HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-13Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
DECEMBER 13, 2012
3:30 P.M. - ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Joint Meeting with School Board
3. School Division Fund Balance Policy.
4. Capital Improvements Program:
a. Oversight Committee Recommendations.
b. School Bus Replacement Funding.
c. School Building Capacity Methodology.
5. Updates:
a. Payroll Administrative Changes.
b. Yancey Elementary School/Community Center Concept.
6. Closed Meeting.
7. Certify Closed Meeting.
8. Adjourn.
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1213/0.0_Agenda.htm [10/2/2020 1:39:26 PM]
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
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
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
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
Members of the Albemarle County School Board
FROM: Lori Allshouse, Director of Budget and Performance Management
Trevor Henry, Director of Facilities Development
DATE: December 13, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting of the Board of Supervisors and School Board Meeting
on the FY 13/14 CIP Amendment Year Recommendation
This memo is to provide information regarding this year’s Capital Improvements Program review process in
advance of your joint discussion on Thursday, December 13, 2012.
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) and the Oversight Committee (OC) conducted several meetings to
prepare a proposed CIP at the current tax rate for the County Executive’s consideration. As you may recall, this
is the second year of a two-year cycle, meaning the only changes to the CIP will be made for emergency needs
or projects meeting clearly identified critical needs that cannot wait until the next full planning cycle. An
anomaly to the amendment year cycle was to allow the School Division to submit new requests. This was to
accommodate the School Division request from last year asking for an extra year to further study their needs,
which included redistricting considerations which affected several of their requests . The School Division’s new
project submissions were reviewed as submitted.
The Committees were challenged again this year to develop a balanced plan that addresses the County’s most
critical needs within limited resources. In advancing the proposed plan, the OC acknowledges that the County
continues to have unfunded capital and infrastructure needs; however, the plan does achieve the following:
Provides adequate funds to properly maintain our existing facilities;
Provides necessary funding to support technology systems and special equipment replacements over
the next five years;
Does not include the School bus replacement due to pending direction; and
Exceeds targeted reserve balances at the end of the 5-year CIP period in preparation for a full
assessment of Capital needs during next year’s full Capital Improvement Program review cycle.
Attached for your review are the following documents:
a) FY14-18 Project Summary of all Requests received
b) FY14 TRC Ranking Summary with Ranking Criteria
c) FY14-18 OC’s Recommendation - Project Summary at Current Tax Rate
d) FY14-18 CIP Financial Summary at Current Tax Rate
Staff will review this information in detail at our meeting on Thursday, including a discussion of revenue
assumptions, unfunded projects, and other possible adjustments.
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY FY 14 CIP Amendment
Projects by Functional Area FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 Five-Year Total
01 Administration
A. Voting Machine Replacement Mandate -$ -$ -$ -$ 295,047$ 295,047$
Subtotal, Administration -$ -$ -$ -$ 295,047$ 295,047$
02 Courts & Judicial
A. Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 198,511$ 381,076$ 82,756$ 105,003$ 143,911$ 911,257$
B. J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 28,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,000$
C. J & DR Court Phone System Replacement Maint/Repl 20,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,400$
D. Old Jail Facilities Maintenance Maint/Repl 18,540$ 19,189$ 19,189$ 19,860$ 19,860$ 96,638$
E. Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 20,000$ 22,000$ 22,000$ 27,000$ 30,000$ 121,000$
Subtotal, Courts & Judicial 285,451$ 422,265$ 123,945$ 151,863$ 193,771$ 1,177,295$
03 Public Safety
A. County 800Mhz Radio Replacements Maint/Repl 609,768$ 625,525$ 601,527$ 607,628$ 634,391$ 3,078,839$
B. ECC Regional 800Mhz Communication System Maint/Repl -$ -$ -$ -$ 16,408,000$ 16,408,000$
C. Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Program Maint/Repl 3,574,000$ 2,037,671$ 2,182,767$ 1,432,735$ 2,512,240$ 11,739,413$
D. Fire Rescue Airpacks Maint/Repl -$ -$ 2,689,351$ -$ -$ 2,689,351$
E. Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl -$ -$ 68,900$ -$ -$ 68,900$
F. Firearms Range Project 481,318$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 481,318$
G. Police Mobile Data Computers Maint/Repl 144,450$ 99,421$ 557,057$ 341,715$ -$ 1,142,642$
H. Police Patrol Video Cameras Maint/Repl 130,620$ 140,945$ 122,891$ 137,634$ 149,122$ 681,213$
Subtotal, Public Safety 4,940,156$ 2,903,562$ 6,222,493$ 2,519,713$ 19,703,753$ 36,289,676$
04 Public Works
A. City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 40,270$ 14,578$ 37,502$ -$ -$ 92,351$
B. County E911 Road Sign Upgrade Mandate -$ -$ 554,165$ -$ -$ 554,165$
C. County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 656,029$ 970,197$ 624,662$ 699,048$ 651,346$ 3,601,282$
D. Ivy Landfill Remediation Obligation 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 2,615,000$
E. Moores Creek Septage Receiving Obligation 109,441$ 109,441$ 109,441$ 109,441$ 109,441$ 547,205$
F. Old Crozet School Maintenance Maint/Repl 73,469$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 73,469$
G. Storage Facility Lease-General Government Obligation 63,000$ 65,000$ 68,000$ 71,000$ 73,000$ 340,000$
Subtotal, Public Works 1,465,209$ 1,682,216$ 1,916,770$ 1,402,489$ 1,356,787$ 7,823,472$
05 Commnity/Neighborhood Development
A. Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing Project 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 20,900,000$
Subtotal, Commnity/Neighborhood Development 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,180,000$ 20,900,000$
06 Human Development
A. DSS Document Management System Maint/Repl 80,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ 85,000$
B. Health Department Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 14,148$ -$ 95,482$ 10,327$ -$ 119,956$
C. PVCC Student Center Facility Project 72,000$ 72,000$ 72,000$ 72,000$ -$ 288,000$
Subtotal, Human Development 166,148$ 77,000$ 167,482$ 82,327$ -$ 492,956$
07 Parks, Recreation, & Culture
A. Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting Maint/Repl -$ -$ 491,525$ -$ -$ 491,525$
B. Parks Facilities Improvement Project -$ 50,738$ -$ -$ -$ 50,738$
C. Parks Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 459,730$ 425,245$ 319,945$ 373,955$ 313,075$ 1,891,950$
Subtotal, Parks, Recreation, & Culture 459,730$ 475,983$ 811,470$ 373,955$ 313,075$ 2,434,213$
08 Libraries
A. City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance Maint/Repl 242,427$ 233,103$ 78,382$ 76,935$ -$ 630,847$
