HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-08Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
NOVEMBER 8, 2012
2:30 P.M. - ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. 2:30 p.m. – Joint Meeting with Economic Development Authority:
a. Economic Development Funding Priorities.
Recess.
3. 3:30 p.m. - Joint Meeting with School Board
a. Followup on Total Compensation Recommendations.
b. Five Year Financial Plan – School Fund.
c. School Bus Replacement Funding.
d. School Division Building Capacity Methodology. Remove from agenda.
e. School Division Fund Balance and CIP Transfer Policy.
4. Matters Not Listed on Agenda.
5. Adjourn.
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1108/0.0_Agenda.htm [10/2/2020 1:07:54 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Development Funding Priorities
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Joint Work Session with the Economic Development
Authority to Identify Preliminary Funding Priorities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Foley and Mr. Davis, and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Lee Catlin, and Mr. Dan Siegel
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 8, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On May 2, 2012, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of refinancing bonds by the Economic
Development Authority of the City of Norfolk for bonds it previously issued for Sentara Healthcare (Martha Jefferson
Hospital). The refinancing included a fee sharing agreement for administrative fees between the City of Norfolk, Albemarle
County and Prince William County Economic/Industrial Development Authorities that provides for an annual payment of an
administrative fee to Albemarle County’s Economic Development Authority (EDA).
Because Albemarle County’s EDA had not previously received fees, its Rules and Procedures did not address the
acceptance of such a payment. On July 11, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to approve amendments
to the EDA’s Rules and Procedures that established an annual administrative fee for bonds, provided for a budgetary
process to govern the expenditure of funds received by the EDA, and established a tiered system for its application fees
(Attachment A).
As part of the July 11 discussion related to amending the EDA Rules and Procedures, staff recommended that the Board
hold a joint work session with the EDA to discuss priority economic development initiatives that would be supported by
funds generated by the new administrative fee. The revenue generated by the Sentara Healthcare bond issue that will be
received by the Albemarle EDA beginning in May, 2013 is estimated at $45,000 in 2013 and decreases based on the
outstanding principle amount of the bonds annually for the next ten years. Future bond issues will generate additional
revenue based on the amount of the issues.
The purpose of this joint work session is to provide a brief update on the status of the Economic Vitality Action Plan
(Attachment B) and to allow the Board and the EDA to work together to identify preliminary funding priorities that would
be appropriate for the expenditure of EDA funds. Further refinement of funding priorities will occur over the next
several months, with a goal of finalizing requested expenditures for FY 2013 by March, 2012, to coincide with the
County’s annual budgeting process.
Dan Siegel, an attorney with the law firm of Sands Anderson who specializes in bonds and EDA/IDA matters , will be
present at the meeting to assist with the presentation and to answer any bond-related questions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 - Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
The Code of Virginia establishes that the EDA has the authority to expend funds generated by fees, with any
expenditure requiring approval by the Board of Supervisors. The EDA’s revised Rules and Procedures state that the
EDA will “expend funds that it receives only to support economic development initiatives that benefit Albemarle County
as determined by agreement between the Authority and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. All such
initiatives shall be developed in consultation with the County Executive, or his designee. The Albemarle County staff
will provide support in the administration of the expenditure of such funds by the Authority.”
Of 95 counties and 30 larger cities in Virginia, 75% have an EDA/IDA, and of those entities, 75% charge some level of
administrative fee. Attachment A includes a list of peer localities and indicates which ones charge fees and generally
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Development Funding Priorities
November 8, 2012
Page 2
what is funded by the fee revenue. Albemarle’s peer localities use funds generated by the annual administrative fees to
support economic development initiatives, such as marketing support, incentive packages, business incubators, grants
for expansions and equipment purchases, building and land purchases/management, entrepreneur support and loan
programs.
Currently the County funds the following areas in support of the Economic Vitality Action Plan:
Memberships – $13,780 annually
o Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development - $12,500
o Chamber of Commerce - $1,280
Economic Opportunity Fund - $250,000
o replenished annually with one-time funds as necessary
Marketing and Program Support- $21,600 annually
o Website update/new logo development
o Advertising (Virginia Wine Month, Craft Beer Month, Buy Fresh Buy Local guide)
o Publications (Small Business Toolkit, Albemarle Business First brochure)
o Sponsorships (Local Food Hub Community Food Awards, Chamber Minority Business Conference,
Charlottesville Business Innovation Council Tech Tour, Community Career Conference, etc.)
Personnel – $160,329
o 1.5 staff positions (compensation and benefits)
Agencies - $21,680
o Central Virginia Small Business Development Center – $7,880
o Piedmont Workforce Network - $13,800
Attachment C provides a summary of highlights from the first two years of implementing the Action Plan.
In a preliminary conversation between staff and EDA members about possible priority areas, the following concepts
were identified as options for further discussion with the Board of Supervisors:
Improvements to the County’s online economic development presence, including better property marketing
information and integration with existing data bases (i.e. MLS and County GIS)
Marketing initiatives, including support for the Piedmont Council of the Arts Cultural Plan
Marketing support to attract relocating companies
Entrepreneurial support
In order to meet the remaining objectives of the Economic Vitality Action Plan and transi tion to an established
economic development program as directed by the Board’s FY 13 – 19 Strategic Plan, and to be compatible with initial
concepts identified by the EDA, the following priorities are appropriate for funding consideration in FY13:
o Enhanced marketing support for retaining/expanding/attracting target industries, including improved on -line
functionality
o Entrepreneurial support
o Workforce preparedness
o Rural agricultural support
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact to the General Fund related to this item. All expenditures will be supported by funds
generated by EDA administrative fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the preliminary funding priority areas listed above, with the understanding
that specific expenditure items will be developed by the EDA in consultation with the County Executive or his designee
and presented for funding approval in FY13 pursuant to the EDA Rules and Procedures.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Board of Supervisors July 11, 2012 Resolution
B – Selected Virginia Jurisdiction Summary
C – Summary of Two Year Highlights of Economic Vitality Action Plan
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
Locality Annual Administrative
Fee
Examples of Use of Revenue
Fauquier County
Yes unknown
Hanover County
Yes marketing, assistance with
new applications
James City County
Yes business incubator,
marketing grants under $5K,
building expansions and
equipment
Chesterfield County
Yes Meadowville technology
park
Loudoun County
Yes grants for Small Business
Development Center, GMU
Enterprise Center Incubator,
Data center marketing video
Roanoke County
Yes unknown
Spotsylvania County
Yes sponsorships, incentives,
grants
Montgomery County
Yes Falling Branch Business Park
Campbell County
Yes buys existing buildings for
lease-purchase, funds
entrepreneur camp, “Grow
One” for 7th graders
Franklin County
No n/a
Williamsburg
Yes attorney fees, grant
programs, marketing
Harrisonburg
Yes dedicated fund for financial
incentives
Wise County
Yes Two technology parks
Goochland County
Yes incentives for business
location, revolving grant
fund
Henrico County
Yes plan to buy a building
2,200 ac tech park purchase
in partnership with VA
Arlington County
No n/a
Virginia Small Business Financing Authority
Yes n/a
ATTACHMENT B
Return to exec summary
The Board of Supervisors adopted a three-year Economic Vitality Plan in August 2010 and an implementation plan
was approved in September 2010. The following are highlights of work accomplished during the Plan’s first two years.
This work will continue as part of the Board of Supervisors FY 13 – 17 Strategic Plan under Goal 3: Encourage a Diverse
and Vibrant Local Economy.
Objective I – Improve business climate & image
Staff reorganization that provided additional resources to support economic development efforts
Complete overhaul of the County’s business website including new economic development brand
Small Business Tool Kit published and distributed to partners such as the Chamber of Commerce
Cosponsoring regular trainings with SCORE (Senior Core of Retired Executives) beginning in Fall 2012
Offering class on “How to Do Business with Albemarle County” through the Chamber Business Academy
Hosting quarterly business roundtables
Cosponsorship of numerous programs and activities including Charlottesville Business Innovation Council’s
People’s Choice Navigator Award 2012, Tom Tom Founders Festival’s Locavore Expo, 2012 Better Business
Challenge Awards, Chamber’s Minority Business Conference
Objective II - Simplify & create certainty
Improved and simplified application procedures for entrance corridor development, with new Architectural
Review Board (ARB) process improvements
Approved County sign regulation amendments to simplify and improve the sign review and approval process
Implemented a single point of contact approach to provide extra support for small business enterprise
Adopted a “Priority Track” review process for target industry projects meeting high impact criteria
Approved simplified administrative review procedures
Simplified legislative review procedures approved by Planning Commission, set for Board review this fall
Economic Development Facilitator offering “drop-in” hours twice/month to offer assistance to businesses
Objective III – Support Quality Job Opportunities
Target Industry study completed, currently engaged in developing marketing approaches for identified targets
Obtained state grant and used County’s Economic Opportunity Fund to support major expansion at MicroAire
Joined Foreign Trade Zone #185 and conducted International Trade Briefing for local importers/exporters
Serving on Community Advisory Board for the Monticello High School Health and Sciences Academy
Expanded Albemarle Business First retention and expansion program to reach 100 businesses annually
Supporting entrepreneurial and high tech jobs through programs like Tech Tour 2012 and Start Up Weekend
ATTACHMENT C
Objective IV – Expand Industrial Land Options
Revised Industrial Districts performance standards
Developing real estate profiles of available sites
Zoning text amendments to modernize uses in industrial and commercial areas approved by Planning
Commission, set for Board review this fall
Comprehensive Plan update includes designation of additional land for industrial use
Following zoning text amendments, county will consider comprehensive voluntary rezoning for LI land uses
Objective V – Promote Rural Economy & Tourism
Amended zoning code to increase Bed & Breakfast options for rural establishments
Approved zoning text amendments to simplify processes for rural home occupations
Adopted an ordinance amendment to change the farm winery zoning regulations to use a decibel noise standard
Adopted a tourism marketing plan to expand promotion of local tourism assets including rural area businesses
Launched the Monticello Artisan Trail featuring almost 100 local rural destinations
Cosponsored grant programs including Presidents’ Passport and USDA Specialty Crop Study to support rural
businesses and tourism destinations
Support to rural agricultural enterprises through sponsorship of the Local Food Hub Community Food Awards,
Buy Fresh Buy Local guide, Winebloggers Conference, etc.
