GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOINT MEETING … · School Board Call to Order & Roll Call...
-
Upload
trinhxuyen -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOINT MEETING … · School Board Call to Order & Roll Call...
I. Call To Order & Roll Call
II. School Board Call to Order & Roll Call III. Discussion Categorical vs Lump-Sum Appropriations…pages 2-15
IV. Capital Needs and Funding Strategies…pages 16-51
V. Congressional Jobs Bill Funding…pages 52-53
VI. Adjournment
GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD
AGENDA Tuesday, September 21, 2010
6:00 p.m. Gloucester Library Community Room, 6920 Main
Street
Page 1
Classifications of Public School Expenditures
The nine major classifications of school expenditures established pursuant to § 22.1-115, Code
of Virginia are as follows:
61000 Instruction
Instruction includes the activities that deal directly with the interaction between
teachers and students. Classroom, support and school administrative services are
included.
62000 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.
63000 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.
64000 Operation and Maintenance
Operation and Maintenance includes activities involved with keeping the facilities
and grounds clean and ready for daily use.
65000 School Food Services and Other Non-instructional Operations
This category includes activities involved with providing food for students and staff.
Enterprise operations and community services may also be included .
66000 Facilities
Facilities may include land acquisition site improvement, construction, and major
renovation projects.
67000 Debt Service and Fund Transfers
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.
68000 Technology
Technology includes all administrative, instructional and service related technology
expenditures for the division.
69000 Contingency Reserves
This category includes reserve expenditures.
Page 2
CATEGORY Operating Fund:
Instruction
Admin./Attend./Health
Transportation
Operations & Main!.
Debt Service
Technology
Subtotal
Central Food Services Fund:
School Food Services
Subtotal
Capital Improvements Fund:
Transportation
Facilities
Subtotal
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service
Grand Total:
Gloucester County Public Schools Appropriation Comparison
2009-10 vs 2010-2011
2009·10
Budget
2010-11
Budget
$ 40,854,541
2,429,373
4,305,126
7,013,241
306,917
2,580 ,045
$ 57,489,243
$ 37,669 ,739
2,161 ,723
3,725 ,053
5,836 ,131
279 ,265
2,548,398
52,220,309
$
$
$ 2,487,443
$ 2,487,443
$ 2,405 ,943
$ 2,405,943
$
$
$
$
0
0
0
$
$
0
0
0
$
$
$ 3,032,304
$ 63,008,990
$ 2,768,184
$ 57,394,436
$
$
Inc/(Dec)
Percent
InclDec
(3,184 ,802)
(267 ,650)
(580 ,073)
(1,177 ,110)
(27 ,652)
(31 ,647)
(5,268 ,934)
-7.8%
-11 .0%
-13.5%
-16 .8%
-9 .0%
-1.2%
-9.2%
(81 ,500)
(81,500)
-3.3%
-3.3%
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
(264,120)
(5,614,554)
-8.7%
-8.9%
9
Page 3
County of Gloucester County Administrator
6467 Main Street
P. O. Box 329
Gloucester, Virginia 23061 (804)693-4042
Interoffice Memorandum To: Gloucester County Board of Supervisors From: 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 22.1-115: 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
§ 22.1-115. 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, § 22-143; 1979, c. 630; 1980, c. 559; 1984, c. 130; 1989, c. 94; 2002, c. 470; 2008, c. 131.)