Subtotal, Libraries 242,427$ 233,103$ 78,382$ 76,935$ -$ 630,847$
09 Technology & GIS
A. County Server Infrastructure Upgrade Maint/Repl 421,200$ 433,836$ 446,472$ 459,108$ 471,744$ 2,232,360$
B. PBX Replacement Maint/Repl -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Subtotal, Technology & GIS 421,200$ 933,836$ 446,472$ 459,108$ 471,744$ 2,732,360$
10 ACE
A. ACE Program Project 360,000$ 1,569,156$ 1,589,130$ 1,617,670$ 1,700,000$ 6,835,956$
Subtotal, ACE 360,000$ 1,569,156$ 1,589,130$ 1,617,670$ 1,700,000$ 6,835,956$
Project Management Services (Continuing projects)Project 239,821$ 264,183$ 219,990$ 308,950$ 330,405$ 1,363,350$
Subtotal, General Government 12,760,141$ 12,741,305$ 15,756,133$ 11,173,010$ 28,544,583$ 80,975,172$
11 Stormwater
A. Stormwater TMDL Maintenance Study Maint/Repl 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 125,000$
Project Management Services (Continuing projects)Project 42,451$ 44,059$ 45,403$ 47,133$ 48,587$ 227,633$
Subtotal, Stormwater 167,451$ 44,059$ 45,403$ 47,133$ 48,587$ 352,633$
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY FY 14 CIP Amendment
Projects by Functional Area FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 Five-Year Total
12 School Division
A. Administrative Technology Maint/Repl 183,000$ 261,000$ 261,000$ 261,000$ 261,000$ 1,227,000$
B. Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovation Project 382,961$ 4,157,258$ 3,562$ -$ -$ 4,543,781$
C. Contemporary Learning Spaces Project 275,560$ 276,326$ 277,093$ -$ -$ 828,979$
D. Crozet Elementary School Addition/Renovation Project -$ 460,862$ 5,315,002$ 3,715$ -$ 5,779,579$
E. Henley Middle School Phase 1-Addition Project -$ 166,515$ 2,179,487$ 1,857$ -$ 2,347,859$
F. Henley Middle School Phase 2-Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ 66,431$ 974,329$ 1,715,123$ 2,755,883$
G. Instructional Technology Maint/Repl 575,000$ 575,000$ 575,000$ 650,000$ 650,000$ 3,025,000$
H. Land Purchase - High School Site Project -$ -$ -$ -$ 43,181$ 43,181$
J. Murray High School Phases 1-2 Addition/Renovation Project 566,830$ 1,755$ -$ -$ -$ 568,585$
K. Red Hill Elementary School Modernization Project -$ -$ 480,163$ 5,239,896$ 3,817$ 5,723,876$
L. School Bus Replacement Maint/Repl 1,541,244$ 1,593,364$ 1,703,075$ 1,816,435$ 1,749,722$ 8,403,840$
M. School Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 5,659,634$ 5,411,060$ 4,837,679$ 5,374,964$ 5,907,919$ 27,191,256$
N. Scottsville Elementary School Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
O. State Technology Grant Maint/Repl 786,000$ 786,000$ 786,000$ 786,000$ 786,000$ 3,930,000$
P. Stony Point Elementary School Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ -$ -$ 173,800$ 173,800$
Q. Storage Facility Lease-School Division Obligation 150,000$ 154,500$ 159,000$ 163,500$ 168,000$ 795,000$
R. Support Services and School Technology Facilities Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
S. Telecommunications Network Upgrade Project 900,000$ -$ -$ -$ 900,000$ 1,800,000$
T. Western Albemarle High School Phases 1-3 Addition/Renovation Project -$ 25,820$ 252,831$ 178,634$ 1,775,555$ 2,232,840$
V. Yancey Elementary School Addition Project -$ -$ -$ -$ 269,273$ 269,273$
W. Yancey Elementary School Modernization Project -$ 210,796$ 2,416,282$ 3,715$ -$ 2,630,793$
Project Management Services (Continuing projects)Project 118,548$ 48,484$ -$ 49,832$ 91,943$ 308,808$
Subtotal, School Division 11,138,777$ 14,128,741$ 19,312,605$ 15,503,877$ 14,495,334$ 74,579,333$
Total Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)24,066,370$ 26,914,105$ 35,114,141$ 26,724,020$ 43,088,503$ 155,907,138$
ATTACHMENT B: FY14 TRC Ranking Summary
Maintenance/Replacement/Obligations (Priority Funded) SCORE FY14 Request v. Adopted FY 13 Revenue
School Maintenance/Replacement 331 Increase L/C/P
County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 298 Increase C
Ivy Landfill Remediation 296 No Change C
Stormwater TMDL Maintenance Study 294 No Change C
Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Program 290 Increase (Combo)L/C
County 800Mhz Radio Replacements 290 No Change L
City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance 289 Increase C
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement 276 Increase C
J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement 274 No Change C
School Bus Replacement 272 Resubmitted L/C
ECC Regional 800Mhz Communication System 271 No Change L/O
State Technology Grant 269 No Change G
Health Department Maintenance/Replacement 268 No Change C
Moores Creek Septage Receiving 262 No Change C
Parks Maintenance/Replacement 258 Increase C/T/P
Fire Rescue Airpacks 249 No Change L
County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 246 No Change L
County E911 Road Sign Upgrade 241 No Change L
City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement 239 Increase C
Administrative Technology 234 No Change C
PBX Replacement 231 No Change L
Old Crozet School Maintenance 230 New C
Instructional Technology 229 No Change C
Storage Facility Lease-School Division 219 Increase C
Storage Facility Lease-General Government 219 Increase C
Voting Machine Replacement 214 No Change L
Police Patrol Video Cameras 211 Decrease L/C
Police Mobile Data Computers 209 Decrease L/C
DSS Document Management System 204 Resubmitted C
Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Replacement 199 No Change L
J & DR Court Phone System Replacement 190 New C
Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting 186 Increase L/P
Old Jail Facilities Maintenance 184 No Change C
Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement 180 No Change C
Project Requests SCORE FY14 Request v. Adopted FY 13 Revenue
Firearms Range 290 Increase L
Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovation 279 New L
Telecommunications Network Upgrade 274 No Change (Combo)L/C
Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing 269 Resubmitted C/M/P
Henley Middle School Phase 1-Addition 264 New L
Murray High School Phases 1-2 Addition/Renovation 262 New L
Crozet Elementary School Addition/Renovation 259 New L/P
Contemporary Learning Spaces 245 New L
Stony Point Elementary School Addition/Renovation 244 New L
Scottsville Elementary School Addition/Renovation 236 New L (OY)
Henley Middle School Phase 2-Addition/Renovation 231 New L
Yancey Elementary School Modernization 228 New L
Red Hill Elementary School Modernization 226 New L
Western Albemarle High School Phases 1-3 Addition/Renovation 225 New L/P
Yancey Elementary School Addition 225 New L
ACE Program 225 Resubmitted C/G
PVCC Student Center Facility 208 Resubmitted C
Land Purchase - High School Site 201 New L
Support Services and School Technology Facilities 199 New L (CNA)
Parks Facilities Improvement New T or P or C
ATTACHMENT B: FY14 TRC Ranking Summary
FY 13 CIP Comparison Descriptions
Revenue Descriptions
C = Cash
G = Grant
L = Loan Proceeds
P = Proffer
T = Tourism
M = Match
O = Other
New: the request is new; it was not in the CNA or deferred to the CNA during the FY 13 Capital Program
No Change: the request is a continuation of the adopted FY 13 Capital Program and the scope and associated costs are the same;
by comparison, the total project cost may have increased or decreased due to the FY 13 PM Fee update, inflation, or both.