Partnering with the Chamber and other local partners to host an Agri-business Marketing Conference in January
Key Indicators at a Glance
August 2010 August 2011 August 2012
Unemployment Rate 5.3% 5.1% 4.6%
Quarter 3, FY10 Quarter 3, FY11 Quarter 3, FY12
Total Number of Jobs 47,352 47,961 48,143
Quarter 4, FY10 Quarter 4, FY11 Quarter 4, FY12
Sales Tax Revenue $4,847,279 $5,168,105 $4,978,773
Quarter 4, FY10 Quarter 4, FY11 Quarter 4, FY12
Food & Beverage Tax Revenue $1,951,568 $2,011,563 $2,118,438
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
School Bus Replacement Funding
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
School Division’s Request to Fund School Bus
Replacements in the Capital Fund
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Ms. Allshouse
PRESENTER (S): School Board
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 8, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
School bus replacement funding will be a topic of discussion during the joint work session with the School Board on
November 8, 2012.
The established practice and understanding between Local Government and the School Division is that the replacement of
school buses is a component and responsibility of the School Division’s operating budget.
In fall 2011, the School Division submitted a request that school bus replacements be funded through the CIP and not
through its operating budget. On December 14, 2011 and again on March 12, 2012 during CIP and budget work sessions,
the Board of Supervisors and the School Board discussed options for funding school buses during joint meetings. As part
of this proposal, the School Division stated it would transfer to the capital fund any revenues received from the State
Standards of Quality (SOQ) funding formula for bus replacements, which is estimated at approximately $200,000 to
$300,000 per year.
During the FY 13 annual appropriation process, the Board of Supervisors directed that funding for school bus
replacements continue to be funded through the School Division’s operating budget, and dedicated an additional $648,250
to help fund this expense in the School Divisions operating budget.
During this fall’s CIP cycle, the School Division again requested school bus replacements be funded through the CIP.
Currently, the School Division has more than 240 buses in operation and, based on a life cycle of 15 years, requires the
purchase of approximately 15 buses per year at a cost of approximately $95,000 per bus.
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide staff perspective on the School Division’s proposal to transfer the
obligation of funding school buses from its operating budget to the capital fund.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Provide excellent education to all Albemarle County residents.
DISCUSSION:
A portion of the County’s annual transfer to schools (60% of new revenues), together will State supplements from the
SOQ funding formula, have comprised the sources of funding in the School Division’s operating budget for the
replacement of school buses. A transfer of the obligation for buses from the School Division’s operating budget,
without a corresponding reduction in the County’s annual transfer, would shift the economic burden to the capital fund
and free up resources in School Division operations for other purposes. Stated simply, a larger proportion of the
County’s gross revenues would be designated for School Division operations.
AGENDA TITLE: School Bus Replacement Funding
November 8, 2012
Page 2
Despite historical treatment, buses meet the definition of a capital asset for which the Capital Improvement Program is
intended to fund. Good financial practice and the very purpose for which a CIP fund is created suggests that critically
required assets such as buildings, roads, apparatus, buses, etc. require consistent, reliable funding sources.
Staff believes that buses can be appropriately funded either though the School Division operation budget or the CIP,
but that consideration should be given to the fact that shifting the burden from one funding source to another should
also involve a corresponding reallocation of revenues to support such shift.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Transferring the cost for school bus replacements to the CIP, without the provision of full offsetting revenues, is
estimated to result in an additional cost of approximately $1,200,000 annually in the County’s CIP budget. This
would reduce the amount of funding available for other CIP projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that if funding of school bus replacements moves to the CIP, that it be done only to the extent that
an equal amount of revenue to fund those replacements is also provided by the School Division.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
School Division Building Capacity Methodology
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Staff evaluation of School Division’s proposed
Building Capacity Methodology
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Davis and Ms. Allshouse
PRESENTER (S): School Board
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 8, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Every year, the Long Range Planning Advisory Committee (LRPAC) evaluates and recommends school facility
improvements, renovations and additions required to meet the long term educational goals of the School Board. The work
of the LRPAC also informs the School Division’s annual CIP request. In response to the 2011 LRPAC report, the School
Board directed its staff to evaluate and develop a methodology for calculating the capacity of its school buildings. The
evaluation and report (Attachment A), which is the subject of this executive summary, took place over the course of
several months and was a collaborative process involving both operational and instructional divisions of the School
Division.
During recent discussions by the Board, staff was asked to evaluate the school’s proposed methodology to calculate
school capacity.
On November 8, 2012, during the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board, school staff will present
the findings and recommendation of the Building Capacity Methodology report.
In preparation for this joint meeting, representatives of the Office of Facilities Development, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the County Executive’s Office reviewed the report and summarize key observations below to aid the
Board in its consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds
Goal 1: Provide excellent education to all Albemarle County residents.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed method for calculating school capacity makes several distinct changes: It creates a variable classroom
multiplier (explained below), increases the number of specialty classrooms that are excluded from capacity
calculations, and excludes the planned use of learning cottages (trailers). Applying this methodology and approach to
each school results in a school recommended capacity figure that is more applicable to the school’s specific
population and program. In total, the proposed revisions reduce the School Division’s overall capacity by 5%, or 789
seats, with the majority of these reductions occurring in the elementary schools.
There are three principal factors driving the reduction in school capacity:
Classroom Multiplier: The basic concept here is that additional teachers, and therefore additional
classrooms, are required due to a particular school’s population of students on free and reduced lunches. The
primary intent is to provide more instructional staff to overcome the disadvantages inherent to many of those
students in this category.
AGENDA TITLE: School Division Building Capacity Methodology
November 8, 2012
Page 2
Specialty Classrooms: In addition to art, music and computer labs, the proposed methodology adds Special
Education, Resource, Gifted and ESOL classrooms to the list of classrooms excluded for purposes of
calculating the capacity of a particular school.
Learning Cottages (Trailers): The proposed methodology excludes trailers in the calculation of school
capacity. This fact alone accounts for most of the lost capacity. If we assume continued use of existing
trailers, the impact of the revised methodology is a reduction of 200 seats as opposed to 789.
Application of the proposed methodology results in class sizes of between 17 and 20 students for elementary
schools, between 20 and 23 for middle schools and 23 for high schools.
The report states that a wide array of methods is used to calculate school capacity. In Prince William, capacity
is based on class sizes of 25 for elementary, 20 for middle school and 22 for high school; Fairfax uses 25 in
primary, 28 in elementary and 28 in high school. Regarding the use of trailers to calculate capacity, staff has
been unable to determine how the school proposal compares with other school districts.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The methodology of calculating a school’s capacity directly informs required modifications and additions to school
facilities. The revised methodology outlined in this report formed the basis of this year’s CIP submittal and will also
impact facility needs beyond the five year planning period. In the coming proposed 5 year CIP, the School Division will
request renovations and additions to increase school capacity in at least two schools, Agnor-Hurt and Crozet
Elementary. A significant amount of the capacity need is driven by the assumption that the existing trailers will no
longer be used.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is not making a recommendation at this time. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to outline significant
factors used in the proposed methodology and their impact on future capital expenditures for schools.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Building Capacity Methodology
Return to agenda
Building Capacity Methodology
Evaluation & Proposal
REVISION
April 12, 2012
1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. Current Methodology
4. History of ACPS Methodologies
5. Methodologies of Other Localities
6. Proposed Methodology
7. Appendices
A. Changes in Capacity by School Year
B. Comparison of Typical Methods
C. Capacity of Core Spaces
D. Detail of Capacity Calculations by School
E. Capacity vs. Enrollment
2
INTRODUCTION
In response to the 2011 Long Range Planning Advisory Committee’s Recommendation for the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), the School Board requested that the building capacity of all schools be
evaluated and analyzed. The evaluation of the capacity methodology took place over the course of several
months. It was a collaborative process that involved multiple departments, involving both the operational &
instructional sides of the division. Over the course of several meetings an approach was developed in
response to research of other divisions and an analysis of the current policy. Liaisons then visited all schools
and walked each building with the respective principal. This was a feet‐on‐the‐ground approach that
provided a reality check against the proposed approach. Using input from these visits, the approach was
analyzed and adjusted into its final form.
This report provides the details of the proposed methodology in the context of how Albemarle County
currently calculates capacity, how it has calculated capacity in the past, and how other localities calculate
capacity.
The proposed method makes three distinct changes: it creates a variable classroom multiplier,
increases the number of specialty classrooms that are excluded from capacity calculations and counts
rooms in a more rigorous manner as compared to the current method. The result is a figure that is more
applicable to a school’s specific population & program. The revisions reduce the overall division’s capacity by
5%. Breaking this figure down further, the elementary school capacity is reduced by 10%, the middle school
capacity decreases by 3% & the high school capacity increases by 1 %.
3
DEFINITIONS
CAPACITY is simply how many students the building can support when the restrictions of
the program of study are applied.
DESIGN CAPACITY is the student capacity of a school based on the calculation of the
learning spaces as they were originally designed. This is also referred to as architectural
capacity.
PROGRAM CAPACITY is the capacity of a school based on the current use of each learning
space.
CLASSROOM MULTIPLIER is the average of how many students should be in each
classroom. The number is multiplied against the number of classrooms to determine
capacity. This is also referred to a “student to classroom” or “class size” ratio.
