gloucester county board of supervisors joint meeting … · school board call to order & roll...

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

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.

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

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

§ 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

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

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

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

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


FY 05 17,370,857 17,048,566


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


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.”

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 noninstructional 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

GLOUCESTER COUNTY

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

CIP 2012 – 2016

LONG RANGE PLAN

APPROVED

September 14, 2010

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.

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.

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

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)

2

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$

3

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

4

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


Project Title

Department

Submitted By


Project Description







5

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


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

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$

6

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

7

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








Project Title

Department

Submitted By

Phone Number 693-5304Year Project Needed

Project Description

8

COST ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED PROJECTSPreliminary and DesignLand AcquisitionSite PreparationConstructionLandscapingMachinery and EquipmentFurniture and FixturesLegalOther Cost Elements

Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



NoWill Project Generate any Annual Revenue?


-$ -$

-$ -$

-$


1,805,000$

-$ -$ -$ -$

-$

-$ -$

-$

-$

-$

-$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$

-$ -$

1,745,000$ -$

60,000$

9

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

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)


Project Title

Department

Submitted By



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.


Phone Number 693-5304Year Project Needed

Project Description



11


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$



-$ -$

-$ -$

-$

-$

-$

-$ -$ -$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

23,250,615$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$

-$

23,250,615$

-$


-$

-$ -$

-$

-$

-$

-$

12

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


Replace 13 increment units 476,525 476,525


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


Replace bell and gossett heat exchanger 63,530


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).

13

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.





Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

14


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$


-$ -$ -$

205,000$

205,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$

$

15

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.





Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

16


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$


-$ -$ -$

198,000$

188,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

10,000$ -$

$

17

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.





Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

18


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$


-$ -$ -$

345,000$

330,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$

10,000$

5,000$ -$

$

19

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.





Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

20


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



Yes. Rental fees are collected at school level for maintenance on locks. This is not a new source of revenue.

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

200,000$

COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$ -$ -$

200,000$

-$ -$ -$

-$

$-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ $

21

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.





Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

22


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$


-$ -$ -$

530,000$

510,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

20,000$ -$

$

23

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.






Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

24


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$


-$ -$ -$

233,820$

225,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

8,820$ -$

$

25

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.






Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

26


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$


-$ -$ -$

400,250$

390,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

10,250$ -$

$

27

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





Project Description





Project Title

Department

Submitted By

28


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

250,000$

COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS-$ -$

250,000$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$

-$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$

$

29

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


Project Title

Department

Submitted By


Project Description







30


Contingencies %

TOTAL COST


TOTAL COST



No

-$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

3,785,526$

COSTS ELEMENTS FOR OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS3,785,526$

-$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$

-$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$

$

31

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

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

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 .

gloucester county board of supervisors joint meeting … · school board call to order & roll...

Documents