Increase or Decrease: the request is a continuation of the adopted FY 13 Capital Program; it has increased or decreased in either
scope and/or cost
(Combo): the request is a combination of two projects adopted in the FY 13 Capital Program
Resubmitted: the request was previously submitted during the FY 13 Capital Program but deferred or not funded
ATTACHMENT C: FY 14 Oversight Committee Recommendation Project Summary FY 14 CIP Amendment
Projects by Functional Area FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 Five-Year Total
01 Administration
A. Voting Machine Replacement Mandate -$ -$ -$ -$ 295,047$ 295,047$
Subtotal, Administration -$ -$ -$ -$ 295,047$ 295,047$
02 Courts & Judicial
A. Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 198,511$ 381,076$ 82,756$ 105,003$ 143,911$ 911,257$
B. J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 28,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,000$
C. J & DR Court Phone System Replacement Maint/Repl 20,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,400$
D. Old Jail Facilities Maintenance Maint/Repl 18,540$ 19,189$ 19,189$ 19,860$ 19,860$ 96,638$
E. Sheriffs Office Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 20,000$ 22,000$ 22,000$ 27,000$ 30,000$ 121,000$
Subtotal, Courts & Judicial 285,451$ 422,265$ 123,945$ 151,863$ 193,771$ 1,177,295$
03 Public Safety
A. County 800Mhz Radio Replacements Maint/Repl 609,768$ 625,525$ 601,527$ 607,628$ 634,391$ 3,078,839$
B. ECC Regional 800Mhz Communication System Maint/Repl -$ -$ -$ -$ 16,408,000$ 16,408,000$
C. Fire Res Apparatus Replacement-Program Maint/Repl 3,574,000$ 2,037,671$ 2,182,767$ 1,432,735$ 2,512,240$ 11,739,413$
D. Fire Rescue Airpacks Maint/Repl -$ -$ 2,689,351$ -$ -$ 2,689,351$
E. Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers-Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl -$ -$ 68,900$ -$ -$ 68,900$
F. Firearms Range Project 481,318$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 481,318$
G. Police Mobile Data Computers Maint/Repl 144,450$ 99,421$ 557,057$ 341,715$ -$ 1,142,642$
H. Police Patrol Video Cameras Maint/Repl 130,620$ 140,945$ 122,891$ 137,634$ 149,122$ 681,213$
Subtotal, Public Safety 4,940,156$ 2,903,562$ 6,222,493$ 2,519,713$ 19,703,753$ 36,289,676$
04 Public Works
A. City-County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 40,270$ 14,578$ 37,502$ -$ -$ 92,351$
B. County E911 Road Sign Upgrade Mandate -$ -$ 554,165$ -$ -$ 554,165$
C. County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 656,029$ 970,197$ 624,662$ 699,048$ 651,346$ 3,601,282$
D. Ivy Landfill Remediation Obligation 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 2,615,000$
E. Moores Creek Septage Receiving Obligation 109,441$ 109,441$ 109,441$ 109,441$ 109,441$ 547,205$
F. Old Crozet School Maintenance Maint/Repl 73,469$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 73,469$
G. Storage Facility Lease-General Government Obligation 63,000$ 65,000$ 68,000$ 71,000$ 73,000$ 340,000$
Subtotal, Public Works 1,465,209$ 1,682,216$ 1,916,770$ 1,402,489$ 1,356,787$ 7,823,472$
05 Commnity/Neighborhood Development
A. Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing Project 1,045,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,045,000$
Subtotal, Commnity/Neighborhood Development 1,045,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,045,000$
06 Human Development
A. DSS Document Management System Maint/Repl 80,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ 85,000$
B. Health Department Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 14,148$ -$ 95,482$ 10,327$ -$ 119,956$
C. PVCC Student Center Facility Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal, Human Development 94,148$ 5,000$ 95,482$ 10,327$ -$ 204,956$
07 Parks, Recreation, & Culture
A. Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting Maint/Repl -$ -$ 491,525$ -$ -$ 491,525$
B. Parks Facilities Improvement Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
C. Parks Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 459,730$ 425,245$ 319,945$ 373,955$ 313,075$ 1,891,950$
Subtotal, Parks, Recreation, & Culture 459,730$ 425,245$ 811,470$ 373,955$ 313,075$ 2,383,475$
08 Libraries
A. City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance Maint/Repl 242,427$ 233,103$ 78,382$ 76,935$ -$ 630,847$
Subtotal, Libraries 242,427$ 233,103$ 78,382$ 76,935$ -$ 630,847$
09 Technology & GIS
A. County Server Infrastructure Upgrade Maint/Repl 421,200$ 433,836$ 446,472$ 459,108$ 471,744$ 2,232,360$
B. PBX Replacement Maint/Repl -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Subtotal, Technology & GIS 421,200$ 933,836$ 446,472$ 459,108$ 471,744$ 2,732,360$
10 ACE
A. ACE Program Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal, ACE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Project Management Services (Continuing projects)Project 374,821$ 448,571$ 450,232$ 488,950$ 510,405$ 2,272,980$
Subtotal, General Government 9,328,141$ 7,053,799$ 10,145,245$ 5,483,340$ 22,844,583$ 54,855,108$
11 Stormwater
A. Stormwater TMDL Maintenance Study Maint/Repl 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 125,000$
Project Management Services (Continuing projects)Project 42,451$ 44,059$ 45,403$ 47,133$ 48,587$ 227,633$
Subtotal, Stormwater 167,451$ 44,059$ 45,403$ 47,133$ 48,587$ 352,633$
ATTACHMENT C: FY 14 Oversight Committee Recommendation Project Summary FY 14 CIP Amendment
Projects by Functional Area FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 Five-Year Total
12 School Division
A. Administrative Technology Maint/Repl 183,000$ 261,000$ 261,000$ 261,000$ 261,000$ 1,227,000$
B. Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovation Project 382,961$ 4,157,258$ 3,562$ -$ -$ 4,543,781$
C. Contemporary Learning Spaces Project 275,560$ 276,326$ 277,093$ -$ -$ 828,979$
D. Crozet Elementary School Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
E. Henley Middle School Phase 1-Addition Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
F. Henley Middle School Phase 2-Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
G. Instructional Technology Maint/Repl 575,000$ 575,000$ 575,000$ 650,000$ 650,000$ 3,025,000$
H. Land Purchase - High School Site Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
J. Murray High School Phases 1-2 Addition/Renovation Project 566,830$ 1,755$ -$ -$ -$ 568,585$
K. Red Hill Elementary School Modernization Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
L. School Bus Replacement Maint/Repl -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M. School Maintenance/Replacement Maint/Repl 5,659,634$ 5,411,060$ 4,837,679$ 5,374,964$ 5,907,919$ 27,191,256$
N. Scottsville Elementary School Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
O. State Technology Grant Maint/Repl 786,000$ 786,000$ 786,000$ 786,000$ 786,000$ 3,930,000$
P. Stony Point Elementary School Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Q. Storage Facility Lease-School Division Obligation 150,000$ 154,500$ 159,000$ 163,500$ 168,000$ 795,000$
R. Support Services and School Technology Facilities Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
S. Telecommunications Network Upgrade Project 900,000$ -$ -$ -$ 900,000$ 1,800,000$
T. Western Albemarle High School Phases 1-3 Addition/Renovation Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
V. Yancey Elementary School Addition Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
W. Yancey Elementary School Modernization Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Project Management Services (Continuing projects)Project 97,532$ 55,660$ 148,445$ 184,801$ 184,028$ 670,467$
Subtotal, School Division 9,576,517$ 11,678,560$ 7,047,779$ 7,420,265$ 8,856,948$ 44,580,068$
Total Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)19,072,110$ 18,776,418$ 17,238,427$ 12,950,738$ 31,750,117$ 99,787,809$
FY14-18 CIP Financial Summary at Current Tax Rate
FY FY FY FY FY TOTAL
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 FIVE YEARS
GENERAL FUND TRANSFER $18,827,571 $19,458,079 $20,096,621 $20,798,015 $21,509,199 $100,689,485
NET DEBT REQUIREMENT $15,819,459 $18,588,446 $17,891,794 $19,959,899 $18,273,061 $90,532,659
BALANCE TRSFR TO CIP $3,008,112 $869,633 $2,204,827 $838,116 $3,236,138 $10,156,826
NET GFT TO CIP $3,008,112 $869,633 $2,204,827 $838,116 $3,236,138 $10,156,826
CURRENT REVENUES $2,158,069 $4,151,742 $652,946 $3,260,478 $7,721,470 $17,944,705
LOAN PROCEEDS-Local Gov't $4,106,943 $3,447,616 $7,364,978 $2,782,198 $11,913,917 $29,615,652
LOAN PROCEEDS-Schools $7,007,235 $9,145,891 $4,514,478 $4,832,155 $6,182,440 $31,682,199
TOTAL REVENUES $16,280,359 $17,614,882 $14,737,228 $11,712,947 $29,053,965 $89,399,381
FUND BALANCE $16,825,511 $14,033,760 $12,872,225 $10,371,026 $9,133,234
AVAILABLE REVENUE $33,105,870 $31,648,642 $27,609,453 $22,083,972 $38,187,199
PROJECTS $19,072,110 $18,776,418 $17,238,427 $12,950,738 $31,750,116 $99,787,809
CIP FUND BALANCE $14,033,760 $12,872,225 $10,371,026 $9,133,234 $6,437,083
FY 14 Oversight Committee
RECOMMENDATION
GENERAL FUND ALLOCATION TO DEBT & CAPITAL
CAPITAL PROGRAM REVIEW
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
School Division Building Capacity Methodology
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
General Government staff evaluation of School
Division’s Adopted Building Capacity Methodology
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry and Ms. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE: December 13, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each 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 a staff recommendation following the
2011 LRPAC report, the School Board directed its staff to evaluate and develop an updated methodology for calculating
the capacity of its school buildings. The evaluation and preparation of the report (Attachment A), which is the subject of
this executive summary, occurred over the course of several months and was a collaborative process involving both
operational and instructional departments of the School Division. School Board Policy FB, “Facilities Planning,”
(Attachment B) was amended on May 10, 2012 to reflect the new methodology.