UTILIZATION FACTOR is a percentage applied to the capacity figure at secondary schools to
account for learning spaces that cannot be used 100% of the time (i.e. 7 out of 8 periods).
4
CURRENT METHODOLOGY
Albemarle County’s current capacity methodology was adopted and approved in 2008. The capacity numbers
were revised in response to the Resource Utilization Study. This study was commissioned by the school
division and completed by the Commonwealth Education Policy Institute (CEPI) at Virginia Commonwealth
University. The methodology is similar to the Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) guidelines but with
a lower classroom multiplier than the CEPI & the VDOE use. The VDOE guidelines are explained in a later
section.
Per Policy FB‐AP:
Elementary school capacity is based on the number of classrooms available for regular classroom instruction,
excluding the gymnasium and three specialty classrooms for areas such as art, music, computers, etc. Self‐
contained Special Education classes are calculated into the capacity at an 8:1 student to classroom ratio.
Preschool classrooms are calculated at 16 students per classroom while K‐5 is calculated at 20 students per
classroom. A 15% reduction in capacity was applied to two elementary schools where classrooms did not
meet the state standards for size.
High School & Middle School capacity is based on the number of regular classrooms available to be used as
teaching stations and is calculated at 20 students per classroom. Music, chorus, and band are calculated at 40
per classroom and the gymnasium counts as 2 teaching stations of 25 each. Self‐contained Special Education
classrooms are calculated into the capacity at an 8:1 student to classroom ratio. A 15% reduction in the
calculated capacity is then applied to account for scheduling difficulties and class size variation.
Inadequacies of current methodology:
The number of regular classrooms available to be used as teaching stations is not consistently
counted across all schools. In some instances, classrooms are overlooked to meet functions not
explicitly stated in the policy. This is done particularly in schools which are lacking smaller resource
rooms or other flexible spaces not included in the regular classroom count.
The classroom multiplier has no relation to budgeted staffing levels, average class size or other
adopted figure. In other words, the multiplier does not directly relate to the reality of the average
number of students programmed for each classroom. The division practice of applying differentiated
staffing among schools has a direct impact on the programmed average class size, especially at
elementary schools.
The current capacity methodology does not account for the space needs of programs specific to an
individual school’s populations (i.e. ESOL).
5
HISTORY OF ACPS METHODOLOGIES
The methodology of calculating capacities of Albemarle County schools has been revised in the past. Below is
a consolidated summary of key changes made in the last 15 years.
1997/98: Capacity was calculated with a multiplier of 22 students per regular classroom.
2000/01: Classroom multipliers were revised to reflect Differentiated Staffing (based on the number of
students eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch), so the multiplier was not the same for all schools.
The new calculations reduced the division’s total capacity by 896 students.
2003/04: The high school capacity formula was revised to more accurately reflect the usable capacity.
The formula was based on total number of classrooms for regular instruction with the gym
counting as three stations. But a 15% reduction (previously only 10%) was applied to
account for scheduling difficulties and class size variation. This change resulted in a
reduction of high school capacity of 371 students.
2008/09: Capacity formula was changed as a result of the Resource Utilization Study. The formula is
what is currently utilized by the County and is explained in a previous section. The key
change was that the multiplier was revised to 20 for all schools. The revision increased the
division’s total capacity by 1279 seats or 8.76 %.
Various Years: Schools capacities were adjusted to reflect changes in SPED programs, Pre‐K programs,
additions etc.
Refer to Appendix A for a table of the changes in capacity numbers by school.
6
Methodologies of Other Localities
There are numerous methods used to calculate school capacity. Localities have developed their own
variation of a methodology that is adapted to how their district operates. It should be noted that the Virginia
Department of Education does not have requirements for calculating capacity. Rather is has published,
‘Guidelines for School Facilities in Virginia’s Public Schools’ which includes a section on calculating capacity.
The state’s guidelines are explained at the end of this section.
As a part of an issue paper on their school capacity, the Beaverton, Oregon School District created a
comparison table of common methods. The table (included in full as Appendix B) provides a good starting
point for comparing differing approaches to calculating capacity. Approaches range from calculating based
on square footage/student, the numbers of students per classroom, the teaching ratio per classroom, the size
of the core spaces, or even basing the capacity on available funding.
Here are some key points from capacity calculations and policies in other localities in Virginia:
Hanover County, Virginia (Regulation 4‐3.1 Definition of Overcrowding)
• Capacity is computed by using the current pupil to teacher ratio in the school system multiplied by
the number of classrooms.
• An “efficiency” percentage to account for specialized/low enrollment course offerings at the high
school level.
Prince William County, Virginia (Regulation 873‐1 Facilities Development)
• Uses a fraction of regular teaching stations to determine space for special use programs. (1/8 at ES
level, 1/10 at MS level & 1/40 at HS level)
• Uses a classroom ratio of 1:25 for elementary, 1:20 for middle schools, & 1:22 for high school ( no
utilization factor is applied, ratio already reduced to reflect this)
Spotsylvania County Public Schools
• Uses an ‘Adjusted High School Capacity’ based on building occupancy rather than enrollment (i.e. if a
student is out of the building for part of the day he/she is not counted as 100%).
Fairfax County, Virginia
• Clearly defines difference between design capacity vs. program capacity
• Classroom count is based on program uses & therefore excludes classrooms used for pull‐out
programs (i.e. gifted) or other non regular‐classroom uses.
• Primary Classrooms: 25 Students, Elementary Classrooms: 28 Students, High Schools: 28 students
• Multiplier is adjusted for Title 1 school populations
• Utilization factor is applied to high school capacities, but it varies between class types. For example a
core class required all 4 years has a 85% utilization factor, a PE required for 2 years has a 75%
utilization factor, and certain electives have only a 22.5% utilization factor
7
Virginia Department of Education (VDOE)
The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) does not have requirements for calculating capacity. The
VDOE’s ‘Guidelines for School Facilities in Virginia’s Public Schools’ provides capacity worksheets for each
level. The worksheets include a Standards of Quality (SOQ) Maximum Capacity as well as a Division
Operating Capacity. The latter allows the division to input how many students per teaching station.
At the elementary school level the state worksheet excludes art classrooms, music classrooms, resource
classrooms, gym‐multipurpose rooms, & science/computer rooms. The remaining spaces are calculated at
the multipliers listed below. Albemarle currently calculates capacity with this same methodology but with
smaller multipliers.
Permanent Spaces Per Teaching Station
Self‐Contained Exceptional Children Classrooms 8
Pre‐Kindergarten Classrooms 18
Kindergarten Classrooms 24
First‐Third Grade Classrooms 24
Fourth‐Fifth Grade Classrooms 25
At the middle school level the state worksheet excludes art classrooms, chorus/band/music classrooms,
resource classrooms, PE/gym/health/multipurpose rooms, exploratory career classrooms/ labs & computer
rooms. The remaining spaces are calculated at the multipliers listed below.
Permanent Spaces Per Teaching Station
Self‐Contained Exceptional Children Classrooms 8
Language Arts 24
Homeroom Classrooms (Social Studies, Math or Science) 25
At the high school level the state worksheet does not exclude any classroom space. The permanent classroom
spaces are calculated at the multipliers listed below. The total is then multiplied by a 90% utilization factor.
Albemarle County currently uses a similar methodology for middle & high schools. However, the county uses
different multipliers as well as a utilization factor of only 85%.
Permanent Spaces Per Teaching Station
Academic Classrooms 25
(Foreign Language, Social Studies, Math, Science)
English Classrooms 24
Arts Education Classrooms (Visual Arts, Drama) 24
Business/Office Education Classrooms 25
(Typing/Keyboard, Computer App., Business, etc.)
Music Classrooms (Band, Chorus, Music) 30
Health Classrooms 30
Main Gym (Counts as 2 Teaching Stations) 30
Auxiliary Gym (Counts as 1 Teaching Station) 25
Service/Marketing Classrooms/Labs: 20
(Consumer/Health Occup., Teen Living, Marketing)
Vocational Education Lab: 20
Self‐Contained Exceptional Student Classroom 8
8
Proposed Methodology
Elementary Schools:
Key Changes
Consistently count ALL classrooms that can hold 25 students regardless of current use. This removes
the ambiguity and inconsistency in which rooms are counted in current method.
Exclude specialty classrooms: art, music & computer lab (same as current formula) and possibly a
classroom for gifted resource, ESOL, Title 1 and/or SPED resource. Exclusions vary between schools
and are based on the school’s specific program(s) & population. This more accurately reflects a
‘program capacity’ that accurately captures how a school building is used.
Calculate remaining classrooms at a multiplier derived from budgeted staffing levels. The multiplier
takes differentiated staffing into account. This results in different multipliers for different schools
(similar to the method used from 2000‐2008).
Proposed Policy Revision:
Elementary school capacity is based on the number of classrooms available for regular classroom
instruction, excluding the gymnasium and up to seven specialty classrooms for areas such as art,
music, computers, gifted resource, ESOL, Title 1, and a SPED resource. The number of exclusions is
based on the school’s specific programs and population. A regular classroom is defined as any room
which can hold at least 25 students regardless of current use.
The regular size classrooms not excluded are multiplied by the following figures:
Self‐contained Special Education classes are calculated at 8 students per
classroom.
Preschool classrooms are calculated at 16 students per classroom.
K‐5 classrooms are calculated at a multiplier derived from budgeted staffing
levels and based on the formula outlined below. Once calculated, the
multipliers are then rounded to whole numbers. The multipliers will be
recalculated every 3 years or under special circumstance (i.e. redistricting).
Enrollment*
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(Enrollment*/Class Size**) + (Differentiated Staff FTE/2)***
* Enrollment Projection Used for Teacher Allocation in the Budget Book
**Class size is the weighted average of K‐3 & 4‐5 ratios at which staffing is
determined in the Budget Book. That average is 21.05 students per class in 2012‐
13.