Legislative Information System
Page 1 of 1Legislative Information System
6/29/2010http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+22.1-115+702434
Page 5
Locality MethodAccomack County Lump SumAlbemarle County By Category
Alexandria City Lump SumAlleghany County Lump Sum
Amelia County By CategoryAmherst County By Category
Appomattox County Lump SumArlington County Lump SumAugusta County By Category
Bath County By CategoryBedford County By Category
Bland County By CategoryBotetourt County Lump Sum
Bristol City Lump SumBrunswick County Lump SumBuchanan County Lump Sum
Buckingham County By CategoryBuena Vista City Lump SumCampbell County By CategoryCaroline County By CategoryCarroll County Lump Sum
Charles City County By CategoryCharlotte County Lump Sum
Charlottesville City Lump SumChesapeake City Lump Sum
Chesterfield County Lump SumClark County Lump Sum
Colonial Heights City Lump SumCovington City Lump SumCraige County By Category
Culpepper County By CategoryCumberland County Lump Sum
Danville City Lump SumDickenson County Lump SumDinwiddie County Lump Sum
Essex County Lump SumFairfax City Lump Sum
Fairfax County Lump SumFalls Church City Lump SumFauquier County By Category
Floyd County By CategoryFluvanna County Lump Sum
Franklin City By CategoryFranklin County Lump Sum
Frederick County By Category
Page 6
Fredericksburg City Lump SumGalax City Lump Sum
Giles County Lump SumGloucester County Lump Sum
Goochland By CategoryGrayson County By CategoryGreene County Lump Sum
Greensville/Emporia By CategoryHalifax County Lump SumHampton City Lump Sum
Hanover County Lump SumHarrisonburg City By CategoryHenrico County Lump SumHenry County By Category
Highland County By CategoryHopewell City Lump Sum
Isle of Wight County By CategoryKing & Queen County By CategoryKing George County By CategoryKing William County Lump Sum
Lancaster County Lump SumLee County Lump Sum
Lexington City Lump SumLoudoun County Lump Sum
Louisa County Lump SumLunenburg County By Category
Lynchburg City Lump SumMadison County Lump SumManassas City Lump Sum
Manassas Park City Lump SumMartinsville City Lump SumMathews County Lump Sum
Mecklenburg County By CategoryMiddlesex County Lump Sum
Montgomery County Lump SumNelson County Lump Sum
New Kent County Lump SumNewport News City Lump Sum
Norfolk City Lump SumNorthampton County By Category
Northumberland County Lump SumNorton City Lump Sum
Nottoway County Lump SumOrange County Lump Sum
Page County Lump SumPatrick County Lump SumPetersburg City Lump Sum
Page 7
Pittsylvania County Lump SumPoquoson City Lump Sum
Portsmouth City Lump SumPowhatan County By Category
Prince Edward County By CategoryPrince George County By CategoryPrince William County Lump Sum
Pulaski County Lump SumRadford City Lump Sum
Rappahannock County Lump SumRichmond City Lump Sum
Richmond County By CategoryRoanoke City Lump Sum
Roanoke County Lump SumRockbridge County By CategoryRockingham County Lump Sum
Russell County Lump SumSalem City Lump Sum
Scott County Lump SumShenandoah County Lump Sum
Smyth County By CategorySouthampton County Lump SumSpotsylvania County Lump Sum
Stafford County By CategoryStanton City Lump SumSuffolk City Lump Sum
Surry County By CategorySussex County Lump Sum
Tazewell County By CategoryVirginia Beach City By Category
Warren County Lump SumWashington County Lump Sum
Waynesboro City By CategoryWest Point Town Lump Sum
Westmoreland County By CategoryWilliamsburg/James City Lump Sum
Winchester City Lump SumWise County Lump Sum
Wythe County By CategoryYork County Lump Sum
Survey provided by Virginia School Boards Association and updated withinformation provided by the Virginia Institute of Government
Page 8
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 14,920,565
306,200
FY 03 15,835,035
15,634,647
200,388 $200,388 was appropriated to FY 04 Capital Fund
FY 04 16,381,633 16,003,545
378,088 $378,088 was appropriated to FY 05 Capital Fund
FY 05 17,370,857 17,048,566
322,291 $322,291 was appropriated to FY 06 Capital Fund
FY 06 18,586,817 18,265,384 321,433 $321,433 was appropriated to FY 07 Capital Fund
FY 07 20,179,914 19,789,044
390,870
$183,557 was appropriated to FY 08 Capital Fund, $207,313 was used for TC Walker Land
FY 08 21,289,809 21,135,708
154,101 $154,101 was appropriated to FY 09 Capital Fund
FY 09 21,984,025 21,432,874
551,151 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
1
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
e-mailed 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 2009-10) was adopted in lump sum, but
appropriated by category. The FY 10-11 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 16-17 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.
Page 10
2
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 3-4 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?
PROS-mostly perceptual, in that detailed review of budget priorities were discussed. CONS-School
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.
Page 11
3
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 time-consuming 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.
Inter-category 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.
Page 12
4
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 decision-making 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?
Page 13
5
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.
Page 14
6
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, 2010.
