I. Call To Order & Roll Call. School Board Call to Order & Roll Call. III. Discussion Categorical vs Lump-Sum Appropriations pages 2-15

Transcription

1 GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, September 21, :00 p.m. Gloucester Library Community Room, 6920 Main Street I. Call To Order & Roll Call II. School Board Call to Order & Roll Call III. Discussion Categorical vs LumpSum Appropriations pages 215 IV. Capital Needs and Funding Strategies pages 1651 V. Congressional Jobs Bill Funding pages 5253 VI. Adjournment Page 1

2 Classifications of Public School Expenditures The nine major classifications of school expenditures established pursuant to , Code of Virginia are as follows: Instruction Instruction includes the activities that deal directly with the interaction between teachers and students. included. Classroom, support and school administrative services are Administration, Attendance and Health Administration includes the activities concerned with establishing and administering policy for operating the Local Education Agency (LEA). Attendance and Health includes activities related to the physical and mental health of public school students and improvement of attendance Pupil Transportation Pupil Transportation includes activities concerned with transporting students to and from school and to school sponsored activities. Maintenance of the vehicles that transport students is also included in this category Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance includes activities involved with keeping the facilities and grounds clean and ready for daily use School Food Services and Other Noninstructional Operations Facilities This category includes activities involved with providing food for students and staff. Enterprise operations and community services may also be included. Facilities may include land acquisition site improvement, construction, and major renovation projects Debt Service and Fund Transfers Technology Debt Service includes principal and interest payments toward the debt of the LEA. The LEA is required to budget only those funds that are appropriated to and paid by the school board. Debt Service Fund payments are shown in the school budget for illustrative purposes only. Technology includes all administrative, instructional and service related technology expenditures for the division Contingency Reserves This category includes reserve expenditures. Page 2

3 Gloucester County Public Schools Appropriation Comparison vs CATEGORY Budget Budget Inc/(Dec) Percent InclDec Operating Fund: Instruction 40,854,541 37,669,739 (3,184,802) 7.8% Admin./Attend./Health 2,429,373 2,161,723 (267,650) 11.0% Transportation 4,305,126 3,725,053 (580,073) 13.5% Operations & Main!. 7,013,241 5,836,131 (1,177,110) 16.8% Debt Service 306, ,265 (27,652) 9.0% Technology 2,580,045 2,548,398 (31,647) 1.2% Subtotal 57,489,243 52,220,309 (5,268,934) 9.2% Central Food Services Fund: School Food Services 2,487,443 2,405,943 (81,500) 3.3% Subtotal 2,487,443 2,405,943 (81,500) 3.3% Capital Improvements Fund: Transportation % Facilities % Subtotal % Debt Service Fund Debt Service 3,032,304 2,768,184 (264,120) 8.7% Grand Total: 63,008,990 57,394,436 (5,614,554) 8.9% 9 Page 3

4 County of Gloucester County Administrator 6467 Main Street P. O. Box 329 Gloucester, Virginia (804) Interoffice Memorandum To: From: Gloucester County Board of Supervisors Brenda G. Garton, County Administrator Date: June 29, 2010 Re: School Appropriations As requested by the Board of Supervisors, I provide the following information on making appropriations for school divisions: Virginia Code : System of accounting: statements of funds available; classification of expenditures. Survey of appropriation methods used by school divisions, which has been provided by the Virginia School Boards Association and updated with information provided by the Virginia Institute of Government Page 4

5 Legislative Information System Page 1 of 1 6/29/ System of accounting; statements of funds available; classification of expenditures. The State Board, in conjunction with the Auditor of Public Accounts, shall establish and require of each school division a modern system of accounting for all school funds, state and local, and the treasurer or other fiscal agent of each school division shall render each month to the school board a statement of the funds in his hands available for school purposes. The Board shall prescribe the following major classifications for expenditures of school funds: (i) instruction, (ii) administration, attendance and health, (iii) pupil transportation, (iv) operation and maintenance, (v) school food services and other noninstructional operations, (vi) facilities, (vii) debt and fund transfers, (viii) technology, and (ix) contingency reserves. (Code 1950, 22143; 1979, c. 630; 1980, c. 559; 1984, c. 130; 1989, c. 94; 2002, c. 470; 2008, c. 131.) Legislative Information System Page 5

6 Locality Accomack County Albemarle County Alexandria City Alleghany County Amelia County Amherst County Appomattox County Arlington County Augusta County Bath County Bedford County Bland County Botetourt County Bristol City Brunswick County Buchanan County Buckingham County Buena Vista City Campbell County Caroline County Carroll County Charles City County Charlotte County Charlottesville City Chesapeake City Chesterfield County Clark County Colonial Heights City Covington City Craige County Culpepper County Cumberland County Danville City Dickenson County Dinwiddie County Essex County Fairfax City Fairfax County Falls Church City Fauquier County Floyd County Fluvanna County Franklin City Franklin County Frederick County Method Page 6

