,000 residents within the district,” and noted about 26,000 households, an average household size of 2.43, and a median age of roughly 48. The consultant told the board Zonda identified 30 active building subdivisions in the district with about 1,600 lots ready to build and more than 8,000 conceptual “future” lots that could come online over years of phased development.

Why it matters: Granbury ISD trustees use enrollment forecasts to plan staffing, facilities and the budget. Zonda’s presentation led the board to adopt conservative assumptions for next year’s budget, and trustees discussed timing and model changes as the district weighs whether and when to add classrooms or a new campus.

Zonda presented several development-specific details and projected student yields — the number of students expected to live in each new home. Examples called out in the presentation include Brookside (listed as about 876 total lots, with an early phase of roughly 50 vacant developed lots and an LGI Homes presence) and Crescent Estates (approximately 304 total lots with about 92 vacant developed lots and about 14 students currently geocoded to that subdivision; Zonda referenced a yield near 0.298, meaning roughly three students per 10 homes). The consultant also named Abe’s Landing, Legacy Ranch, Cardinal Woods and several smaller projects as active or future subdivisions in the district footprint.

Zonda emphasized that recent changes in mortgage rates, home price points and the pace of builder activity have pushed the firm to adopt more conservative yield estimates than in previous forecasts. “For some of these developments that we had several years ago, those yields were higher,” the presenter said. “So, that’s partly why you’re going to see a little bit of a more conservative model currently than what we had the last few years.”

Board members and the presenter traded questions for more than an hour. Trustee Mr. Bolton compared Granbury’s household and age profile with nearby Fort Worth and said the district’s relatively older median age helps explain lower student-per-household yields; County Commissioner Dave Eagle, speaking during public comment, told the board he appreciated the demographic report and said he and county officials would use similar data when evaluating county facility planning. “I appreciate this demographic study that you did because it’s going to help in our evaluation,” Commissioner Eagle said.

Zonda’s forecast included a range of outcomes: the firm presented a 10‑year projection that was notably flatter than prior forecasts, with a conservative five‑year projection of roughly 8,900 students (Zonda’s scenario-based numbers were presented as estimates, not guarantees). Zonda also highlighted campus‑level pressure points: Acton and Oakwoods elementary attendance zones were named as likely to see the greatest enrollment increases tied to nearby development.

Trustees pressed Zonda on key modeling choices: how yields were calculated, what constitutes an “active” versus a “future” subdivision (Zonda defined active as lots with roads and utilities in place), and whether multifamily or senior living projects were counted toward enrollment. The presenter said senior living was acknowledged on maps but not included in student projections; multifamily units were included but showed low student yields in the district (Zonda cited a multifamily yield near 0.139 students per unit). The consultant also told trustees that transfers, online program enrollments and charter or virtual options remain a source of uncertainty and complicate forecasts.

Following the presentation and Q&A, the board moved forward with the business portion of its agenda. Trustees approved budget assumptions and the budget calendar for the 2025–26 fiscal year, accepted recommendations from closed session on personnel matters, and approved a set of routine items including the district academic calendar and several program policies. Separately, trustees voted to renew the district’s audit engagement for the 2024–25 audit year but recorded unanimous interest in running a request‑for‑qualifications (RFQ) for future audits in the fall.

What the district will watch next: trustees asked district staff and Zonda to continue monitoring builder activity, yield changes as homes are occupied, and competing educational options (charters and online programs). Several trustees suggested scheduling a formal RFQ for auditing services in November to preserve timing for the district’s audit and accountability filings.

Documents and data cited during the meeting included Zonda’s demographic slides, subdivision inventories, and comparative market data. Zonda’s presenter said the firm’s updated, more conservative yields and the larger number of active subdivisions (30, compared with fewer previously) drove the change from earlier, more aggressive forecasts.

Votes at a glance

- Acceptance of closed‑session personnel recommendations and administrative contracts: motion by Miss Alana; second by Miss Townsend. Tally: yes 7, no 0 (approved).

- Approval of consent agenda (donations, routine consent items): motion by Mr. Moore; second by Mrs. Lowery. Tally: yes 7, no 0 (approved). Item 11B had been removed earlier from the agenda; item 11F (budget amendments) was pulled for discussion then included with the consent vote.

- Approval of 2025–26 academic calendar (final proposed calendar): motion by Miss Alana; second by Mr. Wimberley. Tally: yes 7, no 0 (approved).

- Approval of Teacher Incentive Allotment district spending plan: motion by Mr. Bolton; second by Mrs. Townsend. Tally: yes 7, no 0 (approved).

- Approval of updated Gifted and Talented policy and procedures manual (2024–25 school year): motion by Ms. Townsend; second by Mr. Moore. Tally: yes 7, no 0 (approved).

- Approval of budget assumptions and calendar for fiscal year 2025–26: motion by Mr. Wimberley; second by Miss Halona. Tally: yes 7, no 0 (approved).

- Renewal of auditing engagement (Snow Garrett Williams) for the 2024–25 audit year: motion by Miss Alana; second by Mr. Moore. Board approved renewal but asked staff to run an RFQ in the fall to consider other firms. Tally on renewal motion: yes 6, no 1 (Mrs. Lowery) (approved).

Ending: Zonda’s representative told the board the firm would keep monitoring housing starts, yields and the local market and answer follow‑up questions. Trustees asked staff to schedule an RFQ timeline for auditing services in November and to continue working with Zonda and district staff on campus capacity planning and budget implications.