During recent discussions by the Board of Supervisors, general government staff was asked to evaluate the school’s
adopted methodology to calculate school capacity and determine how it compares to other school systems.
On December 13, 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 and School Board Policy FB.
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 School Board’s adopted 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 counts rooms in a more rigorous manner as compared to the previous method. 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, program and staffing models. In total, the revisions reduce the School Division’s
overall current capacity by 5%, or 789 seats, with the majority of these reductions occurring in the elementary schools.
There are three principal factors driving the changes 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 eligible for 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. The previous method used a multiplier of 20 at all schools. The
current adopted method uses a multiplier that is a function of the school’s free and reduced lunch population.
As a result, the multiplier varies from school to school.
AGENDA TITLE: School Division Building Capacity Methodology
December 13, 2012
Page 2
Specialty Classrooms: In addition to art, music and computer labs, the methodology adds Special Education
Resource, Gifted, ESOL, and Title 1 classrooms to the list of classrooms excluded when calculating the
capacity of a particular school. Not all schools have each of these specialty classrooms.
Classroom Count: The methodology consistently counts all classrooms that can hold 25 students regardless
of current use. This removes the ambiguity and inconsistency in which rooms were counted in the previous
method.
The methodology does not include trailers in the calculation of capacity. For example, if music or art is
currently being held in a trailer, 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 will provide a buffer until additional
capacity can be provided. The School Board, through its adoption of this methodology, has endorsed the
recommendation of LRPAC to not include trailers as part of the permanent, long term solution for school
facilities.
Application of the School Board’s adopted methodology reflects desired average class sizes 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; Hanover uses 20 for K-5 and 21 in 6-12.
In response to Board direction, general government staff has conducted a survey of 12 Virginia school districts
(Attachment C) to compare the results of the adopted methodology. A number of key data points and ratios
were considered, including student/teacher, enrollment/capacity, and total square footage/student ratios.
Based on staff analysis of these ratios and recognizing the variability of assumptions underlying them, staff
believes that the total square footage per student ratio is perhaps the most reliable point of broad comparison.
Applying the adopted methodology, Albemarle’s s.f./student ratio is 147 s.f. per student for K-5 and 168 s.f. per
student for 6-12, which is 22.5% more than the average of the 12 school systems for K-5 and 3.7% more for 6-
12.
In conducting this analysis, staff reviewed information from benchmark localities typically used for comparison.
It should be noted that school staff have concerns with this comparison and believe it is difficult to compare
Albemarle to other school systems due to differences in educational philosophy and other factors. While it is
acknowledged that differences exist, staff believes this comparison provides the perspective the Board
requested. A more thorough analysis may be appropriate and would require consultant assistance due to the
many factors school staff indicate would need to be considered. This investment may be particularly important
depending on the Board of Supervisors’ concern about the fiscal impact of the new capacity formula. If
additional study is desired, staff strongly recommends outside assistance to assure the analysis is considere d
objective. In addition, general government is not currently staffed to conduct such a review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The methodology of calculating a school’s capacity directly informs required modifications and additions to school
facilities and therefore impacts the CIP. The revised methodology outlined in this report formed the basis of this year’s
school division CIP submittal and will also impact facility needs beyond the five year planning period. Prior to the
adoption of the new methodology, the ratios of s.f./student in Albemarle County Schools were 10% above the average
for elementary schools (k-5) and 3.7% above for middle and high (6-12) when compared to the surveyed schools.
These current differences may be accounted for by factors such as the existence of the Bright Stars program in the
schools, the partnership between the school system and local government to provide for recreational programs and
small schools in the southern part of the County. Each of these factors has been supported over the years by the two
Boards and the community. While other school systems and local governments have similar arrangements to varying
degrees, it is difficult to do a true comparison without further research. However, the existing differences that support
these programs and services are already built into the County’s long term capital program and are not a part of
consideration of the new capacity formula.
The newly proposed capacity formula extends beyond the current formula and results in the loss of approximately 800
additional seats, prim arily at the elementary school level. Application of the school’s adopted methodology will result in
AGENDA TITLE: School Division Building Capacity Methodology
December 13, 2012
Page 3
the need to add significantly more school space than might otherwise be required on average based on the sample.
While one school project in the proposed CIP, Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovation, is impacted to some
degree by the new methodology, a portion of this renovation is also needed due to current conditions. However, the
loss of 800 existing seats and the impact of the new formula will have a greater financial impact over time. Elementary
schools, where most of the impact will be felt, are typically built to accommodate 400-600 students at a cost of
approximately $12-15 million per school. The Board’s assessment regarding the educational value of this proposed
change will need to be balanced against its fiscal impact and competing capital needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is not making a recommendation at this time. Final direction on this matter will be needed prior to the beginning
of next year’s CIP cycle. 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
B: School Board Policy FB, Facilities Planning
C: Albemarle County Schools Building Capacity/Enrollment Comparison Report
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
FB Page 1
Albemarle County Public Schools
FACILITIES PLANNING
The Albemarle County School Board recognizes that only through effective long-range
planning for enrollment can the School Division be adequately prepared to meet the needs of its
current and future student population. In order to assure such planning, the Board has
established procedures which provide for ongoing review, preparation, planning, and
recommendations from staff regarding enrollment trends and their resulting impact on facilities.
In addition, the Board will assure adequate opportunity for community involvement in reaction
to staff recommendations prior to any final decisions made by the Board.
The School Board is responsible for the regular operation and orderly development of its
physical plant. For this reason, the Board will concern itself with both short and long-range
planning and will utilize a long-term Capital Improvement Program to serve as a guide.
This program will be subject to systematic study, revision, and extension. The respective
projects will be acted upon individually when proposed for implementation.
The Capital Improvement Program will be designed to provide adequate facilities to
conduct full-time elementary and secondary education programs for all pupils residing in the
Division as well as adult, inter-division, and interagency programs, as approved by the Board.
The program will be planned and modified as needed to conform with changes in
projected enrollments, demographic shifts, courses of study, and availability of construction
funds.
The Board will rely on a broad-based committee to provide an ongoing study of facilities
use and development. The committee will advise staff on facilities utilization, development, and
closure.
Facilities Planning Advisors
The County of Albemarle, in accordance with state law, periodically approves a
Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the County. Contained within this plan are
sections which pertain to the number, location, and use of school facilities.
The school staff shall participate with the Albemarle County planning staff in developing
those portions of the Plan which deal with school facilities.
Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the Board of Supervisors, the Plan
becomes the official statement of policy regarding the location and use of public facilities in the
County.
FB Page 2
Albemarle County Public Schools
The Board further recognizes that all school facilities identified in the Comprehensive
Plan must remain substantially in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan unless a
change is approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Enrollment Projections
Enrollment projections will be prepared on a 5-year basis under the direction of the
Superintendent and will be reviewed and brought up to date annually.
The projections will take into consideration the following:
A. School registration figures
B. Forthcoming changes in planning and zoning
C. Current and planned community land development and housing projects
D. Latest available birth data
E. Annual reassessment of school capacities
Whenever construction of new school facilities or the closing of any school buildings is
being contemplated, the Board may authorize outside studies made of population trends and
school enrollment.
Adopted: July 1, 1993
Amended: October 11, 1993; September 26, 2002; March 9, 2006; January 27, 2011
Reviewed: August 14, 2000; May 26, 2005
Legal Ref.: Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, §§15.2-2223through 15.2-2232.
FB-AP Page 1
Albemarle County Public Schools
FACILITIES PLANNING
SUPERINTENDENT
1. The Superintendent of Schools will assure that, within the organizational structure,
primary responsibility for the following functions have been assigned to administrative
staff:
a. Overall responsibility for coordinating enrollment data, facilities planning,
transportation impact and formation of recommendations for review by the
Superintendent/Board.
b. Establishment of updated 5-year enrollment projections for the Division.
c. Establishment of building capacity standards and the impact of current and
projected enrollment on facilities.
d. Development of Capital Improvement Program recommendations.
e. Development and implementation of redistricting recommendations.