7 Fredericksburg City Galax City Giles County Gloucester County Goochland Grayson County Greene County Greensville/Emporia Halifax County Hampton City Hanover County Harrisonburg City Henrico County Henry County Highland County Hopewell City Isle of Wight County King & Queen County King George County King William County Lancaster County Lee County Lexington City Loudoun County Louisa County Lunenburg County Lynchburg City Madison County Manassas City Manassas Park City Martinsville City Mathews County Mecklenburg County Middlesex County Montgomery County Nelson County New Kent County Newport News City Norfolk City Northampton County Northumberland County Norton City Nottoway County Orange County Page County Patrick County Petersburg City Page 7

8 Pittsylvania County Poquoson City Portsmouth City Powhatan County Prince Edward County Prince George County Prince William County Pulaski County Radford City Rappahannock County Richmond City Richmond County Roanoke City Roanoke County Rockbridge County Rockingham County Russell County Salem City Scott County Shenandoah County Smyth County Southampton County Spotsylvania County Stafford County Stanton City Suffolk City Surry County Sussex County Tazewell County Virginia Beach City Warren County Washington County Waynesboro City West Point Town Westmoreland County Williamsburg/James City Winchester City Wise County Wythe County York County Survey provided by Virginia School Boards Association and updated with information provided by the Virginia Institute of Government Page 8

9 The following information was provided to members of the Board of Supervisors following some questions from Board members about carryover funds. Nickie Champion provided the information below in response to those questions. Transfer to Schools Budget Actual Difference FY 02 15,226,765 14,920, ,200 FY 03 15,835,035 15,634, , ,388 was appropriated to FY 04 Capital Fund FY 04 16,381,633 16,003, , ,088 was appropriated to FY 05 Capital Fund FY 05 17,370,857 17,048, , ,291 was appropriated to FY 06 Capital Fund FY 06 18,586,817 18,265, , ,433 was appropriated to FY 07 Capital Fund FY 07 20,179,914 19,789, , ,557 was appropriated to FY 08 Capital Fund, 207,313 was used for TC Walker Land FY 08 21,289,809 21,135, , ,101 was appropriated to FY 09 Capital Fund FY 09 21,984,025 21,432, ,151 No appropriations FY 10 20,223,746 20,144,460 79,286 FY 11 20,156,002 If you ll remember, FY 09 was the year that we specifically asked the School Board to work to reduce expenditures to help us manage lost revenues in that budget year, and though Dr. Kiser had promised us a minimum of 200,000, it turned out to be over 500,000. Specifically in response to a question about carryover in 2008, Nickie reported that the School Division came before the Board of Supervisors on December 2, 2008 to request a carryover appropriation of 154,101, which was the amount left from the FY 2007 transfer. I went back and read the minutes of the December 2nd meeting to refresh my memory but this was the appropriation request that included repairs/replacement relating to the Peasley Middle School s sewer lift stations. Page 9

10 Comments gathered from inquiry regarding lump sum vs. categorical funding from Virginia Institute of Government Inquiry in May, 2010, with reference to localities removed. I have listed the responses to each question as a bullet, and hopefully removed all references to the specific locality. Comments are unedited, other than listed following corresponding questions, and changes in formatting. (The inquiry ed response was 21 pages long, so this approach condensed and better organized the material considerably.) Note that most responses were given by the County Administrator, the Deputy County Administrator, or the Finance Director. 1. How does your County fund its school system? We have done categorical once in last 10 years; we've talked seriously about it in two other budget cycles... The Board of Supervisors feels that the categorical appropriation would infringe on the policy role of the school board. In my experience, both from the County side and having served on a school board, appropriation by category generally leads to more friction between the two bodies and results in further difficulties in communication. I don t think that categorical appropriation poses any problems in the formulation of a budget. I think that the best approach, if a County is concerned about funds shifting from classroom to other categories (as is typically the context of the discussions about categorical appropriation) that the two bodies can agree that prior to shifting funds from one category to another, the school board will inform the board of supervisors as to the reasons for the transfer and alternatives explored. We have done it both ways. The current year (FY ) was adopted in lump sum, but appropriated by category. The FY 1011 budget has been adopted by lump sum, and I expect that the Board will appropriate it as a lump sum. They don t have the final school category break down when they approve but it is based on preliminary School requests. We have budgeted funds for the school system by categories for the past 1617 years. It provides the BOS with greater ability to oversee the financial management of the largest department in the county. Financial accountability is much greater than with the lump sum approach. XXX County funds schools by category. We have been doing this for about 10 years. The reason the Board choose to fund by category was to answer as to how much local money is provided for instruction, transportation, etc. I find it of course more time consuming, but never the less, if a citizen asks how if teaching positions are being eliminated due to local reductions I provide appropriate info to advise that the board of supervisors did not reduce local money in instruction. The School, on the other hand, opposed categorical funding. I think it is more difficult for them because they do have to have approval of the board of supervisors to move any funding from the categories, including state and federal money, therefore it presents a timing issue for them. XXX County allocates school funding by an exact percentage of revenues each year in a lump sum. (long standing formula) XXX County has always done a lump sum transfer. While funding by category has been discussed from time to time, the conclusion is that funding by category does not give the level of influence desired and would further complicate relationships. Technically we fund them by category, but practically speaking we fund them by lump sum. The XXX Board of Supervisors appropriated the FY 11 budget categorically to the school system. This was the first time that was done in recent memory. The Board appropriated to the instruction category and then made a lump sum appropriation to all other categories. This was to make a very public statement that the Board s priority is classroom instruction and any budget reductions would have to come from non instructional categories. The School Board and staff have expressed concerns with no longer receiving a lump sum appropriation, but it is too early to the effect of the new approach. 1 Page 10