*** Differentiated Staff is additional staff allocated to a school based on the number
of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. It is up to the discretion of the
principal how these additional staff members are used, but this calculation is based
on the assumption that half of them will be used as regular teachers.
An example of the multiplier calculation is as follows:
9
Agnor Hurt Elementary (utilizing FY2012/13 budget information)
In the budget document, the ‘Enrollment # Used for Teacher Allocation’ is 551.
The number of differentiated staff allocated to the school is 9.11.
The regular class size is indicated as 20.25 for grades K‐3 and 22.65 for grades 4‐
5. This equates to a weighted average class size of 21.05
Therefore, Agnor‐Hurt’s multiplier for regular classroom rounds to 18 based on the below
calculation.
Enrollment* 551
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ = ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ = 17.93
(Enrollment*/Class Size**) + (Differential Staff FTE/2) (551/21.05) + (9.11/2)
10
Middle & High Schools
Key Changes
Consistently count ALL classrooms that can hold 25 students regardless of current use. This removes
the ambiguity and inconsistency in which rooms are counted in current method.
Exclude specialty classrooms: computer lab(s), gifted resource, SPED resource, ESOL and/or teacher
planning. This more accurately reflects a ‘program capacity’ that accurately captures how a school
building is used.
Calculate remaining classrooms at a multiplier derived from budgeted staffing levels. This results in
different multipliers for different schools (similar to method used from 2000‐2008).
The utilization factor is increased from 85% to 87.5%. This represents that each room is used 7 out
of 8 periods per day.
Proposed Policy Revision:
Middle & high school capacity is based on the number of classrooms available for regular classroom
instruction, including the gymnasium and excluding specialty classrooms for areas such as computer
lab(s), gifted resource, SPED resource, ESOL or teacher planning. The number of exclusions is based
on the school’s specific programs & population.
The regular size classrooms not excluded are multiplied by the following figures:
Self‐contained Special Education classes are calculated at an 8 students per
classroom.
Career & Technical Education (CTE) classes are calculated at a 20 students per
classroom.
The gym is calculated at 50 students.
Academic classrooms are calculated at a multiplier derived from budgeted staffing
levels and based on the formula outlined below. Once calculated, the multipliers are
then rounded to whole numbers. The multipliers will be recalculated every 3 years
or under special circumstance (i.e. redistricting).
Enrollment*
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(Enrollment*/Class Size** + X) + (Differentiated Staff FTE/2) ***
* Enrollment Projection Used for Teacher Allocation in the Budget Book
**Class size is the ratio at which staffing is determined in the Budget Book.
X=1 at Burley, Jouett, & Walton to accommodate for an extra staff member.
*** Differentiated Staff is additional staff allocated to a school based on the number
of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. It is up to the discretion of the
principal how these additional staff members are used, but this calculation is based
on the assumption that half of them will be used as regular teachers.
A 12.5% reduction in the calculated capacity is then applied to account for complexity of scheduling and class
size variation. This represents that each room is used 7 out of 8 periods
11
Proposed Classroom Multipliers
SCHOOL
2012/13
Enrollment*#
Used for Teacher
Allocation
Differentied
FTE
Calculated
Multiplier
Adjusted
Classroom
Multiplier ELEMENTARY GREER 416 9.89 16.84 17
YANCEY 150 3.42 16.98
WOODBROOK 301 5.13 17.85
18
RED HILL 155 2.78 17.71
SCOTTSVILLE 191 3.17 17.92
AGNOR‐HURT 551 9.11 17.93
CALE 589 8.05 18.40
STONY POINT 273 2.76 19.03
19 STONE ROBINSON 398 3.47 19.28
CROZET 287 2.35 19.38
BAKER‐BUTLER 575 3.44 19.80
20
BROWNSVILLE 644 3.73 19.84
BROADUS WOOD 270 1.55 19.85
HOLLYMEAD 432 1.77 20.18
MERIWETHER LEWIS 462 1.36 20.42
MURRAY 261 0.71 20.46 MIDDLE JOUETT 563 4.93 20.43 20 WALTON 425 3.18 20.46
BURLEY 533 4.30 20.53 21
HENLEY 780 2.18 22.63 23 SUTHERLAND 600 1.89 22.54 HIGH ALBEMARLE 1662 7.65 22.92
23 MONTICELLO 1005 6.22 22.51
WESTERN ALBEMARLE 1017 2.88 23.40
Multiplier Formulas:
ELEM. Enrollment * * Enrollment used for Teacher Allocation in the Budget
(Enrollment*/21.05**) + (Differential Staff FTE/2) ** Weighted Average of K‐3 & 4‐5 Class Size in Budget
*** Class Size Ratio in Budget Book
MIDDLE Enrollment *
[(Enrollment*/23.37***) +X] + (Differential Staff FTE/2) X= 1 for Burley, Jouett, Walton to
accommodate for extra staff member
HIGH Enrollment *
(Enrollment*/24.2***) + (Differential Staff FTE/2)
12
Proposed Changes in Building Capacity by School
SCHOOL
CAPACITY
Current
(Building
Only)
Proposed
(Building
Only)
Difference Proposed
(+Trailers)ELEMENTARY AGNOR‐HURT 552 464 84% 500
BAKER‐BUTLER 652 632 97% 632
BROADUS WOOD 400 360 90% 360
BROWNSVILLE 716 756 106% 756
CALE 752 642 85% 642
CROZET 380 342 90% 342
GREER 626 559 89% 559
HOLLYMEAD 496 488 98% 568
MERIWETHER LEWIS 391 380 97% 440
MURRAY 316 316 100% 336
RED HILL 196 160 82% 232
SCOTTSVILLE 196 178 91% 214
STONE‐ROBINSON 620 515 83% 515
STONY POINT 288 225 78% 301
WOODBROOK 456 312 68% 366
YANCEY 176 135 77% 169
Subtotal 7213 6464 90% 6932 MIDDLE BURLEY 726 711 98% 711
HENLEY 950 928 98% 928
JOUETT 699 646 92% 646
SUTHERLAND 709 730 103% 730
WALTON 552 523 95% 523
Subtotal 3636 3538 97% 3538 HIGH ALBEMARLE 1774 1812 102% 1812
MONTICELLO 1274 1264 99% 1264
WESTERN ALBEMARLE 1084 1114 103% 1235
Subtotal 4132 4190 101% 4311
TOTAL 14981 14192 95% 14781
13
Analysis of Proposed Methodology
Change in Numbers
With this proposed methodology the overall capacity of the division decreases by 789 seats which is about a
5% decrease. It should be noted, though, that the elementary schools actually decrease by 10%, the middle
schools decrease by 3 % & the high school capacities actually increase by 1%. The decrease at the elementary
school can largely be attributed to excluding additional specialty classrooms as well as adjusting the
multiplier. Previously all schools were calculated at 20 students per classroom. In this proposed method, ten
elementary schools are calculated at less than 20 and six elementary schools are more than 20. The increase
at the high schools is largely attributed to an increase in the classroom multiplier. The new multiplier is a
better reflection of the budgeted staffing levels. The utilization factor was increased from 85% to 87.5%, but
the difference is negligible. The change was made more so to provide logic behind the percentage number
(87.5% is equal to using the room 7 out of 8 periods).
Classroom Multiplier
In simplest terms, the proposed classroom multiplier is the number of students divided by the number of
teachers. This determines how many children would normally been in a classroom. The formula doesn’t just
account for regular staffing, though. It takes it a step further and incorporates 50% of the differentiated
staffing. School principals have discretion on how to deploy differentiated staffing. This additional staffing is
calculated as a function of enrollment and the percentage of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch.
The primary intent is to provide more instructional staff to overcome the disadvantages inherent to many of
these students. If building space allows it, differential staffing adds teachers, resulting in smaller class s size.
The formulas for calculating adjusted classroom multipliers assume that 50% of differentiated staffing are
teachers with a separate classroom.
Specialty Classrooms
A key aspect of the proposed change is an increase in the number of classrooms that would be excluded. Art,
music and a computer lab are excluded at the elementary level in the current policy. This is still appropriate
and applicable. These are spaces that are used by the majority of the school population so the students are
already accounted for in their regular classroom. A classroom for the gifted program, ESOL, SPED resource,
and Title 1 were identified as common uses for full size classrooms as they are all pull‐out programs. The
exclusion for any of these 7 specialty classroom varies by school, though. For instance, schools that exclude
an ESOL classroom have multiple FTE (full time employees) teaching ESOL and thus need the space. Schools
that don’t have a large ESOL population don’t warrant the need to designate a large classroom for the
program. Another example is a Title 1 classroom. Larger Title 1 schools exclude a classroom to
accommodate the space needed for reading specialists and other related staff positions. This is not needed at
all schools. This flexibility in identifying specialty classrooms allows the capacity figure to more accurately
reflect the ‘program capacity’ of the school’s population.
The specialty classrooms do not have as much weight at the high school & middle school levels since the
overall classroom count is much higher. However, the exclusion of such spaces is still warranted and needs to
be identified. Computer, SPED Resource, Gifted, ESOL, & Teacher work areas are all potential exclusions in
14
the proposed policy. Teacher work areas are included to acknowledge that if a classroom was used 7 out of 8
periods a day (as the utilization factor is based on) teachers will need work & planning areas outside of their
classroom. Certain older buildings do not have such spaces and thus must be accommodated in regular
classrooms (i.e. Albemarle High School as compared to Monticello High School).
Special Education (SPED)
Special Education (SPED) is mentioned in the policy in two separate instances. Below are explanations of the
referenced SPED spaces:
SPED Resource Room: Students who need intensive help to keep up with grade‐level work in a
particular subject may be served in a Resource Room, where a special‐education teacher works with
a small group of students, using techniques that work more efficiently with a special‐needs
population. Resource Rooms have the benefit of providing help where needed while letting the
student remain generally with the mainstream, but they lack the structure and routine of a self‐
contained classroom. It is excluded as a full‐size classroom when other spaces in the building are not
available for such use. In most instances, the classroom accommodates multiple specialists at one
time.