2. By December 1 of each year, updated enrollment projections for the next five (5) years
will be prepared.
3. Capacity formulas have been developed for elementary, middle, and high schools as
follows:
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).
FB-AP Page 2
Albemarle County Public Schools
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:
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)
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.
FB-AP Page 3
Albemarle County Public Schools
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
4. Annually, the long-range plan for accommodating enrollments and capital improvements
will be presented to the School Board and announced to the school communities. An
executive summary of this information will be developed for distribution to parents with
the intent being to provide adequate notice to communities of pending matters that may
affect their school attendance areas. Staff will be available to speak to parent
organizations about these potential changes.
SCHOOL BOARD
1. The School Board will act upon recommendations from the Superintendent related to
facilities, enrollment, long range planning, and redistricting.
2. The Board of Supervisors will be kept apprised of the School Board’s progress in
developing Capital Improvements/Redistricting recommendations through Joint Board
meetings and through reports by the School Board chairman to the Board of Supervisors.
FB-AP Page 4
Albemarle County Public Schools
3. The School Board will identify and prioritize (using appropriate community engagement
processes) at the beginning of the redistricting process those factors which it believes are
of the highest priority for consideration in any deliberations concerning redistricting.
(“Considered” is defined as being included in discussions and deliberations leading to
recommendations or decisions.) While all of the following factors will be considered and
discussed, it may be impractical to reconcile each and every factor with each and every
alternative plan that will be evaluated while making a final boundary line recommendation
or decision:
a. Enrollment projections.
b. The rated capacities of the various schools and the possible changes in these
capacities due to changes in program requirements or structural modifications of
the building.
c. The anticipated construction of new buildings or additions.
d. The ethnic, socioeconomic, and academic diversity of the student population in
the affected schools.
e. The need to develop long term solutions that support redistricting of individual
students to one time during their school career at any one level, elementary,
middle or high.
f. Assessment of the location of documented new subdivision construction.
g. The desire to plan for the placement of major new subdivisions into neighborhood
school attendance areas.
h. The desire to keep areas commonly known as subdivisions or neighborhoods
together.
i. The desire to reduce or eliminate the number of schools with divided feeder
patterns if at all possible.
j. The desirability of using natural dividing points (roads, creeks, etc.) as attendance
area boundary lines.
k. The desirability to reduce the amount of time students have to ride, and/or the
distance students have to travel.
l. The costs associated with the various options considered.
m. The impact of the alternatives upon present and future feeder patterns.
FB-AP Page 5
Albemarle County Public Schools
n. The impact of enrollment changes upon course offerings/subject offerings
equipment needs, building modifications, etc.
o. The desire to minimize the number of students who have to change schools.
LONG-RANGE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. Purpose and Mission.
The Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee (LRPAC) is formed to inform and advise
the Superintendent and School Board in the development of comprehensive, long-term plans
for facilities needs in the most effective and efficient way and in support of the School
Division’s Strategic Plan. As an advisory committee, the LRPAC will make
recommendations to the Superintendent and School Board, based on input from the public
and staff, for consideration by the School Board and Superintendent.
Issues which may be considered by the advisory committee shall include, but not be limited
to:
school program capacity;
enrollment and projections;
transportation and operating efficiencies related to facilities planning;
CIP prioritization;
creative financing and construction strategies;
scope of renovations;
school closures and new schools;
student accommodation planning (building additions/modular relocations/ review of
school boundaries); and
the future of “learning spaces” as influenced by technology and other dynamic fields.
Note: Division-wide instructional and programming policies such as, but not limited to,
Advanced Placement programs or grade level configurations for schools, are not within the
purview of the LRPAC.
2. Membership.
a. The Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee will be comprised of twelve
appointed members: one selected by each School Board member from his/her
constituency; four at-large representatives selected by the Superintendent; and one
at-large member based upon the recommendation(s) of the Equity and Diversity
Committee. Non-voting staff participants will also meet with the LRPAC, including
the Director of Building Services and any other staff representatives deemed
necessary by the Committee from departments such as Transportation, Building
Services, the School Board Office, Superintendent’s Office, County Community
Development, Fiscal Services, & DART. No committee members may be current
Division employees.
FB-AP Page 6
Albemarle County Public Schools
b. All members shall serve two (2)-year terms. Each member appointed by a School
Board shall serve a term coinciding, when possible, with the middle or end of the
term of the appointing Board member and each Superintendent-appointed member
will serve for two years following appointment.
c. Superintendent-appointed members should possess specific expertise in one of the
following areas: technology, business, architecture/engineering, curriculum or
another field as deemed appropriate by the Superintendent.
d. All appointees shall:
Possess experience with and/or expertise in a broad range of interests, e.g.,
Albemarle County planning and development; demographics and economics;
elementary, middle and high school programs and needs; public outreach and
communication; municipal design and construction;
Demonstrate organizational leadership qualities and/or experience;
Attend a minimum of 75% of meetings;
Be self-motivated to increase familiarity with school facilities and capital
improvement program planning;
Interact and communicate with School Board and the community public
venues, such as work sessions and community and focus group meetings; and
Sign the Statement of Policy and Disclosure Statement forms enclosed at the
end of this Administrative Procedure.
3. Process and Function.
a. All meetings shall be open to the public. Meeting dates, locations and agendas will
be posted for public notice in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act.
b. The committee will meet on a quarterly basis at a minimum, will provide quarterly
briefings at School Board work sessions, and will prepare and submit an annual
report to the School Board.
c. A chair and vice chair shall be elected by the LRPAC from within its membership.
d. Information and technical support shall be provided by the Building Services
Department and other ACPS departments, as requested and as resources permit.
Building Services staff shall serve as the recording secretary to prepare minutes.
e. The committee should receive information directly from the School Board, staff,
school communities, and individual citizens. This may occur both informally or at
more formal venues, such as community outreach meetings. The LRPAC would
only receive research findings, such as data or results of background information,
from the School Board, Superintendent and Building Services staff. Similarly,
FB-AP Page 7
Albemarle County Public Schools
information and findings from the LRPAC would be provided to the School Board,
Superintendent and Building Services Staff.
f. The committee shall:
i. identify and prioritize facility-related concerns, recommend staff or ad hoc studies,
and convene community and public meetings, as determined appropriate to fulfill the
mission and purpose of the committee;
ii. establish a communication plan and process to encourage and facilitate outreach and
interaction with the public;
iii. establish a proposed work plan which identifies and prioritizes issues for review and
approval by the School Board; and
iv. conduct self-evaluations of its work and process.
AD HOC COMMITTEES
1. The Ad Hoc Committee process is established for specific topics when deemed appropriate
within an overall comprehensive planning process (e.g., spot redistricting in a certain area).
Ad Hoc Committees are created by the School Board or Superintendent, typically as the
result of a recommendation from the LRPAC.
2. In conformance with Ad Hoc committee guidelines, only the School Board or
Superintendent may provide directions to Ad Hoc committees. Ad Hoc committees shall
report findings directly back to the School Board, Superintendent and the LRPAC.
3. Ad Hoc committees are encouraged to share draft findings with citizens and communities
and to incorporate community comments and thoughts into their final reports to the School
Board & Superintendent.
REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. A Redistricting Advisory Committee will be convened when a new school is anticipated
or as directed by the School Board. The Committee will be comprised of citizens selected
by the Superintendent from applications from school communities, a member of the
Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee selected by other members, and a member of
the Equity and Diversity Committee. The Superintendent supervises and monitors the
work of the Committee.
2. The Committee’s charge will be to work in cooperation with staff to analyze relevant
data and redistricting options to present to the Superintendent. The Superintendent will
then make a recommendation to the School Board. The Superintendent’s
recommendations will be provided to the School Board with supporting documents
including all options provided by the committee.
3. As part of its process, the Committee will schedule at least one public meeting to provide
an opportunity for citizens to be informed of proposed changes and react to the proposals.
FB-AP Page 8
Albemarle County Public Schools
The Redistricting Committee’s meetings will be open to the public and minutes of the
meetings will be available on the School Division’s website.