11 XXX County funds by lump sum. There is a separate designation between Operations Funding and Capital Projects Funding only. 2. For Counties that went to categorically funding of their school system, why did your County make the switch and how long have they been doing it? Our Board went to categorical appropriation due to concerns about fiscal management on the School Board s part. We fund in the categories allowed by code and we categorically fund school construction. We ve been funding this way since I started as CA in 1996 and we are currently on the third supt. They all come here to retire it seems. They ve been doing it for about 2 years because an issue came up with Schools wanting to make a change in the budget prior to appropriations and the BOS did not agree with that process. Switched because funds were used in a manner in which the Board of Supervisors had not approved. Example funding approved for instruction were moved to other categories. This change was made about 8 years ago. Do not remember XXX County used categorical funding for one year because of concern over school spending and switching of appropriations from budget submissions. Twenty plus years. The Board wanted more oversight regarding how school funds were being expended in order to meet their fiduciary obligation as the taxing authority for the County. 3. If your County used to fund by categories and switched back to lump sum appropriation, why did the County switch back? General dissatisfaction expressed by School Board; several requests during the year to switch funds from category to category which were approved, thus negating any perceived value in having done a categorical appropriation to begin the year. Recognition of elected officials role of School Board members, at their request. See above. The Board feels a little more comfortable with the School Board s fiscal management in the coming year. XXX County has gone back in forth. From the late 80's to late 90's, we funded by category. In the very late 90's, we switched to lump sum and then back to categorical in the early 2000's. For the past 34 years, we have funded lump sum again. Generally, the reasons for the changes reflected political issues between the Board of Supervisors and School Boards. When new members were elected that changed the relationships, there were different philosophies regarding control over school funding. The most recent change back to categorical funding was during a time of little trust between the Boards. That has since eased and we went back to lump sum. Many years ago, the County funded by categories, however it was difficult to manage. The board of supervisors regained trust in the school administration and board. 4. Whether your County funds by lump sum or categories, what do you see as the pros and cons of categorical funding? PROSmostly perceptual, in that detailed review of budget priorities were discussed. CONSSchool Board and staff always have better command of the details than County staff. Having done both, I don't see any cons to lump sum. Key is to communicate openly and to focus on total expenditures of School system. This keeps the decision making on what to fund in the Schools with the School Board. It is a sort of check on finances; the School Board must come to the Board to request movement of funds among categories if the budget is adopted or appropriated by category. It is a chance to ask questions and discuss finances. 2 Page 11

12 Pro s are that it requires the CA and Supt to meet at least quarterly and have a good working relationship, requires a better planned out budget by SB. Cons if the Supt and CA don t have it good relationship it really won t work, or if the school board and BOS are at odds all the time. Pros from a Board point of view, is more control over where School funds are spent. From a staff point of view, categorical funding requires more effort to make adjustments between categories. Because we have a Finance Committee as well that reviews all financial issues, categorical funding requires reviews of all adjs between categories and then submission to the Board for their review and approval at Board meetings. Categorical puts onus on County IF shortfalls occur in specific categories and the Schools blame County if can t meet salary competiveness issues etc. Pro is that the County is in charge. Pros: additional control over county expenditures; citizens perceptions that the Board of Supervisors is in charge of more spending and the largest expense category, schools. Cons: the relationship and trust between the board of supervisors and school board will be damaged. The trust in the government will be damaged in citizens eyes as this decision will be a signal to citizens that there is a problem with how the school board spends its funds. Tension and trust between the staffs of the two Boards involved in budgeting will increase. Pros some control of timing of expenditures by the school, and ability to direct funding into the categories that the Board would like to see the money spent. Cons more timeconsuming in appropriating funds to the proper categories and tracking the expenditures; makes more work for County staff. The major Pro by category is it makes the School Board more accountable for monitoring and planning for expenditures and probably developing a better quality budget. It also brings to the BOS attention when a major transfer is needed, why and gives them a point of reference as to how spending is monitored, etc. The only con I see is they have to come back to the BOS whenever they want to transfer between categories while in reality the BOS can t tell Schools how to spend their funds. The only con of categorical funding is that the school board must obtain approval of the BOS before funds could be transferred. The pros are better control by the BOS which has the funding responsibility for the schools. Categorical funding appears to drive more communication between the two boards allowing the BOS more involvement on funding issues. To me the categorical funding issue is much ado about nothing. All school boards state they would not spend funds unwisely and understand that the BOS is ultimately responsible for funding the schools and approving the school budget. If that is the case why the problem with categorical funding? Pros: Provides the local governing body with more control over how local dollars are applied. However this provides the School Division with less flexibility which could create conflict between the two bodies. (Con in a environment of trust) Cons: Diminishes trust of management; Reduces Schools Leadership Team s ability to manage their budgets; Necessitates more Budget Transfers, many of which may be administrative in nature which reduces the School Boards/BOS time for leadership topics. Just in case.school Board starts playing games you have an option to specify. Pro the governing body gets a sense of improved budget control. Cons it complicates the issues of budget execution and reporting without full assistance to public education. The real advantage of funding by categories is that Board of Supervisors approval is needed when funds are transferred between categories during the year after the budget has been adopted. Intercategory transfers do not require additional Board approval. This allows the Board to be more involved when local funding is used to procure or provide services that are different than what the original budget called for. One down side is that it can create conflict between the two Boards if the review process is used for political purposes rather than objective purposes. 3 Page 12