Page 15
Gloucester County Public Schools Long Range Capital Plan
FY 2012-2016
Project Title 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012-2016
Total: Costs
Beyond 2016
New Middle School Grades 6-8 & 9 1,424,066 2,106,099 34,858,393 31,082,965 - 69,471 ,523
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 ,000 205 ,000
Replace Casework - Achilles, Botetourt , Walker 198,000 198,000
Replace Flooring -Walker 345,000 345,000
Replace Lockers- Peasley 200,000 200,000
Bathroom Renovations- Achilles, Botetourt , GHS 530,000 530,000
Sports Track - GHS 233,820 233,820
Tennis Courts - GHS 400,250 400,250
Student Information System 250 ,000 250,000
Transportat ion - School Buses 1,530,000 963 ,050 541 ,062 464,410 287 ,004 3,785,526 Subtotals: 6,190,473 8,365,280 40,608,925 38,055,587 25,180 ,938 118,401 ,203 33,105,291
Page 16
GLOUCESTER COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CIP 2012 – 2016
LONG RANGE PLAN
APPROVED
September 14, 2010
Page 17
i
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.
2003-04 Renovation/Expansion of Botetourt Elementary
Renovation/Expansion of Achilles Elementary
2004-05 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.)
2005-06 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
2006-07 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
2007-08 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
2008-09 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
2009-10 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.
Page 18
ii
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 6-8) with a 9th 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 6-8, 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.
Page 19
2012-2016 Costs
Project Title 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total: Beyond 2016
New Middle School Grades 6-8 & 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 205,000 205,000 Replace Casework - Achilles, Botetourt, Walker 198,000 198,000 Replace Flooring -Walker 345,000 345,000 Replace Lockers- Peasley 200,000 200,000
Gloucester County Public Schools
Long Range Capital Plan
FY 2012-2016
1 Bathroom Renovations- Achilles, Botetourt, GHS 530,000 530,000 Sports Track - GHS 233,820 233,820 Tennis Courts - GHS 400,250 400,250 Student Information System 250,000 250,000 Transportation - School Buses 1,530,000 963,050 541,062 464,410 287,004 3,785,526 Subtotals: 6,190,473 8,365,280 40,608,925 38,055,587 25,180,938 118,401,203 33,105,291
Page 20
Construct New Middle School to Replace Page Middle School
Facilities
John E. Hutchinson
2012-2015
See Page 4.
Current Page Middle School is inadequate to meet the county's anticipated needs in that district.
If a new middle school is not built, Page will require roof and HVAC replacement, asbestos removal, new electrical service and mechanical upgrades.
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.
Architect
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
2Page 21
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegal (Not reflected in A&E estimate)Other Cost Elements
Contingencies 10%
TOTAL COST $1 difference due to rounding
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
Staff from the present middle school would transfer to the new facility. Increased square footage may require additional custodial staff and supplies. Energy savings gleaned from construction efficiencies would likely offset this cost.
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$
-$
-$
-$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
-$ -$
-$ -$
-$ -$
-$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS
69,471,523$
-$ -$ -$
5,736,942$
1,210,000$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
1,430,000$ 20,000$
195,000$
-$ 8,039,547$
49,329,869$ -$
3,510,165$
3Page 22
NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL - 1000 Middle Students w/ 650 9th gradeGLOUCESTER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PROBABLE COST BUDGET - Bid February 2014
Middle School Construction 130,000 s.f.9th Grade Wing Construction 90,000 s.f.TOTAL 220,000 s.f.
Cost Cost per s.f.1 General Requirements 3,249,610$ 14.77$ 2 Site Construction 8,039,547$ 36.54$ 3 Concrete 2,525,910$ 11.48$ 4 Masonry 7,862,141$ 35.74$ 5 Metals 4,215,482$ 19.16$ 6 Wood and Plastics 1,351,658$ 6.14$ 7 Roofing and Insulation 3,207,371$ 14.58$ 8 Doors and Windows 1,599,461$ 7.27$ 9 Finishes 3,860,672$ 17.55$
10 Specialties 1,165,805$ 5.30$ 11 Equipment 2,103,517$ 9.56$ 12 Furnishings (in construction contract) 636,405$ 2.89$ 13 Special Construction -$ -$ 14 Conveying Equipment 70,399$ 0.32$ 15 Mechanical/Plumbing 11,396,163$ 51.80$ 16 Electrical 5,460,133$ 24.82$ 17 Special Systems 625,142$ 2.84$
Building Cost 49,329,869$ 224.23$ Sitework Cost 8,039,547$ 36.54$ Total Cost 57,369,416$ 260.77$
Note: The above costs are based on anticipated bid date of February 1, 2014. Appropriate inflation factorswill need to be considered to adjust for the actual bid date if different from February 2014.