Through the above-outlined procedures, the School Board anticipates that effective
planning to meet future enrollment trends will occur and that the citizenry of Albemarle County
will be involved in and informed about these plans.
FB-AP Page 9
Albemarle County Public Schools
Statement of Policy
Long Range Planning Advisory Committee (LRPAC)
It shall be the policy that any LRPAC member or officer shall abstain from the vote and/or discussion on any
matter in which said member or officer may be considered to have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a
conflict of interest. An abstaining declaration shall be made for the record at the beginning of any such motion
or discussion and shall be recorded in the official minutes of the meeting. The same conflict of interest
procedures shall apply to any LRPAC member participating in any committee action or vote.
I concur with the above policy, and affirm my intention to abide by its intent.
___________________________________
Signature
___________________________________
Name of Committee Member
______________________________
Date
FB-AP Page 10
Albemarle County Public Schools
Disclosure Statement
Long Range Planning Advisory Committee (LRPAC)
No member of the Long Range Planning Advisory Committee (LRPAC) shall derive any personal profit or gain,
directly or indirectly, by reason of his or her participation as a member of LRPAC. Each individual shall disclose
any personal interest which he or she may have in any matter pending before LRPAC and shall refrain from
participation in any decision on such matter.
Any LRPAC member who is an officer, board member, committee member or staff member of an ACPS vendor
shall identify his or her affiliation with such vendor. He or she shall not participate in any decision affecting that
vendor, and the decision must be made and/or ratified by the full Board of Directors.
At this time, I am a Board member, a committee member or an employee of the following organizations:
(list or attached)
Now this is to certify that I, except as described below, am not now nor at any time during the past year have
been:
1. A participant, directly or indirectly, in any arrangement, agreement, investment or other activity with any
vendor, supplier, or other party doing business with ACPS which has resulted or could result in
personal benefit to me.
2. A recipient, directly or indirectly, of any salary payments, fees, loans, or gifts of any kind or any free
service or discounts from, or on behalf of any organization engaged in any transaction with ACPS.
Any exceptions to (1) or (2) above are stated below with a full description of the transactions and of the interest,
whether direct or indirect, which I have (or have had in the past year) in the persons or organizations having
transactions with ACPS.
(list or attach list)
Signature: _____________________________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________
Adopted: July 1, 1993
Amended: October 11, 1993; July 24, 1995; August 14, 2000; September 26, 2002; March 25, 2004; March 9,
2006; June 26, 2008; May 10, 2012
Reviewed: May 26, 2005
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Facilities Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 228
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 872-4501 Fax (434) 972-4091
Albemarle County Schools Building Capacity / Enrollment
Comparison Report Preface
Prepared by the Office of Facilities Development
December 3, 2012
Purpose: To gather and present comparative data pertaining to school systems
around the state of Virginia in order to compare respective school system’s
building capacities, facilities, enrollment and student / teacher ratios to Albemarle
County Public Schools.
Methods of Information Gathering: Direct communication with
representatives of some school systems via phone and e-mail. Information was
also obtained by accessing public information on individual school system’s
websites. Primary source of information from websites was budget reports that
ranged from 115 to 600 pages each. Albemarle County information was provided
by website and Rosalyn Schmitt of Building Services.
Included in This Report:
Single page handout spreadsheet with comparative data for Albemarle
County Public Schools and twelve (12) other school systems in the state of
Virginia.
Report containing two (2) pages titled “Conclusion”, five (5) report pages
under the heading of “Column Explanations”, one (1) graph and one (1)
additional fold-out spreadsheet.
The “Column Explanation” report items are an explanation of the information that
is posted in each column in the spreadsheet and its significance. The spreadsheet
contains data for school and facility related items including but not limited to
building capacities, current enrollments and square feet per student and how
Albemarle County schools compare to other similar school systems in these
categories.
We have also included graphic plotting of square feet per student to better
illustrate how Albemarle County schools compare with other school systems and
the averages for this item.
Important Items to Consider When Evaluating This Report:
This report includes data for Albemarle County Public Schools and twelve
(12) other school systems. Please keep in mind that there are over 140
public school systems in the state of Virginia so this sample is including
about 8% of the public school systems in the commonwealth.
This report represents district or system wide averages for the information.
This does not take in to consideration individual schools and their
respective needs. We may find that one school is 50 below capacity while
one is 50 above capacity and they would average out to 0. Agnor Hurt
would be an example of this situation because their enrollment is
significantly higher (almost 100 students) than the adopted capacity.
The school square footage figures were very difficult to obtain. The
information that has been gathered is total school square footage, not
classroom square footage. Consideration must be given to the fact that
some schools have multiple gymnasiums, some schools have auditoriums
while others don’t, and other comparable existing conditions that could
skew the information that is being presented.
During the process we found that some school systems had differing
information listed in their budget report versus information from various
departments. We also found that establishing the student / teacher ratio
was very difficult because there were many published figures that could be
accessed. We found four (4) reports for Hanover County that showed four
(4) different student teacher ratios.
The National Center for Education Statistics even has a warning included on
their state reporting for student / teacher ratios that reads: “Interpret data
with caution. The standard estimate for this student to teacher ratio data is
equal to 30% of the estimate’s value.”
Albemarle County Schools Building Capacity/Enrollment Comparison Chart
Locality Grades
Student/ Teacher
Ratio
(from Sch Div) *Capacity
2011/2012
Enrollment **
Enrollment vs
Capacity
Total Building
Area
(S.F.)
S.F./Student
(capacity)
S.F./Student
(capacity)
Comparison to
Average
K-5 21.45 6,464 6,256 96.78%952,174 147 22.50%
6-12 23.78 7,728 6,835 88.44%1,301,348 168 3.70%
K-5 21.45 7,213 6,256 86.73%952,174 132 10.00%
6-12 23.78 7,768 6,835 87.99%1,301,348 168 3.70%
K-5 20.00 7,674 9,605 125.16%1,065,913 139 15.83%
6-12 21.00 10,168 11,680 114.87%1,582,806 156 -3.70%
K-5 20.60 22,425 22,336 99.60%2,800,000 125 4.17%
6-12 22.00 25,610 25,580 99.88%4,200,000 164 1.23%
K-5 17.00 5,020 4,990 99.40%800,000 159 32.50%
6-12 15.20 6,190 6,142 99.22%1,300,000 210 29.63%
K-5 23.50 13,233 10,852 82.01%1,210,000 91 -24.17%
6-12 27.00 14,659 13,016 88.79%2,390,000 163 0.62%
K-5 20.40 7,751 6,183 79.77%935,589 121 0.83%
6-12 22.42 9,190 8,081 87.93%1,395,795 152 -6.17%
K-5 25.00 14,399 11,599 80.55%1,321,755 92 -23.33%
6-12 25.00 17,495 15,399 88.02%2,450,731 140 -13.58%
K-5 22.00 5,470 4,621 84.48%744,469 136 13.33%
6-12 24.00 6,533 5,928 90.74%993,570 152 -6.17%
K-5 17.00 25,884 25,963 100.31%2,850,000 110 -8.33%
6-12 20.00 32,594 32,744 100.46%4,220,000 129 -20.37%
K-5 17.00 4,013 3,649 90.93%460,000 115 -4.17%
6-12 17.00 4,289 4,009 93.47%798,000 186 14.81%
K-5 18.00 34,222 32,593 95.24%3,840,000 112 -6.67%
6-12 20.00 34,988 34,578 98.83%5,760,000 165 1.85%
K-5 19.70 117,580 92,879 78.99%11,150,065 95 -20.83%
6-12 21.00 88,295 81,578 92.39%12,851,001 146 -9.88%
K-5 18.00 5,225 5,121 98.01%782,000 150 25.00%
6-12 15.60 6,311 6,128 97.10%1,137,000 180 11.11%
K-5 19.85 92.87%120
6-12 20.85 95.98%162
* Albemarle student/teacher ratio reflects base staffing.