13 Since XXX funds Schools by lump sum, I can only give my thoughts on funding by category, but I think the cons would be: a. I think changing the method XXX uses to fund Schools would have a negative impact on the relationship of the two boards; b. I think funding by category would not really impact school spending since the categories are very broad. I believe the thought process that spending can be controlled by funding by category is in reality a misnomer especially for a large locality such as XXX. Pros The County would know exactly where the school system is spending their money. Cons This would require more in depth accounting and financial reporting from the school system and the County. With very limited accounting staff at the Schools and the County, this would only add to their already overburdened workload. 5. In your opinion and based on your experience, does categorically funding of the school system have any impact, either positive or negative, on the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and School Board? Mostly a public relations measure (some negative, some positive, based on your disposition); it does have the benefit, in the controversy that arises here when it is discussed of focusing attention on the school budget and the priorities being considered. Categorical funding hurts the relationship by constantly injecting Board of Supervisors opinions in to the School Board decisionmaking process. The School Board finds it most offensive, but it does get the School Board s attention. I believe it doesn t have much of an impact, SB and BOS will get along if the relationship that s brought to the table by both staffs are conducive to forging a win win atmosphere. That said if you have elected officials with axes to grind or like to play political relationships the outcome will not be good. In my experience, categorical funding has a negative impact, because the School Board sees this as the BOS micromanaging their budget. It takes away some of SB's control. Negative. It does have an impact by showing the School Board you do not trust their ability to handle funding on their own, therefore, tension and hostility results between the School Board and Board of Supervisors. This also affects the ability of the County and School administration to work as well together. I feel it has a negative impact because it causes questions and tension between the Boards when transfers are needed. On the positive side it drives more interaction between the boards and makes more information available to the public. When the school board asks for a transfer between categories they must come to the BOS and explain the reasons which done at a public meeting. On the negative side the School Board resents the fact they have such oversight when most school boards in the state do not. The main issue appears to be a feeling of embarrassment on the part of the school board when they are at regional or state meetings. In other words other school boards make fun of them. It implies a level of distrust on the part of the BOS. The simple answer is to require ALL BOS in the state to approve by categories. I personally believe that in an environment where trust exists between the County Board, School Board, and leadership for County and Schools, categorical funding reduces trust and creates a more cumbersome administrative burden increasing the costs to tax payers and decreasing efficiencies while substituting the judgment of the local governing board for that of the Schools governing board and leadership in determining how to best apply educational resources. To date none. While categorical funding of the schools may give one a sense of control, in fact, when the categories are not strictly adhered to what will you do prosecute? 4 Page 13