PROJECT COSTSA/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 numberswere then projected forward to August 2009 based on an anticipated inflation rate of 7.4%(historical average fropm 2000 - 2008 for VA school construction) and then 5.5% annual inflationrate from August 2009 until the bid date indicated above.
August 31, 2009
New Construction
4Page 23
Renovate Page Middle School
Facilities
John Hutchinson
2015-2017
See Page 7.
Currently School Board functions are dispersed to three geographically separated areas. In most ofthese areas space is limited and there is very little potential for future growth. The HVAC systemwill be in need of a complete replacement as well as a long overdue roof replacement.
Moseley Architects
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
5Page 24
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegal (Not reflected in A&E estimate)Other Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
1,817,804$
22,298,677$
16,932,040$ -$
334,138$ 477,340$ 10,000$ 80,000$
1,401,353$ -$
1,246,002$
6Page 25
PAGE MIDDLE SCHOOL RENOVATIONS FOR SCHOOL ADMIN BLDGGLOUCESTER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PROBABLE COST BUDGET - Bid June 2016
Renovation 95,468 s.f.
Cost Cost per s.f.1 General Requirements 1,410,186$ 14.77$ 2 Site Construction 1,246,002$ 13.05$ 3 Concrete 326,230$ 3.42$ 4 Masonry 3,046,267$ 31.91$ 5 Metals 392,000$ 4.11$ 6 Wood and Plastics 488,799$ 5.12$ 7 Roofing and Insulation 1,325,577$ 13.89$ 8 Doors and Windows 413,152$ 4.33$ 9 Finishes 1,495,857$ 15.67$
10 Specialties 542,044$ 5.68$ 11 Equipment 434,682$ 4.55$ 12 Furnishings (in construction contract) 263,021$ 2.76$ 13 Special Construction -$ -$ 14 Conveying Equipment -$ -$ 15 Mechanical/Plumbing 4,415,560$ 46.25$ 16 Electrical 1,410,390$ 14.77$ 17 Special Systems 668,276$ 7.00$
Demoltion 300,000$
Building Cost 16,932,040$ 177.36$ Sitework Cost 1,246,002$ 13.05$ Total Cost 18,178,042$ 190.41$
Note: The above costs are based on anticipated bid date of June 1, 2016. Appropriate inflation factorswill need to be considered to adjust for the actual bid date if different from June 2016.
PROJECT COSTSA/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 numberswere then projected forward to August 2009 based on an anticipated inflation rate of 7.4%(historical average fropm 2000 - 2008 for VA school construction) and then 6.5% annual inflationrate from August 2009 until the bid date indicated above.
August 11, 2008
Renovations
7Page 26
Replace Roofing at Various Schools
Facilities
John E. Hutchinson
FY 2012-2016
See Page 10
Roofs are deteriorating at several schools and warranties have either run out or will run out bythe replacement date.
Additional costs will be incurred in the operating budget to repair and patch existing roofs.
Staff
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
Phone Number 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
8Page 27
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
NoWill Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
-$ -$
-$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS
1,805,000$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$
-$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
-$ -$
1,745,000$ -$
60,000$
9Page 28
Project Scope 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Costs
Beyond 2016
Reroof Bethel Entire Building 2,334,409 Reroof Botetourt Gym - 200,000 Reroof Petsworth Entire Building 35,000 840,000 875,000
Reroof GHS Phase VIII A-Hall, B-Hall 2,728,957 Reroof GHS Phase VIII C-Hall 1,808,345 Reroof GHS Phase IV 1994 Addition 2,515,243 Reroof GHS Phase I, II, V 2/3 Gym, C-Hall Hi-Bay 400,000 300,000 700,000 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 230,000 230,000
Reroof Transportation Entire Building - 190,140 Totals: 665,000 1,140,000 - - - 1,805,000 9,966,149
Long Range Roof Replacement Capital Plan
10
Page 29
Replace HVAC at Various Schools
Facilities
John E. Hutchinson
FY 2012-2016
See Page 13.
Additional maintenance costs will be incurred to replace failing units.
StaffSource of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
A cyclical replacement of HVAC equipment is necessary to maintain building mechanical systems. Page HVAC replacement is included in the 2015-17 renovation project. Priority would be to have a complete replacement
of the HVAC system at Petsworth.