SPED Self‐Contained Class: Placement in a self‐contained classroom means that a child with special
needs will be removed from the general school population for all academic subjects to work in a
small controlled setting with a special‐education teacher. Students in a self‐contained class may be
working at all different academic levels, with different textbooks and different curricula. Self‐
contained classes offer structure, routine, and appropriate expectations, but some students may
require a higher level of specialization.
Core Spaces
Neither the current policy nor the proposed one mention core spaces such as cafeterias & media centers.
These spaces obviously have a role in how many students a building can accommodate. They are
intentionally kept separate as the spaces can be modified independent of classroom space. It is common
practice to analyze these spaces before building onto a school. If required, expansion or renovation of core
spaces is included in the scope of work. On the flip side, if these spaces are the limiting factor of why a
building cannot adequately manage its full capacity, a focused capital project may be requested (i.e.
expanding a cafeteria) rather than building a full‐blown addition when it may not be needed. The state
publishes guidelines on how the capacity of these spaces can be calculated based on square footage of the
space. Appendix C is a table of the capacity of cafeterias & media centers by school as compared to its new
calculated capacity.
Trailers
The new policy does not include or mention trailers when calculating capacity. The building capacity number
assumes that the trailers are not available. So for instance, even if music or art is being held in a trailer
currently, a classroom in the building is excluded for that use. While trailers are not permanent structures,
they do provide additional seats when in use, and the reality is that trailers are used. In response, two
capacity numbers are displayed: one without trailers & one with trailers. The trailers are calculated at the
same multiplier as the regular academic classroom at the respective school.
15
Capacity Conflicts
Changing capacities cannot be done in an economic vacuum. While the approach was objective & not
influenced by economic factors, its impact on the budget needs to be acknowledged.
A. Based on enrollment projects for the next 5 years, the following capacity conflicts have been created or
exasperated:
# of Students Over Capacity
School Current
Method
Proposed
Method
Proposed
Method
w/Trailers
Year
Agnor‐Hurt 36 124 88 2012/13 School Year
96 184 148 5 Year Projection
Meriwether‐Lewis 72 83 17 2012/13 School Year
86 97 31 5 Year Projection
Red Hill (24) 12 (60) 2012/13 School Year
(9) 27 (45) 5 Year Projection
Scottsville 13 31 (5) 2012/13 School Year
21 39 3 5 Year Projection
Stony Point 3 66 (10) 2012/13 School Year
50 113 37 5 Year Projection
Woodbrook (136) 8 (46) 2012/13 School Year
(115) 29 (25) 5 Year Projection
Yancey (30) 11 (23) 2012/13 School Year
(9) 32 (2) 5 Year Projection
(Numbers in parentheses indicate extra seats or students under capacity)
B. Based on enrollment projects for the next 5 years, the following capacity conflicts have been delayed or
negated:
# of Students Over Capacity
School Current
Method
Proposed
Method
Proposed
Method
w/Trailers
Year
Albemarle HS (23) (61) (61) 2012/13 School Year
92 54 54 5 Year Projection
Western
Albemarle HS
(23) (53) (174) 2012/13 School Year
50 20 (101) 5 Year Projection
(Numbers in parentheses indicate extra seats or students under capacity)
Changes in Capacity by School YearAppendix A1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12AGNOR‐HURT 572 572 572495495 495 495 495 495 495 458552552 552 552BAKER‐BUTLER00000600600 600 600 600 660632652 652 652BROADUS WOOD 418 418 418375375 375 375 375 375 375 380 380 400 400 400BROWNSVILLE 330 330 330285285 285456456 456 456 456516 716716 716CALE 528 528 528432432 432 432 432 432 432648752752 752 752CROZET 396 396 396342 323323342342 342 342 342380380 380 380GREER 528 528 528432432 432 432 432 432 432 408486 452452 452HOLLYMEAD 594 594 594554554 554500500 500 500 488496496 496 496MERIWETHER 462 462 462430430 430 430 430 430 430 420391391 391 391MURRAY 308 308 308264264 264 264 264 264 264 268316316 316 316RED HILL 198 198 198164164 164 164 164 164 164 144196196 196 196SCOTTSVILLE 220 220 220187187 187 187 187 187 187 162196196 196 196STONE ROBINSON 616 616 616532532 532 532 532 532 532 532628620 620 620STONY POINT 308 308 308276276 276 276 276 276 276 266288288 288 288WOODBROOK 382 382 382332332 332410 390390 390360 456456 456 456YANCEY 176 176 176134134 134 134 134 134 134128 176176 176 176SUBTOTAL 6,036 6,036 6,036 5,234 5,215 5,815 6,029 6,009 6,009 6,009 6,120 6,841 7,039 7,039 7,039Change from Previous Year 0.00% 0.00%‐15.32%‐0.36% 10.32% 3.55%‐0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 1.81% 10.54% 2.81% 0.00% 0.00%BURLEY 434 434 434415415646646 646 646 646625 726726 726 726HENLEY 690 690 690675675 675 675 675 900 905884 958950 950 950JOUETT 514 514 514503503 503669669 669 669633 700699 699 699SUTHERLAND 712 712 712 712 712 712 712660660 660645 710 709709 709WALTON 566 566 566535535 535 535514514 514499 543 542542 542SUBTOTAL 2,916 2,916 2,916 2,840 2,840 3,071 3,237 3,164 3,389 3,394 3,286 3,637 3,626 3,626 3,626Change from Previous Year 0.00% 0.00%‐2.68% 0.00% 7.52% 5.13%‐2.31% 6.64% 0.15%‐3.29% 9.65%‐0.30% 0.00% 0.00%ALBEMARLE 1,791 1,791 1,791 1,791 1,791 1,7911,6351,635 1,635 1,6351,602 1,538 1,765 1,7741,774MONTICELLO 01,0461,0461,0281,028 1,028926 1,2261,235 1,2781,271 1,4301,159 1,2741,274WESTERN ALBEMARLE 1,148 1,148 1,148 1,148 1,148 1,1481,0351,035 1,035 1,0351,042 1,1541,057 1,084 1,084SUBTOTAL 2,939 3,985 3,985 3,967 3,967 3,967 3,596 3,896 3,905 3,948 3,915 4,122 3,981 4,132 4,132Change from Previous Year 26.25% 0.00%‐0.45% 0.00% 0.00%‐10.32% 7.70% 0.23% 1.09%‐0.84% 5.02%‐3.54% 3.65% 0.00%11,891 12,937 12,937 12,041 12,022 12,853 12,862 13,069 13,303 13,351 13,321 14,600 14,646 14,797 14,797Change from Previous Year 8.09% 0.00%‐7.44%‐0.16% 6.47% 0.07% 1.58% 1.76% 0.36%‐0.23% 8.76% 0.31% 1.02% 0.00%1. Bolded Figures indicate a change from previous year. Change could be attributed to change in forumla, change in program (i.e. SPED or Pre‐K program), or other reason2. Bolded & Underlined Figures indicates a renovation, addition or new school all together was built which affected capacity.TOTAL HIGHSCHOOLSBUILDING CAPACITY ELEMENTARYMIDDLEPage 1 of 1
Comparison Tables of Common Methods to Calculate Capacity Appendix B
Page 1 of 2
Method Description Pros Cons
Beaverton (Total SF – Special Use
CRs)/(SF per Student
Factor), plus # students
per portable
Current method
Objective
Easy to calculate
Deducts space used for
special programs
Partly accounts for core
limitations
Not well‐accepted by Principals
Does not subtract unusable square footage
(building layout efficiency issue)
Does not account for core facility limitations
(library, cafeteria, gym) as portables are added.
Not curriculum‐driven
Masks grade‐level granularity space impacts
Number of
Classrooms
Students Per Classroom
Factor
Objective
Could account for
differences between
elementary, MS, HS
Easy to calculate
Could account for (deduct)
special program rooms
Does not account for program/curriculum
issues
Requires common definition of what a
classroom is
Does not account for differences in classroom
size between older and newer facilities
Does not consider core building limitations
Core
Capacity
Determined by building
code or educational
specifications
Objective
Illuminates core building
limitations
Adding portables would not increase capacity
Most people not familiar with code or spec
requirements
More difficult to calculate
Restricts District flexibility to respond to
overcrowding
Number of
Teachers
Students per teacher
ratio
Objective
Easy to calculate
Does not account for special programs
Difficult to maintain consistency
Changes frequently & far faster than building
physical changes can be made undermining
method’s credibility
Difficult to keep capacity data current
Requires definition of ‘teacher’ (vs. aid, coach,
etc.)
Support
Facilities
# of restrooms, field &
playground space,
parking spaces, etc.