14 Overall I think it has been positive. It gives the Board of Supervisors more information than they would have by doing just one appropriation a year at budget. It provides the Schools with an opportunity to have a better relationship and more contact with the Board of Supervisors. It provides the public with a review process to better the education system in the County. We also developed a Joint Committee of two School Board members, two Board of Supervisor members, the Superintendent and County Administrator who meet every two months on a regular basis to maintain an open dialogue on education and general County government issues. The members of the Board s represented on the Joint Committee rotate every two years to give all Board members and opportunity to serve in that capacity and have a better understanding of the issues. I do not have any experience with funding by category since XXX uses a lump sum funding method, but I believe changing to a categorical funding method would have a negative impact on the relationship of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. In my opinion, it could create a negative working relationship between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors since both Boards may have different ideas as to how the school system should spend the money. 6. In your opinion and based on your experiences, does categorically funding of the school system have any impact on the budgeting process in terms of making it either simpler or more complex? It does make it more complex; it is a "deeper dive" More complex without a doubt. No difference that I can see. I don t think it makes an impact even though we do it because our process is based on information sharing and we are provided a copy of everything from number of projected buses, vehicles, students, teachers, admin, salary scales, benefit cost, etc. We get the same info from School system as I do from a constitutional officer or dept head. CA talks to Supt frequently about the local revenues, other activities in County, health care, etc. Categorical funding does require more communication with the School staff to make sure that amounts are appropriate and correct between categories. Budget process becomes judgmental on what is important. County is not in business of education and the dialogue is not always productive. From a budget building and administration standpoint, categorical funding makes things more difficult both in budget preparation and administration. Board supervisors staff will have to depend on school board staff to develop the categorical funding levels so realistically, the school board staff is going to do this work anyway. Trust between the two boards and staffs will be damaged and meetings will probably be more contentious, leading to the feeling in the community that the government is inept. I believe it makes it more complex for both the County and the Schools. I feel that categorical funding makes the budget process simpler because reports, etc. have to be developed based on categories so you already have the data separated as needed for state/federal reporting, etc. It also allows you to see trends, etc. for forecasting and looking at historical costs. Contrary to info put out by school boards categorical funding has no impact. The schools must budget and report information by category anyway. The information is readily available and any school board that says otherwise either doesn t have correct information from the school administration or is trying to mislead the BOS. Categorical funding increases the complexity not only in the budgeting process but more importantly in the compliance and implementation process which will require monitoring at a more detailed level. Also, many jurisdictions in Virginia use the Bright System which only provides for automated appropriations controls at the individual expense code level and not at the category level so appropriation controls would need to be monitored manually. It makes it more complex probably unreasonably so. 5 Page 14

15 We actually use a formula driven process to fund the schools in terms of their overall budget. Hence the earlier comment about technically how we fund them versus practically. Once the Board of Supervisors agrees on the general nature of the School s budget based on the formula they appropriate the funds by category. The real benefit is to make sure that local funds are used for what the budget called for. If the Schools want to change something between categories they have to demonstrate why it is good idea. In XXX, the Board of Supervisors reviews the schools budget at the line item level (lower than the category level) so I don't believe that funding at the category level would have any impact on the budget process. In my opinion, budgeting is complicated enough. Categorically funding the school system would definitely make budgeting more complex. 7. Any other information or insight you can contribute which would be helpful in this consideration of this issue!! Relationships have improved significantly over the years since the switch was made. Board of Supervisors members now sit in on the School Board budget development process. Open communications, supt provides update at BOS meeting on a quarterly basis, CA and Supt have frequent discussions. When I was a school person in 2 divisions I experienced both situations. I thought I died and gone to heaven when I went to a lump sum division. Not as political. Realistically, this is about the category of administration funding and the belief by some in the community and on boards of supervisors that school board staffs are top heavy with administrators. Ultimately, school boards are responsible for the funding and operation of schools in Va. so they need to be trusted to make these funding choices. The Board of Supervisors and School Board have tried to meet periodically to discuss how they might work better together and build the relationship between the two Boards. Areas of concern are brought out at these meetings and sometimes this honest dialogue results in better understanding of problems. In fact, these meetings have brought about consolidation of many services between the County and School. Still, they do not always agree. Categorical funding was discussed this year due to the severe cuts in school funding, and anticipated revenue shortfall by the County, but it was finally agreed that it was not the appropriate thing to do. None other than the fact that I don t understand why it s still a major issue for localities. School Boards and Administration should have full, responsible control of their budget. Categorical approval does not accomplish this. Only an established mindset and good working relationship will accomplish the goal of responsible budgeting and execution. Compiled by Brenda Garton, September 7, Page 15

16 Gloucester County Public Schools Long Range Capital Plan FY Project Title Total: New Middle School Grades 68 & 9 1,424,066 2,106,099 34,858,393 31,082,965 69,471,523 Costs Beyond 2016 Add.lAIt.lRenovate Page 1,411,353 16,315,116 17,726,469 4,572,208 Roofinq Replacement Var ious Schools 665,000 1,140,000 1,805,000 9,966,149 HVAC Replacement Various Schools 209,337 4,156,131 5,209,470 5,096,859 8,578,818 23,250,615 18,566,934 Replace Carpets Various Schools 205, ,000 Replace Casework Achilles, Botetourt, Walker 198, ,000 Replace Flooring Walker 345, ,000 Replace Lockers Peasley 200, ,000 Bathroom Renovations Achilles, Botetourt, GHS 530, ,000 Sports Track GHS 233, ,820 Tennis Courts GHS 400, ,250 Student Information System 250, ,000 Transportat ion School Buses 1,530, , , , ,004 3,785,526 Subtotals: 6,190,473 8,365,280 40,608,925 38,055,587 25,180, ,401,203 33,105,291 Page 16

17 GLOUCESTER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CIP LONG RANGE PLAN APPROVED September 14, 2010 Page 17