** Albemarle Enrollment is 2012/2013.
Albemarle
(Former Methodology)
Fauquier
Spotsylvania
Roanoke County
Stafford
Culpeper
Loudoun
Fairfax
Rockingham
Albemarle
(Sch Bd Adopted
Methodology)
Average
(Excludes Albemarle)
James City
Chesterfield
Hanover
Henrico
Spreadsheet Column Explanations
Locality:
Locality column is referring to each individual school district. All of the school
districts in this comparison are county school districts in the state of Virginia.
We have also included the Virginia Department of Education in this column.
We have included data from twelve (12) different school systems ranging in total
enrollment of 7,658 (Culpeper County) to 205,875 (Fairfax County). Six (6) of the
localities we have used for this comparison have comparable enrollments to the
Albemarle County Public School system. Seven (7) of the localities listed in this
spreadsheet are local government entities that Albemarle County compares itself
to when evaluating salary levels. Those seven (7) districts are Chesterfield
County, Fauquier County, James City County, Loudon County, Roanoke County,
Rockingham County and Spotsylvania County.
You will see two (2) “Albemarle’s” listed in this column. The first represents the
adopted or new capacity information and the second represents the former or
previous capacity information.
Grades:
We have broken this comparison into two separate groups to compare with other
school systems. We have gathered information that pertains to grades K through
5 (elementary schools) and grades 6 through 12 (secondary schools). One (1) of
the localities (Spotsylvania) actually reports elementary schools as grades K
through 6 and secondary as grades 7 through 12.
Student Teacher Ratio (From School Division):
This column is the student teacher ratios that we found in each school district’s
published information. Most of this information was gathered from Budget
Reports that are published on websites of each respective school system.
This represents their policy or maximum in regard to student / teacher ratio.
Capacity:
This column represents building capacities as published by each respective school
system. Most of these figures were found on school system websites in budget
reports or Facilities Maintenance departments published information. Most of
these localities base these capacity figures on maximum capacity from an allotted
square footage per student or code limits for capacity per room. They then make
adjustments to the capacity figures based on how many periods the various
classrooms are actually used. A common adjustment is the assumption that
classrooms will be used 7 out of 8 possible periods and therefore the maximum
building capacity is adjusted by a multiplier of .875 or 87.5% which is the sum of 7
divided by 8. This is also sometimes referred to as a “utilization factor.”
Example: School ABC has a maximum building capacity of 500. Classrooms are
used on average 7 out 8 periods or 87.5%. 500 X .875 = 437.5. The adjusted
capacity is rounded up to 438. Some school systems base their capacity on a
designated square footage per student. New York City allots 20 SF per student.
If a classroom is 800 SF, their maximum capacity is then 40. 800 SF / 20 SF per
student = 40 students.
Enrollment:
This column represents the actual enrollments for school year 2011 / 2012 in each
school system. Most of the figures found in this column came from budget
reports published by each school district. Again this has been broken down by
grades K through 5 and grades 6 through 12. Albemarle County Schools
enrollment is based on 2012 / 2013 school year.
Enrollment vs Capacity:
This column represents the percentage of enrollment versus stated capacity. In
other words, how full the schools are compared to the capacity of the buildings.
For example, Albemarle County Public Schools K-5 currently have a capacity of
6,464 (adopted capacity figure) and an actual enrollment of 6,256. What this
means is that our facilities are 96.78% full in relation to our stated capacity for
grades K-5.
Total Building Area (SF):
This is the total square footage of all school buildings in each individual school
system. The majority of this information came from published reports, phone
calls to Facilities personnel or e-mails to the same personnel.
SF / Student (Capacity):
This calculation is giving us the figure of the amount of square feet (SF) of building
space per student based on the stated capacities of the schools in each respective
school system. This is calculated by dividing square footage by capacity. For
example, Fauquier County shows a total square footage of 1,300,000 for grades
6-12. The stated capacity is 6,190. You would divide square feet by capacity or
1,300,000 / 6190 = 210 square feet per student. Albemarle County’s figure for
square feet per student for grades 6-12 based on capacity is 168.
SF / Student (Capacity) Comparison to Average:
This column gives us comparative figures in regard to square feet (SF) per student
as averaged across the sample. Positive numbers represent percentage of square
feet per student more than the average.
Graph # 1: S.F. / Student Capacity
This is a bar graph that shows square feet per student as it pertains to building
capacity. It includes all school systems in our comparison spreadsheet including
Albemarle County. The bars are green for grades K through 5 and blue for grades
6 through 12. There are means or average lines across the graph horizontally in
colors that correspond to the two grade groupings that show the average figures
for each school system. We also have included red horizontal lines showing
Albemarle County so it can be compared across the chart to other school systems
as well as the average.
Sources:
http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:116:1905322212926214:105:NO::P0_CURRENT_SCHOOL
_ID:305
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/budget/fcps-budget-facts.pdf
http://bi.vita.virginia.gov/doe_bi/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=Main&subRptName=Fallmembership
http://co.stafford.va.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/841
http://www.cota.vt.edu/ems/clients/case_studies/HenricoCty-PS.pdf
http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/Pdf/Finance/2012-2013FinalApprovedAnnualFinancialPlan.pdf
http://www.spotsyschools.us/finance/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=LmdIsfsfcd4%3d&tabid=1437
http://www.fcps1.org/education/page/download.php?fileinfo=RmluYWxfMjAxMi0yMDEzX2J1ZGdldF93
aXRoX2NvdmVyLnBkZjo6Oi93d3cvc2Nob29scy9zYy9yZW1vdGUvaW1hZ2VzL2RvY21nci81MzQzX2ZpbGV
fMzY0MjdfbW9kXzEzNDM5MzIwNDEucGRm§iondetailid=46351
http://www.rcs.k12.va.us/budget/documents/2012-13BudgetBook.pdf
http://www.rcs.k12.va.us/news/forms/ff1.pdf
Albemarle:
Buildings Square Footage - Building Services web (Murray HS not counted)
Student/Teacher Ratio (sch div) - info provided in Schools 4/12/12 Building Capacity Methodology Evaluation& Proposal
Albemarle County Schools Building Capacity / Enrollment
Comparison Report
Prepared by the Office of Facilities Development
December 3, 2012
Conclusions
The information contained in this report is a compilation of data that has
primarily been obtained from public record documents that were created and
published by school systems in this comparison study. This information is
capturing averages for the comparative information and is not school specific
and does not illustrate individual school’s potential requirements or needs.
This comparison includes twelve (12) of the more than 140 public school systems
in the Commonwealth of Virginia or just over 8%. Half of the school systems in
this comparison are similar to Albemarle County Public Schools from an
enrollment standpoint. We have also included school systems and counties that
Albemarle County routinely compares itself to when evaluating pay levels and
operating policies.
The following are conclusions based on comparisons of the obtained data in the
respective categories:
Student / Teacher Ratio: Albemarle County Public School system’s student to
teacher ratio is presently higher than the average for the twelve (12) schools in
this comparison. For grades K through 5, Albemarle County schools have an 8%
higher student to teacher ratio (21.45) than the average (19.85). For grades 6
through 12, Albemarle County schools have a 14% higher student to teacher ratio
(23.78) than the average (20.85) in this study. Albemarle County schools also
have a higher ratio in these two grade groups than the national averages of 20.3
for elementary and 18.6 for secondary schools. Albemarle County’s student /
teacher ratio in this study is what is referred to as “base staffing or regular
staffing and does not include specialists.”
Enrollment vs Capacity: The average for the schools in this comparison study is
that K-5 schools are 93% full while Albemarle County K-5 schools are 96.78% full.
Grades 6-12 schools in the study are 96% full while Albemarle County 6-12
schools are 88% full.
Square Feet Per Student (Capacity): The average square feet per student in this
study for grades K-5 is 120 square feet per student while Albemarle County is 147
square feet per student or 22.50% more square feet per student than the
average. For grades 6-12, the study average is 162 square feet per student while
Albemarle County is just slightly higher than this average at 168 square feet per
student or 3.86%.