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
Phone Number 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
11Page 30
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
-$ -$
-$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$ -$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
23,250,615$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$
23,250,615$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS
-$
-$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
12Page 31
Gloucester County Public SchoolsMechanical Replacement Guide
2012-2016
Project Scope 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Costs Beyond
2016
Achilles Original Area
Replace 21 incremental units 749,614 749,614
Botetourt 69 Addition
Replace (7) rooftop package units 576,582 576,582
Botetourt 73 Addition
Replace 13 increment units 476,525 476,525
Botetourt 73 Addition
Replace 2 roof mounted A/A heat pumps 174,026 174,026
Botetourt Comm ED
1 Roof top DX/Gas package unit 7.5 ton 23,153 23,153
Botetourt Gymnasium
2 Rooftop 12 ton Gas fired Dx Cooling roof top package units 63,206 63,206
Bus Garage Admin area
Replace (2) hanging gas heaters 9,337 9,337
Bus Garage Admin area
4 Ton Trane Gas/DX package unit 60,505 60,505
Facilities /Technology Offices
Replace 3 Package DX/Gas package units 53,604 53,604
Gloucester High School Field house
GHS Field House H&V units and Incremental coaches unit 77,922 77,922
Gloucester High School
Complete renovation of school 3,000,000 5,000,000 2,578,877 10,578,877
Gloucester High School
"A","C",Café,/Comm, Audit. 5,885,832 5,885,832
GHS Mini splits
Mini splits 1 each c+ commons and 2 D hall - 33,770
Peasley Middle School
Replace 2 Trane A/A heat pumps admin area 35,873 35,873
Peasley Middle School
Replace bell and gossett heat exchanger 63,530
Peasley Middle School
Replace approx 66 air to water heat pumps - 18,469,634
Petsworth Office and Classroom Areas
Replace 5 incremental A/A heat pumps 200,000 2,054,478 2,254,478
Petsworth Cooling Only Units
Replace 4 cooling only units 180,356 180,356
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. $4,202,237).
13Page 32
Replace Carpets at Bethel Elementary, Gloucester High, and Peasley Middle Schools
Facilities
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Replace carpeting at three (3) schools.Bethel - Library, Office, ClassroomsGloucester High - Library, ChorusPeasley - Library, Band, Chorus
Existing carpet is worn out.
Increased maintenance.Indoor air quality.
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
14Page 33
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
205,000$
205,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$
$
15Page 34
Replace Casework at Achilles, Botetourt and T.C. Walker Elementary Schools
Facilities
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Replace deteriorating casework at Achilles, Botetourt and T.C. Walker Elementary Schools.
Required for instruction.
Loss of use.
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
16Page 35
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
198,000$
188,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
10,000$ -$
$
17Page 36
Replace flooring at T.C. Walker
Facilities
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Abate existing Asbestos floor tile and replace with new vinyl composite tile.
Existing floor tile is deteriorating.
Increased maintenance costs/labor.
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
18Page 37
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
345,000$
330,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
10,000$
5,000$ -$
$
19Page 38
Replace lockers at Peasley Middle School
Facilities
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Replace lockers at Peasley Middle School.
Existing lockers are worn out.
Increased maintenance costs.Loss of use.
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
20Page 39
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Yes. Rental fees are collected at school level for maintenance on locks. This is not a new source of revenue.
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
200,000$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$
200,000$
-$ -$ -$
-$
$-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ $
21Page 40
Bathroom renovations at Botetourt Elementary, Achilles Elementary and Gloucester High School
Facilities
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Renovate bathrooms at Botetourt Elementary, Achilles Elementary and Gloucester High School.
Bathroom facilities are approaching the end of anticipated life cycle and need to be replaced.
Higher maintenance costs.
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
22Page 41
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
530,000$
510,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
20,000$ -$
$
23Page 42
Refurbish Sports Track at Gloucester High School
Grounds
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Refurbish the running track at Gloucester High School
Track and Track surface are deteriorating.Track is needed for athletic programs.
Increased maintenance costs.Loss of use.
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
24Page 43
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
233,820$
225,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
8,820$ -$
$
25Page 44
Refurbish Tennis Courts at Gloucester High School
Grounds
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Refurbish eight (8) tennis courts at Gloucester High School
Existing Structures and surfaces are rapidly deteriorating. Tennis courts are needed forathletic program.