18 Capital Planning Gloucester County School Board The Gloucester County School Board has been diligent over the past seven years in analyzing facility needs and making improvements. The following represents the major improvements and the basis for the current proposed Long Range Capital Plan Renovation/Expansion of Botetourt Elementary Renovation/Expansion of Achilles Elementary Renovation/Expansion of Botetourt Elementary Renovation/Expansion of Achilles Elementary Purchase of 138 acres of land for future school construction (Rt. 17 & T.C.Walker Rd.) Replaced a portion of the HVAC and the roof of original building at Achilles Elementary Replaced auditorium roof at Gloucester High School Renovated auditorium at Gloucester High School Purchase of 22 acres adjacent to T.C. Walker Elementary Renovated library at T.C. Walker Elementary Replaced sewer lift station at Achilles Elementary Replaced hallway flooring at Petsworth Elementary Renovated auditorium at Gloucester High Replaced switch gear at Gloucester High Renovated art labs at Gloucester High Renovation/Expansion of Abingdon Elementary Replaced windows at T.C. Walker Elementary Utilization studies of : (138 acre site) and (22 acres adjacent to T.C. Walker Elementary) Replaced classroom flooring at Petsworth Elementary Replaced sewer lift station at Page Middle Replaced roof at Peasley Middle Replaced switch gear at Gloucester High Replaced HVAC in administration and guidance areas at Gloucester High Renovation/Expansion of Abingdon Elementary Utilization study of Page Middle facility for centralized services space Replaced roof at Peasley Middle Replaced windows at T.C. Walker Elementary Replaced two sewer lift stations at T.C. Walker Elementary Replaced sewer lift stations at Peasley Middle School Replaced partial roof section at GHS C hall Repaired asphalt parking area at GHS Overlaid asphalt paving at GHS Drivers Range Repaired asphalt parking and drives at Page Middle School Coated critical roof portions at Page Middle School Coated critical roof portions at T.C. Walker Elementary Stimulus funds were used to address these issues: Replace windows and doors at Achilles Elementary School Renovate restrooms at GHS Renovate restroom at Page Middle School Replace windows and doors at Botetourt The renovations/expansions of Botetourt, Achilles, and Abingdon provided additional student capacity and allowed the School Board to redistrict and to accomplish the following objectives: Redistribution of enrollment to allow comparable instructional space in all schools. Provision of specific elementary feeder schools for the two middle schools. Elimination of all modular instructional units from school sites. i Page 18

19 Redistricting included the transference of students from T.C. Walker to Achilles and Abingdon. It also allowed the transference of students from Petsworth to Botetourt, and the transference of students from Peasley to Page. Redistricting opened up instructional space at T.C. Walker lessening the need to renovate the school in the short term. The replacement of T.C. Walker s windows improved the aesthetics of the school and improved its energy efficiently. The next priority for the School Board is to construct a new middle school (grades 68) with a 9 th grade wing. The addition of a new middle school will allow for the modernization of instructional space for Page Middle School students, increase needed capacity in grades 68, and provide space for ninth graders that will eliminate the overcrowding perceptions at Gloucester High School. A new middle school will then open the door for the renovation of Page Middle School as offices and work space for centralized district services (freeing up the county administration building currently occupied by school district personnel). It will also allow for the renovation of A hall at Gloucester High School after the ninth graders have been relocated into the new facility. ii Page 19

20 Gloucester County Public Schools Long Range Capital Plan FY Costs Project Title Total: Beyond 2016 New Middle School Grades 68 & 9 1,424,066 2,106,099 34,858,393 31,082,965 69,471,523 Add./Alt./Renovate Page 1,411,353 16,315,116 17,726,469 4,572,208 Roofing Replacement Various Schools 665,000 1,140,000 1,805,000 9,966,149 HVAC Replacement Various Schools 209,337 4,156,131 5,209,470 5,096,859 8,578,818 23,250,615 18,566,934 Replace Carpets Various Schools 205, ,000 Replace Casework Achilles, Botetourt, Walker 198, ,000 Replace Flooring Walker 345, ,000 Replace Lockers Peasley 200, ,000 1Bathroom Renovations Achilles, Botetourt, GHS 530,000530,000 Sports Track GHS 233, ,820 Tennis Courts GHS 400, ,250 Student Information System 250, ,000 Transportation School Buses 1,530, , , , ,004 3,785,526 Subtotals: 6,190,473 8,365,280 40,608,925 38,055,587 25,180, ,401,203 33,105,291 Page 20

21 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia Project Title Construct New Middle School to Replace Page Middle School Department Facilities Submitted By John E. Hutchinson Phone Number: Year Project Needed Project Description See Page 4. Project Justification Current Page Middle School is inadequate to meet the county's anticipated needs in that district. Impact if Project not Completed If a new middle school is not built, Page will require roof and HVAC replacement, asbestos removal, new electrical service and mechanical upgrades. Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage) I. In 2009 we addressed the most critical area (26% of the total) of the existing Page roof with an over coating warrantied for 10 years by the coating manufacturer. Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc) Architect Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable) Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements) 2 Page 21