Illuminates support
facilities limitations
No connection to curriculum
Restricts District flexibility to respond to
overcrowding
Difficult to calculate
Funding Determined by
resources to fund school
operation
Unpredictable
Lots of available $$ could overcrowd schools
Confusing
Wyoming # Teaching Stations x #
Student Stations x
Defined Utilization
Percentage
Objective No connection to curriculum/ programs
Doesn’t account for special programs
Complicated
Does not consider core building limitations
Requires definition of ‘teaching station’ and
‘student station’
Chicago
Design
Capacity
# Students/classroom,
varies with classroom
size
Objective
Predictable
Easy to calculate
Differs by school level
Does not consider core building limitations
Does not account for program/curriculum
limitations
Requires common definition of what a
classroom is
Does not account for difference in classroom
size between older and newer facilities
Difficult to calculate
Comparison Tables of Common Methods to Calculate Capacity Appendix B
Page 2 of 2
Phoenix, AZ SF – Special Uses – 0.1
Corridor Factor/min
adequate SF per student
+ design SF per
student/2
Very confusing, difficult to calculate
Unclear how to determine minimum adequate
SF
Difficult to explain to laypersons
Different formula for HS and MS
Salem/
Keizer, OR
ES = (regular CRs grades
1‐5 x staffing ratio) + (#
KG session x staffing
ratio) + (12
students/SpEd CR)
MS and HS = (all regular
classrooms x staffing
ratio) + (12 students per
special needs, band and
choir room)
Fairly predictable,
assuming staffing ratios
remain constant
Compensates for special
program uses
Requires common definition of ‘regular
classroom’
Different formula for elementary, middle &
high
More complicated formula
Does not address portables
North
Clackamas,
OR
Practical capacity = # re
CRs x avg # students per
CR Maximum capacity
adds 2‐3 students more
per classroom than in
practical capacity
formula
Fairly predictable,
assuming staffing ratios
remain constant
Gives absolute upper limit
Requires common definition of ‘regular
classroom’, ‘average number of students per
classroom’
Does not address portables
Does not compensate for special program uses
Credit: Issue Paper #4: School Capacity Formula by the Beaverton School District
http://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/pdf/facil/facil_Issue%20Paper%204.pdf
Capacity of Core Spaces Appendix C
NOTE: Cafteria & Media Center Capacities calculated per VDOE Guidelines.
Inc. Trailers Cafeteria Size
(sf)
Capacity at
8 sf/student
Capacity at
14 sf/ student Sq Feet Capacity
AGNOR‐HURT 464 500 2745 858 490 2160 705
BAKER‐BUTLER 632 632 2880 900 514 3129 1190
BROADUS WOOD 360 360 2040 638 364 2400 825
BROWNSVILLE 756 756 3802 1188 679 1875 563
CALE 642 642 2798 874 500 2544 897
CROZET 342 342 2677 837 478 1600 425
GREER 559 559 3649 1140 652 2116 683
HOLLYMEAD 488 568 3096 968 553 1624 437
MERIWETHER 380 440 3135 980 560 2711 981
MURRAY 316 336 2294 717 410 2720 985
RED HILL 160 232 1890 591 338 952 101
SCOTTSVILLE 178 214 2322 726 415 2207 729
STONE ROBINSON 515 515 2857 893 510 1775 513
STONY POINT 225 301 1617 505 289 1383 317
WOODBROOK 312 366 2408 753 430 1890 570
YANCEY 135 169 1628 509 291 1060 155
Inc. Trailers Cafeteria Size
(sf)
Capacity at
9 sf/student
Capacity at
14 sf/ student Sq Feet Capacity
BURLEY 711 711 3380 1127 724 2922 641
HENLEY 928 928 3976 1325 852 2966 655
JOUETT 646 646 3976 1325 852 3335 778
SUTHERLAND 730 730 3294 1098 706 3493 831
WALTON 523 523 3920 1307 840 3576 859
Inc. Trailers Cafeteria Size
(sf)
Capacity at
9 sf/student
Capacity at
14 sf/ student Sq Feet Capacity
ALBEMARLE 1812 1812 6520*1778 1397 6093 1698
MONTICELLO 1264 1264 5593 1525 1199 4845 1282
WESTERN ALBEMARLE 1114 1235 6858 1870 1470 4356 1119
1 The formula for determining the size of an Elementary School Cafeteria is a size range of 8 to 14 square feet per student, with 2.5 seatings
per day. This Cafeteria capacity formula was provided by the Virginia Department of Education.
2 The formula for determining the size of an Elementary School Media Center is: 750 square feet, plus 2 square feet times the total school
enrollment. This Media Center capacity formula was provided by the Virginia Department of Education.
3 The formula for determining the size of a Middle School Cafeteria is a size range of 9 to 14 square feet per student, with 3 seatings
per day. This Cafeteria capacity formula was provided by the Virginia Department of Education.
4 The formula for determining the size of a Middle or High School Media Center is: 1000 square feet, plus 3 square feet times the total school
enrollment. This Media Center capacity formula was provided by the Virginia Department of Education.
5 The formula for determining the size of a High School Cafeteria is a size range of 11 to 14 square feet per student, with 3 seatings
per day. This Cafeteria capacity formula was provided by the Virginia Department of Education.
* Albemarle Cafeteria square footage does not include outdoor covered area.
Media Center Capacity2
Building
Only
ELEMENTARYSCHOOL
Proposed Capacity Cafeteria Capacity Range1
Media Center Capacity4
Building
OnlyMIDDLESCHOOL
Proposed Capacity Cafeteria Capacity Range3 Media Center Capacity4
Building
Only
HIGHSCHOOL
Proposed Capacity Cafeteria Capacity Range5
Page 1 of 1
March 2012DETAIL OF NEW CAPACITY CALCULATIONAPPENDIX DQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalPre‐K 2 x16= 32 2 x16= 32 0 x16= 0 1 x16= 16K‐5 24 x 18 = 432 30 x 20 = 600 18 x 20 = 360 37 x 20 = 740SPED (SCC) 0 x 8 = 0 0 x 8 = 0 0 x 8 = 0 0 x 8 = 0Art 1‐1‐1‐1‐Music 1‐1‐1‐1‐Computer 0‐1‐1‐0‐SPED Resource 1‐1‐1‐1‐Gifted 1‐1‐1‐1‐ESOL 1‐0‐0‐0‐Title 10‐0‐0‐0‐Total Full Size Classrooms 31 37 23 42BUILDING CAPACITY464 632 360 756Mobile Unit Capacity 2 18.00 36 0 20.00 0 0 20.00 0 0 20.00 0Total Capacity 500 632 360 756QtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalPre‐K 2 x 16 = 32 0 x 16 = 0 2 x 16 = 32 0 x 16 = 0K‐5 33 x 18 = 594 18 x 19 = 342 31 x 17 = 527 24 x 20 = 480SPED (SCC) 2 x 8 = 16 0 x 8 = 0 0 x 8 = 0 1 x 8 = 8Art 1‐1‐1‐1‐Music 1‐1‐1‐1‐Computer 1‐1‐1‐0‐ Notes:SPED Resource 1‐0‐1‐1‐ *Greer includes proposedGifted 1‐1‐1‐1‐ new additionESOL 1‐0‐1‐0‐Title 11‐0‐1‐0‐ SPED(SCC): Total Full Size Classrooms 44 22 40 29 Self‐Contained ClassroomBUILDING CAPACITY642 342 559 488Mobile Unit Capacity 0 18.00 0 0 19.00 0 0 17.00 0 4 20.00 80 Previous Capacities: Total Capacity 642 342 559 568 Current Building Capacity/ Capacity Including Mobile Units Previous: 752/752 Previous: 380/380 Previous: 626/626 Previous: 496/596CALE CROZET GREER* HOLLYMEADPrevious: 552/592 Previous: 652/652 Previous: 400/400 Previous: 716/716AGNOR‐HURT BAKER BUTLER BROADUS WOOD BROWNSVILLEPage 1 of 3
March 2012DETAIL OF NEW CAPACITY CALCULATIONAPPENDIX DQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalPre‐K 0 x16= 0 1 x16= 16 1 x16= 16 1 x16= 16K‐5 19 x 20 = 380 15 x 20 = 300 8 x 18 = 144 9 x 18 = 162SPED (SCC) 0 x 8 = 0 0 x 8 = 0 0 x 8 = 0 0 x 8 = 0Art 1‐1‐1‐1‐Music 1‐1‐1‐1‐Computer 1‐0‐1‐0‐SPED Resource 1‐1‐1‐0‐Gifted 1‐0‐0‐0‐ESOL 0‐0‐0‐0‐Title 10‐0‐0‐0‐Total Full Size Classrooms 24 19 13 12BUILDING CAPACITY380 316 160 178Mobile Unit Capacity 3 20 60 1 20 20 4 18 72 2 18 36Total Capacity 440 336 232 214QtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalPre‐K 2 x 16 = 32 1 x 16 = 16 1 x 16 = 16 1 x 16 = 16K‐5 25 x 19 = 475 11 x 19 = 209 16 x 18 = 288 7 x 17 = 119SPED (SCC) 1 x 8 = 8 0 x 8 = 0 1 x 8 = 8 0 x 8 = 0Art 1‐1‐1‐1‐Music 1‐1‐1‐1‐Computer 1‐1‐1‐0‐SPED Resource 1‐1‐1‐1‐Gifted 1‐1‐1‐0‐ESOL 0‐0‐1‐0‐ Notes:Title 10‐1‐1‐0‐ SPED(SCC): Total Full Size Classrooms 33 18 25 11 Self‐Contained ClassroomBUILDING CAPACITY515 225 312 135Mobile Unit Capacity 0 19 0 4 19 76 3 18 54 2 17 34 Previous Capacities: Total Capacity 515 301 366 169 Current Building Capacity/ Capacity Including Mobile Units Previous: 620/620 Previous: 288/368 Previous: 456/516 Previous: 176/216STONE ROBINSON STONY POINT WOODBROOK YANCEYPrevious: 391/451 Previous: 316/316 Previous: 196/276 Previous: 196/276MERIWETHER LEWIS MURRAY RED HILL SCOTTSVILLEPage 2 of 3