Increased maintenance costs.Loss of use.
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
26Page 45
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
400,250$
390,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
10,250$ -$
$
27Page 46
Replace Student Information Software
Technology
John Hutchinson
2011-2012
Replace Sungard StudentPlus Student Information System (SIS) with a modern SIS.
Curent SIS does not meet the needs, or is incompatible with many requirements of a modern SIS.We currently have to go outside of the SIS for many services (i.e., food services, medical records,intervention plans, teacher gradebook, performance analysis and more). These outside servicesrequire more time, money and attention than a modern integrated SIS. A new SIS will consolidate most,if not all, of these outside services into one product providing improved services, maintenance, andoverall reduction in total cost.
Current SIS will continue to degrade and provide fewer services as government and state educationalrequirements increase. This will require even more outside services to supplement the existingSIS, taking more of our time and adding to our total cost.
N/A
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
Phone Number: 693-5304Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
28Page 47
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
250,000$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$
250,000$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$
$
29Page 48
School Bus Replacement Program
Transportation
Roger D. Kelly, Director of Transportation
2012-2016
Purchase regular and special needs school buses to accommodate a reasonable replacement cycle.
The State Department of Education's Regulations Governing Pupil Transportation, Part III,Article 1, Para 3.I states that, "The State Board of Education assumes a twelve (12) year replacement cycle. "This regulation was put in place when the majority of school buses were gasoline powered. Sincethat time, the vast majority of our fleet is diesel powered and I would recommend a fifteen (15) year replacement cycle.
As school buses continue to age, the cost of maintaining continues to accelerate and the structural integrity of the bus's frame and body become compromised. These factors jeopardizethe safety and well being of all county students.
N/A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT REQUEST Gloucester County, Virginia
Project Title
Department
Submitted By
Phone Number: 693-1470Year Project Needed
Project Description
Project Justification
Impact if Project not Completed
Current Status (prior approvals, completion percentage)
Source of Project Estimate (Architect, Consultant Study, Other Localities, Inflation Multiplier, etc)
Other Departments Impacted/Involved (if applicable)
Funding Sources for Project, if any (Grants, Federal/State Reimbursements)
30Page 49
COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements
Contingencies %
TOTAL COST
Vehicles (Specialized)Other Capital EquipmentHardware/SoftwareMachinery & EquipmentFurniture & FixturesCommunications Equipment
TOTAL COST
Personnel/Benefits (Attach Detail)Equipment/Software MaintenanceUtilitiesMaterials & SuppliesCustodial/MaintenanceOther Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
No
-$
Will Project Generate any Annual Revenue?
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
3,785,526$
COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS3,785,526$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
-$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$
$
31Page 50
Number of Buses Estimated Unit Price* 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
18 85,000.00 1,530,000 1,530,000
11 87,550.00 963,050 963,050
6 90,177.00 541,062 541,062
5 92,882.00 464,410 464,410
3 95,668.00 287,004 287,004 Totals: 1,530,000 963,050 541,062 464,410 287,004 3,785,526
*Assume 3% annual inflationary factor.
32
Long Range School Bus Replacement Capital Plan
Page 51
8
V D O E Sum m a ry of Fedcr~i Education Jobs Fu nd P -og 'a m Presen ted to Region I Superintendents' Study C ro up - 9/14/10
~ Federal Ed. Jobs Fund legislation enacted on August 10,20 10: provisions similar to tile State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) under ARRA, hut separate legislation from AER/\. .
@l Stale application submitted last week to US DOE for apIJrO\ClI. Expect funds to be awarded by October 1,2010. at which time division allocations will be available for dra« dO\\I1
• Supts. 1'v1e1110 220-10 posted on the program last week; included division allocations and program guidance.
• Purpose of program is to provide funding for local teacher (and other school-level personnel) salary and benefit costs at the early childhood/K-12 school levels.
• No division application required. Emphasis on using the funds during the 2010-11 school year, but funds n13Y be obligated by divisions through Sept. 30,20] 2.
• Funds ,1I'e available one-time only (local planning should take this into account).
Preliminary funding allocation for Virginia, pending receipt of the grant award, is $249 5 million: $71,000 has been set aside by VDOE for program administration costs.
'" A state maintenance of effort (MOE) for education requirement applies, which has been met based on current state appropriations.