22 COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTS Preliminary and Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation Construction Landscaping Machinery and Equipment Furniture and Fixtures Legal 3,510,165 8,039,547 49,329,869 1,210,000 1,430,000 20,000 Other Cost Elements 195,000 Contingencies 10% 5,736,942 TOTAL COST 69,471,523 (Not reflected in A&E estimate) 1 difference due to rounding COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS Vehicles (Specialized) Other Capital Equipment Hardware/Software Machinery & Equipment Furniture & Fixtures Communications Equipment TOTAL COST ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail) Equipment/Software Maintenance Utilities Materials & Supplies Custodial/Maintenance Other Costs Staff from the present middle school would transfer to the new facility. Increased square footage may require additional custodial staff and supplies. Energy savings gleaned from construction efficiencies would likely offset this cost. TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue? No 3 Page 22

23 NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL 1000 Middle Students w/ 650 9th grade GLOUCESTER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS August 31, 2009 PROBABLE COST BUDGET Bid February 2014 Middle School Construction 9th Grade Wing Construction TOTAL 130,000 s.f. 90,000 s.f. 220,000 s.f. New Construction Cost Cost per s.f. 1 General Requirements 3,249, Site Construction 8,039, Concrete 2,525, Masonry 7,862, Metals 4,215, Wood and Plastics 1,351, Roofing and Insulation 3,207, Doors and Windows 1,599, Finishes 3,860, Specialties 1,165, Equipment 2,103, Furnishings (in construction contract) 636, Special Construction 14 Conveying Equipment 70, Mechanical/Plumbing 11,396, Electrical 5,460, Special Systems 625, Building Cost 49,329, Sitework Cost 8,039, Total Cost 57,369, Note: The above costs are based on anticipated bid date of February 1, Appropriate inflation factors will need to be considered to adjust for the actual bid date if different from February PROJECT COSTS A/E Fees 3,442,165 Survey 50,000 Geotechnical Study 18,000 Construction testing/ Special Inspections 120,000 Furniture & Equip 1,430,000 Technology 1,210,000 printing 30,000 Utility Connection Fees 45,000 Contingency (10%) 5,736,942 SUBTOTAL 12,082,106 TOTAL PROJECT COST 69,451,522 Note 2: The above cost figures were developed from the Moseley Architects database of similar, recent projects adjusted to current costs using actual annual inflation rates. These numbers were then projected forward to August 2009 based on an anticipated inflation rate of 7.4% (historical average fropm for VA school construction) and then 5.5% annual inflation rate from August 2009 until the bid date indicated above. 4 Page 23

24 Project Title Renovate Page Middle School Department Facilities Submitted By John Hutchinson Phone Number: Year Project Needed Project Description See Page 7. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia Project Justification Currently School Board functions are dispersed to three geographically separated areas. In most of these areas space is limited and there is very little potential for future growth. The HVAC system will be in need of a complete replacement as well as a long overdue roof replacement. Impact if Project not Completed Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage) Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc) Moseley Architects Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable) Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements) 5 Page 24

25 COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTS Preliminary and Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation Construction Landscaping Machinery and Equipment Furniture and Fixtures Legal 1,401,353 1,246,002 16,932, , ,340 10,000 Other Cost Elements 80,000 Contingencies % 1,817,804 TOTAL COST 22,298,677 (Not reflected in A&E estimate) COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS Vehicles (Specialized) Other Capital Equipment Hardware/Software Machinery & Equipment Furniture & Fixtures Communications Equipment TOTAL COST ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail) Equipment/Software Maintenance Utilities Materials & Supplies Custodial/Maintenance Other Costs TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue? No 6 Page 25

26 PAGE MIDDLE SCHOOL RENOVATIONS FOR SCHOOL ADMIN BLDG GLOUCESTER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS August 11, 2008 PROBABLE COST BUDGET Bid June 2016 Renovation 95,468 s.f. Renovations Cost Cost per s.f. 1 General Requirements 1,410, Site Construction 1,246, Concrete 326, Masonry 3,046, Metals 392, Wood and Plastics 488, Roofing and Insulation 1,325, Doors and Windows 413, Finishes 1,495, Specialties 542, Equipment 434, Furnishings (in construction contract) 263, Special Construction 14 Conveying Equipment 15 Mechanical/Plumbing 4,415, Electrical 1,410, Special Systems 668, Demoltion 300,000 Building Cost 16,932, Sitework Cost 1,246, Total Cost 18,178, Note: The above costs are based on anticipated bid date of June 1, Appropriate inflation factors will need to be considered to adjust for the actual bid date if different from June PROJECT COSTS A/E Fees 1,363,353 Survey 30,000 Geotechnical Study 8,000 Construction testing/ Special Inspections 45,000 Furniture & Equip 477,340 Technology 334,138 printing 15,000 Utility Connection Fees 20,000 Contingency (10%) 1,817,804 SUBTOTAL 4,110,635 TOTAL PROJECT COST 22,288,677 Note 2: The above cost figures were developed from the Moseley Architects database of similar, recent projects adjusted to current costs using actual annual inflation rates. These numbers were then projected forward to August 2009 based on an anticipated inflation rate of 7.4% (historical average fropm for VA school construction) and then 6.5% annual inflation rate from August 2009 until the bid date indicated above. 7 Page 26