March 2012DETAIL OF NEW CAPACITY CALCULATIONAPPENDIX DQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalAcademic 35 x 21 = 735 41 x 23 = 943 32 x 20 = 640 32 x 23 = 736 24 x 20 = 480CTE 1 x 20 = 20 3 x 20 = 60 2 x 20 = 40 2 x 20 = 40 3 x 20 = 60SPED (SCC) 1 x 8 = 8 1 x 8 = 8 1 x 8 = 8 1 x 8 = 8 1 x 8 = 8Gym 1 x 50 = 50 1 x 50 = 50 1 x 50 = 50 1 x 50 = 50 1 x 50 = 50Computer 1‐2‐3‐1‐0‐SPED Resource 2‐3‐2‐2‐1‐Gifted 1‐1‐1‐1‐1‐ESOL1‐0‐3‐0‐0‐Teacher Work Area2‐3‐2‐1‐2‐Total Full Size Classrooms 45 813 55 1061 47 738 41 834 33 598Utilization Factor²0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875BUILDING CAPACITY711 928 646 730 523Mobile Unit Capacity 0 21 0 0 23 0 0 20 0 0 23 0 0 20 0Total Capacity 711 928 646 730 523QtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalQtyMultiplierTotalAcademic 80 x 23 = 1840 54 x 23 = 1242 46 x 23 = 1058CTE 7 x 20 = 140 6 x 20 = 120 7 x 20 = 140SPED (SCC) 2 x 8 = 16 1 x 8 = 8 0 x 8 = 0Gym 1 x 50 = 50 1 x 50 = 50 1 x 50 = 50Auxiliary Gym 1 x 25 = 25 1 x 25 = 25 1 x 25 = 25Computer 1‐1‐1‐SPED Resource 1‐1‐1‐Notes:Gifted 1‐1‐0‐²Utilization Factor: assumes classroom being ESOL 0‐0‐0‐used 7 out of 8 periods (87.5%)Teacher Work Area 5‐0‐3‐Total Full Size Classrooms 99 2071 66 1445 60 1273Utilization Factor²0.875 0.875 0.875 SPED(SCC): Self‐Contained ClassroomBUILDING CAPACITY1812 1264 1114Mobile Unit Capacity 0 23 0 0 23 0 6 20.13 120.75Previous Capacities: Total Capacity 1812 1264 1235Current Building Capacity/Capacity Including Mobile UnitsPrevious: 1774/1774 Previous: 1274/1274 Previous: 1084/1204ALBEMARLE MONTICELLO WESTERNPrevious: 726 Previous: 950 Previous: 699 Previous: 709 Previous: 552/592BURLEY HENLEY JOUETT SUTHERLAND WALTONPage 3 of 3
Capacity vs. EnrollmentAppendix ECurrent CapacityProposed Capacity2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22552(36) (62) (75) (87) (96) (90) (92) (94) (97) (100)464(124) (150) (163) (175) (184) (178) (180) (182) (185) (188)652 43 38 11 24 12 8 7 14 26 23632 23 18(9)4(8) (12) (13) (6)63400 127 127 126 117 117 106 104 98 96 97360 87 87 86 77 77 66 64 58 56 57716 52 30(8) (12) (9) (16) (23) (30) (37) (45)756 92 70 32 28 31 24 17 10 3(5)752 127 118 104 99 104 96 92 83 81 76642 17 8(6) (11) (6) (14) (18) (27) (29) (34)380 92 88 88 77 79 65 65 71 74 82342 54 50 50 39 41 27 27 33 36 44626 169 164 157 161 150 144 142 138 136 131559 102 97 90 94 83 77 75 71 69 6449658332629187696(3)488 44 18 11 15 3(1) (2)1(2) (11)391(72) (72) (86) (93) (86) (87) (90) (115) (130) (139)380(83) (83) (97) (104) (97) (98) (101) (126) (141) (150)316 37 40 35 29 29 24 23 23 27 26316 37 40 35 29 29 24 23 23 27 26196 24 29 14 15 9 10 11 12 16 16160(12) (7) (22) (21) (27) (26) (25) (24) (20) (20)196(13) (3) (12) (26) (21) (22) (22) (24) (28) (28)178(31) (21) (30) (44) (39) (40) (40) (42) (46) (46)620 187 197 184 165 173 153 150 154 163 170515 82 92 79 60 68 48 45 49 58 65288(3) (16) (26) (49) (50) (59) (60) (63) (63) (63)225(66) (79) (89) (112) (113) (122) (123) (126) (126) (126)456 136 133 130 127 115 114 113 107 106 101312(8) (11) (14) (17) (29) (30) (31) (37) (38) (43)176 30 24 20 20 9 9 8 11 16 15135(11) (17) (21) (21) (32) (32) (33) (30) (25) (26)7213 958 868 688 596553 462 434 394 392 3596464 203 112‐68‐159‐203‐287‐315‐355‐357‐390* ‐ Includes 16 pre‐k students ** ‐Includes 32 pre‐k students¹ Enrollment Projections take into account approved Redistricting Option A SCHOOLSubtotalYANCEY*WOODBROOK*STONE ROBINSON** SCOTTSVILLE*RED HILL*MURRAY*MERIWETHERBAKER‐BUTLER** ¹AGNOR‐HURT**# of TrailersHOLLYMEAD¹ GREER**CROZETCALE **STONY POINT *Capacity Conflicts with Projected EnrollmentsBROWNSVILLE*BROADUS WOODELEMENTARY200000043142043225Page 1 of2
Capacity vs. EnrollmentAppendix ECurrent CapacityProposed Capacity2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22726 179 172 166 180 136 124 132 185 203 194711 164 157 151 165 121 109 117 170 188 179950 152 116 115 84 44 27 10 13(53) (87)928 130 94 93 62 22 5(12) (9) (75) (109)699 122 120 142 109 121 129 152 135 125 99646 69 67 89 56 68 76 99 82 72 46709 99 107 111 78 78 67 77 28(32) (70)730 120 128 132 99 99 88 98 49(11) (49)552 149 145 150 173 192 185 178 186 170 165523 120 116 121 144 163 156 149 157 141 1363636701 660 684 624 571 532 549 547413 3013538 603 562 586526473 434 451 449 315 2031774 23(6) (83) (59) (92) (114) (137) (153) (204) (199)1812 61 32(45) (21) (54) (76) (99) (115) (166) (161)1274 199 169 170 109 87 109 114 122 171 1671264 189 159 160 99 77 99 104 112 161 1571084 23 36 4(31) (50) (78) (109) (171) (171) (201)1114 53 66 34(1) (20) (48) (79) (141) (141) (171)4132 245 199 91 19‐55‐83‐132‐202‐204‐2334190303 257149 773‐25‐74‐144‐146‐17514981 1904 1727 1463 1239 1069 911 851 739 601 42714192 1109 931 667 444 273 122 62‐50‐188‐362MIDDLEHIGHTOTALBURLEYSubtotalWESTERN ALBEMARLEMONTICELLOALBEMARLESubtotalWALTONSUTHERLANDJOUETTHENLEY# of TrailersSCHOOLCapacity Conflicts with Projected Enrollments000003100066Page 2 of2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
School Division Fund Balance and CIP Transfer Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion of School Division Fund Balance and
CIP Transfer Policy
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse
PRESENTER (S): School Board
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 8, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Code of Virginia provides that “…unexpended School Division funds derived from the locality revert to the local
appropriating body” and that “funds which have been reverted to the locality are not available for expenditure by the School
Board unless and until they have been re-appropriated by the appropriating body.”
The County’s practice over the years has been to allow the School Division to maintain an unrestricted fund balance above
and beyond the General Fund fund balance. A history of the fund balance is included in Attachment A. Any funds
designated from the School Division’s Fund Balance for the School Division’s use are approved and appropriated by the
Board of Supervisors as part of the budget process each year. However, additional fund balance beyond that requested for
use during the budget process also remains each year and is available if the School system should request an additional
appropriation. These remaining funds have typically not been requested for use by the School Division and therefore
remain “idle” throughout the year.
This unrestricted fund balance is separate from other School Division-related fund balances, such as those fund balances
associated with grants, nutrition programs, fuel reserves, and the textbook replacement fund. Currently, the School
Division utilizes funding available in the unrestricted County School Fund fund balance as additional revenue for the
following purposes: 1) to close funding gaps in their operational budget, 2) for one-time expenditures, and 3) to provide
funding for emergencies.
The Albemarle County’s Resource Management Review conducted by the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute of
Virginia Commonwealth University in February 2009 acknowledged this practice and recommended that the County and
the School Board establish an appropriate unrestricted fund balance policy.
During the Board of Supervisor’s March 2012 budget work sessions, the two Boards discussed the need for a policy. On
May 7, 2012, the School Board discussed the creation of a policy (See Attachment B for the School Division’s Fund
Balance Policy-related presentation slides provided to the School Board). On July 12, 2012, the School Board approved a
Fund Balance and CIP Transfer Policy (See Attachment C).
Attachment D includes a summary of the results of a survey conducted by the School Division regarding approaches of
other jurisdictions for the management of School Division fund balances.
On November 8, the School Board will discuss with the Board of Supervisors the School Division Fund Balance and CIP
Transfer Policy.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds and
Goal 1: Provide excellent education to all Albemarle County residents.
DISCUSSION:
Over the last several months, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the two Boards and local government and school division
staff have met on a number of occasions to discuss the School Board’s fund balance policy, possible revisions, and a
local government alternative; however, they have been unable to agree on a recommended approach. (See
AGENDA TITLE: School Division Fund Balance and CIP Transfer Policy
November 8, 2012
Page 2
Attachment E for a comparison of the School Board’s adopted policy and the Local Government’s recommended
alternative approach).
While the School Board’s approach for a fund balance policy is a positive step forward, there is a concern that the
approved policy is overly complicated and difficult to implement, and ultimately results in very little money going to the
CIP to support School and Local Government capital needs. County staff believes the local government alternative
approach is more in line with the Board of Supervisors original intent and would establish a reasonable fund balance
maximum of 2%, simplify the calculation and provide additional funding to the CIP in a more timely manner.