'" Local allocations must be based on the "primary elementary and secondary Iorruulatc )' JS
identified in Vas SFSF application - i.e, the state K-12 Iunding formulas in the Direct Aiel to Public Education budget. The division allocations are a prorata share of the total funding using each division's share of the FYll state Direct AjJ funding appropriated by the 20 I° General Assembly (Chp. 874 budget).
• Divisions permitted to use the funds to recall or rehire former employees, retain existing employees, or hire new employees that provide school-level services (includes staff housed in the central office that primarily provide school-level services, such as school nurses or school social workers).
e Funds may not be used for general division-level administrative expenses (c.g., supts office, school board, LEA-le\'el administrative employees such as HR, fiscal services, pl'Ogram planners, etc.).
.. Staff supported by the funds must be employees of the division 01' contractual employees of another school division, but n01 external contractors or consultants not employed by an LEA
Page 52
III h il lel , \\ il l h\., 1' :l i,1I lI l:1 i c im l -urx .m c n t l w ; i ~ t l lro u : ' h the V I) O I, ( Jll l }11L' \ L1I l :l ~ I:I1l L'l1t I,\ i'
1:,l ll \.' :ll i , \n (i l :ll1 t , \ \\ ;11, 1) l O;\ 1r Ci ,\ I :l l, !, l i ,<l t l \)i) Q Ud l i l \ l n ~ ' c \ \ ' \.' n ~ \> 111 :\ \ I", 1\.,jm \' ul :;L'l l
b.u.], I ~ ) , \ L, ' lI, 1 I l l , ~ () l l ) ( \. 1:1Ie o lv n.rc tmcnt ).
• T he I'll!), \:-; mu st b\.' t r:ld , c (\ d nL! :ICc\ \ l ll l[c \. 1 fo r ~ C I ): l l: I lc.' I\ :111 ([ \\ i l l hL' :'; :! , jCC( 11\ IIlL' LJ ll :II'lL'rh
1 \.' I ' (1 ll ill ~c l cq uile m cnt:; under S CC l ll lll I ~ \ 2 Il l' ,\ I\ R: \ ( i .,: CfU :ll tL' ll \ j\\h,.; 1'-"[ ' Ull i n!; ,
desnipl io !) (l/ ' \.' \ I' L'JldillllL' :';, etc . rClh)I1\.'L! to Vf)O U :lS \\ '\.,11:1" annu al rC I )( ) rt i !) ~ 1(1 b\.' clet Cl l l l i lh.' L! lw l iS Do r . (suc h : t':; the 1\.1\.':\1 posi tion im pact).
e V ])O I . v.i l l i nc l ude th ese rund s In the on- sit e L F ,\ rno ni tor i ng \ i\i h t i l I, \.' l'\ ) lld lle' [c \.1 1'1)1
:\ I<. R .-\ runds: :\ 1<. 1<. :-\ mou itorin g \ is ib by V DOr-: [' \.'gi llnlng 1:ll c r l l l i :.; 111\1 11 111.
• No 101.' :11 i\10 [: requiremen t o r suppl.uu ing proh ib i tion w i th these lu nd- ; Ik min dful ( ) r
po tcn t ialncg:lt i\ c im pact on mee ting SOQ Req uired L o ca l l. Ilo u or loc.i ] Til le ['[ DL,\ 1\101 ·: rcq U i reme n1s i l loca1 Iu nd:, Jurt her re: d need d lie to thc:«: Iund s.
• Should p l ;111 lo r usc o f these funds in conjunction w ith p l;1I1:' lo r lLSJn g rcm .u ru n j; .\ IZ I\. \ fun ds. i \ IZl\ ,\ fund s must be: o b l i g:l lCcI :1 ) 'I:;l r ear l ier by SCI)t . 30 , :2() I I .
e f\ V/)O l': Wc b page pro vid ing inform auon 0 11 the Ed . Jo bs l' rugr:lI 11 is ;1\ ai lnhlc a i
lillJl ://\\.\\\~ . I ~)C ~i rL.' i nJ<I ~ ( \ \ <;1.' 11 0 (11 Ii n~lJ.1 ce'/cd .0 bs J'u nel limk :\ shuul
e Karen Lux, Direc to r o f (j ranis .~\ cc olll1 t i n g and Reporting . \ \ il l man.u.c th e re imburseme nt pro cc -.s.
• We have received notice of the Education Jobs Fund allocation for Gloucester: $1,249 ,251. The funds may be used over a two ye ar period .
Page 53