27 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia Project Title Replace Roofing at Various Schools Department Facilities Submitted By John E. Hutchinson Phone Number Year Project Needed FY Project Description See Page 10 Project Justification Roofs are deteriorating at several schools and warranties have either run out or will run out by the replacement date. Impact if Project not Completed Additional costs will be incurred in the operating budget to repair and patch existing roofs. Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage) Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc) Staff Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable) Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements) 8 Page 27

28 COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTS Preliminary and Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation Construction Landscaping Machinery and Equipment Furniture and Fixtures Legal Other Cost Elements 60,000 1,745,000 Contingencies % TOTAL COST 1,805,000 COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS Vehicles (Specialized) Other Capital Equipment Hardware/Software Machinery & Equipment Furniture & Fixtures Communications Equipment TOTAL COST ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail) Equipment/Software Maintenance Utilities Materials & Supplies Custodial/Maintenance Other Costs TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue? No 9 Page 28

29 Long Range Roof Replacement Capital Plan 10 Project Scope Total Costs Beyond 2016 Reroof Bethel Entire Building 2,334,409 Reroof Botetourt Gym 200,000 Reroof Petsworth Entire Building 35, , ,000 Reroof GHS Phase VIII AHall, BHall 2,728,957 Reroof GHS Phase VIII CHall 1,808,345 Reroof GHS Phase IV 1994 Addition 2,515,243 Reroof GHS Phase I, II, V 2/3 Gym, CHall HiBay 400, , ,000 Reroof GHS Phase VII Field House Addition 139,737 Reroof GHS Phase II Original Field House 49,318 Coat Roof Page Middle School Partial Repair 230, ,000 Reroof Transportation Entire Building 190,140 Totals: 665,000 1,140,000 1,805,000 9,966,149 Page 29

30 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia Project Title Replace HVAC at Various Schools Department Facilities Submitted By John E. Hutchinson Phone Number Year Project Needed FY Project Description See Page 13. Project Justification A cyclical replacement of HVAC equipment is necessary to maintain building mechanical systems. Page HVAC replacement is included in the renovation project. Priority would be to have a complete replacement of the HVAC system at Petsworth. Impact if Project not Completed Additional maintenance costs will be incurred to replace failing units. Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage) Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc) Staff Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable) Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements) 11 Page 30

31 COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTS Preliminary and Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation Construction Landscaping Machinery and Equipment Furniture and Fixtures Legal Other Cost Elements 23,250,615 Contingencies % TOTAL COST 23,250,615 COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS Vehicles (Specialized) Other Capital Equipment Hardware/Software Machinery & Equipment Furniture & Fixtures Communications Equipment TOTAL COST ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail) Equipment/Software Maintenance Utilities Materials & Supplies Custodial/Maintenance Other Costs TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue? No 12 Page 31

32 Gloucester County Public Schools Mechanical Replacement Guide Project Scope Total Costs Beyond 2016 Achilles Original Area Replace 21 incremental units 749, ,614 Botetourt 69 Addition Botetourt 73 Addition Botetourt 73 Addition Botetourt Comm ED Botetourt Gymnasium Bus Garage Admin area Bus Garage Admin area Facilities /Technology Offices Gloucester High School Field house Gloucester High School Gloucester High School Replace (7) rooftop package units 576, ,582 Replace 13 increment units 476, ,525 Replace 2 roof mounted A/A heat pumps 174, ,026 1 Roof top DX/Gas package unit 7.5 ton 23,153 23,153 2 Rooftop 12 ton Gas fired Dx Cooling roof top package units 63,206 63,206 Replace (2) hanging gas heaters 9,337 9,337 4 Ton Trane Gas/DX package unit 60,505 60,505 Replace 3 Package DX/Gas package units 53,604 53,604 H&V units and Incremental coaches unit 77,922 77,922 Complete renovation of school 3,000,000 5,000,000 2,578,877 10,578,877 "A","C",Café,/Comm, Audit. 5,885,832 5,885,832 GHS Mini splits Peasley Middle School Peasley Middle School Peasley Middle School Petsworth Office and Classroom Areas Petsworth Cooling Only Units Mini splits 1 each c+ commons and 2 D hall 33,770 Replace 2 Trane A/A heat pumps admin area 35,873 35,873 Replace bell and gossett heat exchanger 63,530 Replace approx 66 air to water heat pumps 18,469,634 Replace 5 incremental A/A heat pumps 200,000 2,054,478 2,254,478 Replace 4 cooling only units 180, ,356 Petsworth Mechanical Replace chiller 82,703 82,703 Petsworth Mini Splits Petsworth labs Rms 11 and 12 10,500 10,500 T. C. Walker Major Renovations 1,957,522 1,957,522 Totals 209,337 4,156,131 5,209,470 5,096,859 8,578,818 23,250,615 18,566,934 * Page Middle School not reflected above due to incoporation into anticipated renovation project (est. 4,202,237). 13 Page 32