Regarding the proposed 2% fund balance maximum, Attachment A provides the School Division’s planned and actual
use of fund balance over the past seven fiscal years.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Based on the FY2011-12 unaudited year-end school fund balance of $8,221,783, the local government proposed
alternative policy with a 2% maximum would result in $3,024,998 being retained by the School Division for their use
and $2,406,014 being transferred to the CIP to meet School and Local Government capital needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the local government alternative policy approach included in Attachment E
and establish a clear percentage maximum for the School fund balance. Based on Board action, staff will provide a
final policy for Board of Supervisors approval in December.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. School Division Unrestricted Fund Balance History
B. School Division’s May 7 2012 Fund Balance presentation slides
C. School Board’s July 2012 Adopted Fund Balance Policy
D. Survey Results
E. Comparison of School Board Adopted Policy and Local Government Recommended Alternative
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
School Division Unrestricted Fund Balance History
Return to exec summary
Fiscal Year Adopted Budget
Beginning
Fund Balance
Appropriated Use
of Fund Balance
Actual Use of
Fund Balance
Year End
Fund Balance
Yr End
Fund Bal as
% of
Adopted
FY 04-05 $4,388,192
FY 05-06 126,285,000 $4,388,192 $2,298,206 $160,807 $4,227,385 3.3%
FY 06-07 141,563,000 $4,227,385 $2,554,176 ($1,351,542)$5,578,927 3.9%
FY 07-08 148,000,000 $5,578,927 $720,000 ($994,997)$6,573,924 4.4%
FY 08-09 151,300,000 $6,573,924 $871,546 $135,145 $6,438,779 4.3%
FY 09-10 148,980,000 $6,438,779 $1,800,000 ($1,739,588)$8,178,367 5.5%
FY 10-11 142,860,000 $8,178,367 $1,800,000 $623,962 $7,554,405 5.3%
FY 11-12 144,490,000 $7,554,405 $2,827,034 ($667,378)$8,221,783 5.7%
FY 12-13 151,250,000 $8,221,783 $2,790,771
School Board
Special Work Session
May 7, 2012
1
Fund Balance Contribution to CIP
ACPS School Board Meeting
May 7, 2012
2
Assumptions
•Unrestricted fund balance is currently
designated for:
–One-time expenditures
–Emergencies
–Additional revenue to close funding gap in
operational budget
3
Contributions to CIP
•Contributions to CIP would be planned in the
annual Superintendent and School Board funding
request
•Fund balance contribution to CIP would not be
designated to support specific projects or
equipment (i.e. school buses)
•School Board could designate an available fund
balance target as a percentage of the operating
budget (2%) and a “ceiling” (4%)
•2% target is not intended to be an absolute
4
Formula for Contribution to CIP
•“Available” fund balance =
Total fund balance
Minus “Encumbered” fund balance (sum of current year and budget year use of fund balance)
•Should fund balance grow, CIP contributions would be:
–40% of the annual growth in available fund balance above the target
–100% of the annual growth in available fund balance above the 4% ceiling
•There would be no contribution if available fund balance declines
5
Fund Balance History
Fiscal Year
Total Fund
Balance
Current Year
Use
Next Budget
Year Use
Available
Fund Balance
Avail FB as
% of Budget
04/05* $4,388,192 $2,298,206 $2,554,176 ($464,190) (0.37%)
05/06 $4,227,385 $2,554,176 $720,000 $953,209 0.67%
06/07 $5,578,927 $720,000 $871,546 $3,987,381 2.70%
07/08 $6,573,924 $871,546 $1,800,000 $3,902,378 2.58%
08/09 $6,438,779 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $2,838,779 1.90%
09/10 $8,178,367 $1,800,000 $2,827,034 $3,551,333 2.49%
10/11 $7,554,405 $2,827,034 $1,800,000 $2,927,371 2.03%
6
*This fiscal year depended upon current year savings to fund the succeeding Fiscal Year
Examples of Potential
Contributions to CIP
Fiscal Year
Available Fund
Balance
Available FB as
% of Budget
Fund Balance
Increases?
CIP
Contribution
04/05* ($464,190) (0.37%) NO
05/06 $953,209 0.67% YES
06/07 $3,987,381 2.70% YES $1,213,669
07/08 $3,902,378 2.58% NO
08/09 $2,838,779 1.90% NO
09/10 $3,551,333 2.49% YES $285,022
10/11 $2,927,371 2.03% NO
7
*This fiscal year depended upon current year savings to fund the succeeding Fiscal Year
Fund Balance/CIP Contribution
Staff recommends consensus to
develop a Fund Balance/CIP
Contribution policy based upon the
discussion of this proposal
8
ATTACHMENT C
FUND BALANCE AND CIP TRANSFER
In the spirit of equal access to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding, as part of
its annual budget adoption process, the School Board will allocate a portion of ending
available increase in fund balance to meet overall CIP needs under specified conditions.
As part of this policy, certain financial terms are used which are defined as follows:
Fund Balance – This refers to a basic assets vs. liabilities calculation.
Unrestricted Fund Balance – This refers to funds that are available for use for any
purpose within the organization. It is possible that funds may be specifically directed or
unavailable for use due to state, federal, donor, or timing requirements. Fund balances
may be designated, unrestricted, or restricted. This policy refers solely to funds meeting
the unrestricted criteria.
Regular School Fund – This refers to those funds associated with the general
operation of the school division. Most grants and fee based programs are operated
within our self-sustaining funds which are separate. Many of the self-sustaining funds
are considered restricted due to their specific state, federal, and/or donor requirements.
Available Fund Balance – This refers to a calculation of unrestricted fund balance less
current FY use of fund balance and less planned next FY use of fund balance equals
available fund balance.
The allocation formula is based upon the increase in unrestricted regular School Fund
fund balance identified in the prior Fiscal Year (FY) Consolidated Annual Financial
Report (CAFR), with any post audit adjustments, and is adjusted to reflect budgeted use
in the current and succeeding FYs. A distribution of fund balance to CIP will require two
criteria to be met:
1. Unrestricted School Fund fund balance must increase from the prior FY.
2. Unrestricted School Fund fund balance less b udgeted current and next FY use
of fund balance must exceed 2% of the planned (next) FY School Fund total
appropriation.
The formula to determine the amount of fund balance to be con sidered for distribution to
CIP follows:
1. Did unrestricted School Fund fund balance grow between the prior two FY
CAFRs? If fund balance grew, then move to the next step. If it did not grow, then
no contribution is considered.
ATTACHMENT C
2. Unrestricted fund balance less current FY use of fund balance and less
planned next FY use of fund balance equals available fund balance.
3. Divide the available fund balance by the planned next fiscal year requested
appropriation, which yields a percentage of funds available.
4. If the percentage of funds available is greater than 4%, then 100% of the
increase in fund balance over 4% would be distributed to CIP.
5. If the percentage of funds available for use is greater than 2%, then 40% of the
increase in fund balance exceeding the 2% threshold would be distributed.
A report and recommendation for the use of fund balance for CIP will be brought
forward to the School Board either during or following adoption of the annual budget.
Adopted: July 12, 2012
Return to exec summary
Survey
Spend to $0, County/City retains any balance (16 localities) –
Carroll, Chesapeake City, Fluvanna, Grayson, Greensville/Emporia,
Hampton City, Henry, Isle of Wight, Lancaster, Madison, Martinsville
City, Mathews, Newport News City, Pittsylvania, Prince Edward,
Surry
Fund Balance is returned to locality, but re-appropriated for school
CIP projects or other designated uses (16 localities) – Alleghany,
Augusta, Botetourt, Dinwiddie, Franklin, Frederick, Greene,
Lynchburg City, Montgomery, Nelson, Northampton, Orange,
Poquoson City, Pulaski, Roanoke, Sussex
School Division retains fund balance, some may be shared with
locality based on formula (6 localities) – Arlington City, Fairfax,
Loudoun, Manassas City, Manassas Park City, Prince William
School Division’s Unrestricted Fund Balance
Options
School Board Adopted Alternative
Targeted Fund Balance Range: Minimum 2%, Maximum 4% of annual operating budget
2% maximum of annual operating budget
Use of Fund Balance •One-time expenditures
•Sudden unforeseen costs (i.e. VRS)
•As additional revenue when local and state revenue do not meet
projections necessary for appropriations
•Close funding gaps in operating budgets
•One-time and emergencies
•Per County Finance Policy – no use of one-time funding to meet on-
going expenses
Timing JAN: Calculation developed during budget adoption process and
would be planned as part of Superintendent and School Board
Funding Request for upcoming year.
School Board uses projections of fund balance to make budget
decisions and stay at or above the fund balance floor of 2%
Following JUNE: Transfer would not be based on the planned
amount, but on the appropriated amount, and would not be made
until June
Note: School Division staff notes that the timing component needs
more clarity.
FALL: Calculation developed prior to the Superintendent’s budget
development process so that 2% remains available for one time and
emergency uses by School Division in that upcoming year.
Any available funding for CIP would be utilized in the CIP in the
following year.
Formula Two Steps:
1)Did Fund Balance increase from previous year? If “No”, then no
funding would be considered for CIP.
2)If “yes” - Prev. Yr. CAFR # minus amt. appropriated in current
budget and the amt. appropriated by Board of Supervisors for
upcoming year.
One Step:
1) Prev. Yr. CAFR # minus the amt. appropriated in School Division’s
current year’s budget. (To be used for one-time and emergency use only)
Calculation of CIP
Contribution
40 % of Fund Balance growth between 2% and 4%; 100% of excess
over 4%
100% of excess over 2%
Conditions required for CIP
Contribution
Growth in Fund Balance during preceding year
None
Use of Fund Balance
Growth over 2% floor
Between 2-4% - 40% goes to capital. The 60% remains in this
undesignated fund balance.
Any excess over 4% goes to capital
All funds above 2% go to capital
Note: The County recently increased the County’s Overall Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve from 8% to 10% to address School and Local Gov cash flow/emergency needs