Albemarle based on School Board Adopted Methodology
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12 K-5 6-12
Chesterfield Culpeper Fairfax Fauquier Hanover Henrico James City Loudoun Roanoke County Rockingham Spotsylvania Stafford
S.F. / Student
Capacity
Avg K-5 (120)
Avg 6-12 (162)
Albemarle K-5 (147)
Albemarle 6-12 (168)
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:
December 13, 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
December 13, 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:
Analysis of Change to Twenty-Six Pay Periods
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report regarding change to twenty-six pay periods
STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and
Gray and Mses. Gerome and Burrell
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 13, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County and Schools administration has examined whether it would be appropriate and more efficient to change
the employee pay schedule from monthly to every other week, which would result in 26 pay cycles. There were a
number of reasons for pursuing this change, including paying an employee closer to when the actual work was
performed, improved accuracy of time keeping, improved accuracy and timeliness of payments, ease of understanding
pay statements, reductions in staff time associated with post-payroll adjustments, among others. The recent need to
eliminate mid-month checks for supplemental income to comply with IRS regulations also raised interest in
investigating 26 pay cycles as a way to pay regular employees more frequently.
This report details staff’s analysis of potential process benefits as well as perceived benefits and concerns of
employees based on a series of focus groups to educate employees and receive feedback on how the proposed
change might impact their personal budgets. This report provides information on focus group meeting results and
recommendations for future consideration (Attachment A).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Local Government: Goal 7: Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer
service.
School Division: Goal 5: Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support
the Division’s vision, mission, and goals.
DISCUSSION:
Staff Analysis
It was determined that converting to 26 pay cycles would not enable the County to utilize a true “positive pay” system,
contrary to what was initially believed to be possible. The need to continue some form of a “pay by exception” payroll
model and the lack of uniformity in employment agreements (10/12 month teacher contracts, special custodian pay
arrangements, bus drivers, etc.) would actually result in increased transaction volumes, additional work loads,
increased banking fees and higher processing costs associated with more frequent pay cycles. Because of the
inability to truly achieve a uniform payroll system across both schools and general government, staff believes the risks
and costs associated with changing to more frequent pay cycles at this time significantly outweigh the process
advantages and perceived benefits to employees. This pay frequency topic can be reexamined when we are able to
implement more uniform pay models and improved time keeping systems.
Education and Feedback Meetings
To better understand the benefits or concerns from the employee perspective, HR staff solicited employee feedback
through 18 focus groups scheduled at various departments and locations.
The focus groups provided employees an opportunity not only to learn about all of the considerations involved in a
switch to 26 pays, but also to discuss the issues with their colleagues, ask questions, clarify misconceptions, and
express their opinions or concerns.
AGENDA TITLE: Analysis of Change to Twenty-Six Pay Periods
December 13, 2012
Page 2
Approximately 300 employees participated in the education and feedback sessions through the focus group sessions,
individual meetings and emails. The feedback received was mixed and generally opposed to a change. Employees
expressed two major concerns: The first is related to their personal budgeting, as the 8% decrease in pay during ten
months of the year would be difficult for many employees. Many employees also voiced concern about the difficulty in
changing bill payment deadlines. Some employees raise the difficulty of changing due dates for some or all of their
bills, and some expressed concerns that they may incur fees to change bill payment deadlines. In addition, some
employees are concerned that if they set new payment dates they may, in some months, run out of money to pay bills
as they come due. This was a particularly important issue for employees who primarily utilize automatic bill paying
services. The additional burden of tracking bills beyond month-to-month was a concern that also arose, as well as the
difficulty for some employees to hold and save money between paychecks. Ten-month employees questioned whether
they would have the choice to be paid either 22 weeks or 26 weeks, similar to the options they currently have
available.
BUDGET IMPACT:
A conversion to a 26 pay cycle program would result in greater operational costs due to the increased frequency of
processing payroll, the lack of consistency in employee payment arrangements and the need to continue a “pay by
exception” system of payroll. Staff will provide a budget impact analysis if the Boards elect to pursue this change at a
future time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends postponement of any consideration of changing to a 26-pay schedule at this time. The purpose of
this report and work session is to provide information and to solicit feedback from the Boards.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Summary of Feedback from Employee Focus Groups
Return to agenda
Summary of Focus Group Meetings-26 Pay Cycle Issues
Human Resources conducted focus groups in order to receive feedback on the idea of switching from 12
pay periods to 26 pay periods. This summary of the Human Resources’ findings also provides a brief
explanation and background to the 26 pay period concept.
Human Resources held 18 focus groups throughout October and November at various locations. Close to
300 employees reached out with comments through these focus groups, emails, phone conversations,
and office visits. These focus groups were open to all employees who are paid through the County
payroll including school employees, local government employees, and constitutional offices.
Responses to the potential change were:
Mixed from very positive, to indifferent, to very negative
A greater number of employees were against the switch than for the switch
Introduction
Focus Groups
Human Resources (HR) was tasked with two objectives: 1. to provide information and clarity about the
potential switch; 2. to get feedback from employees about a potential switch from 12 pay periods to 26
pay periods. To accomplish this task, HR solicited employee feedback through focus groups scheduled at
various departments and locations. The focus groups provided employees an opportunity not only to
learn about all of the considerations involved in a switch to 26 pays, but also to discuss the issues with
their colleagues, ask questions, clarify misconceptions, and express their opinions or concerns.
What is 26 Pays?
This is a form of salary pay, also known as a bi-weekly schedule. This is different than 24 pay periods in
which employees are paid twice every month, also known as a bi-monthly schedule.
Under a 26 pay period schedule, employees would be paid every other week on a specific day, such as
every other Friday. This would spread an employee’s annual salary over 26 pay checks, as opposed to
the current 12 paychecks. Due to this redistribution of pay, each individual paycheck will be slightly less
than half of employee’s current gross amount. For example, an employee making $3,000 gross each
month under our current system would make about $1385 per check under a 26-pay schedule. This
would equate to $2769 per month, as opposed to the current $3,000 per month. Two months out of the
year an employee under a 26-pay schedule would receive three (3) paychecks. During these months, our
example employee would make $4154 gross for the month, as opposed to the current $3,000 per
month. These numbers equate to about 8% less gross during ten months of the year and 38% more
gross during two months of the year.
Background – Where did this idea come from?
The main idea for potentially moving to 26 pays is to facilitate compliance with federal regulations
regarding employee pay. Following a lawsuit brought by a group of employees several years ago, County
leadership began exploring several initiatives to increase efficiencies in pay practices and enhance
compliance with regulations. Switching to 26 paychecks was one of the ideas brought up during these
discussions – in general, the sooner you pay employees for the hours they've worked, the better. The
recent need to eliminate mid-month checks due to IRS regulations also raised interest in investigating 26
pays as a way to pay regular employees more frequently.
Some employees have asked why we would switch to 26 pay periods and not 24 pay periods. The reason
26 pay periods is being investigated is because unlike most employees who are paid on a 40-hour week
pay cycle, Fire/Rescue, Police, and all public safety employees are paid on a 28-day pay cycle. A bi-
weekly pay period aligns with this 28-day cycle, allowing easier hours and pay tracking for employees,
supervisors, and payroll. Overtime may also be paid on a more regular basis.
Current Process and Other County Considerations
Currently, we pay by a process called “pay by exemption”, meaning we assume employees will work
their full scheduled hours and give them that base pay amount. If employees do not work that full
schedule or work more than that scheduled time, then manual entries are made by each department’s
payroll/leave administrator. Moving forward, if the County decides to pay for actual hours worked
(called “positive pay”) as opposed to pay by exemption, this process could become more streamlined
under a 26 pay schedule. This is not currently under discussion, but is a minor consideration in the 26
pay period discussion.
Currently, some departments have a time keeping system (for example Time Tracker) and some use
manual systems such as paper or excel. HR currently does not have its own information system (called
HRIS). Many of these systems will be able to integrate easily with a 26 pay schedule. Again, this is not
currently under discussion, but is a minor consideration at this time in the 26 pay period discussion.
There has also been discussion about adopting a County-wide electronic time-keeping system at some
point in the future. Most of these systems, which could greatly increase the efficiency of our payroll
practices and enhance compliance efforts, operate on a 26-pay setup. While the County is not currently
pursuing the purchase of a time-keeping system, it is a factor that we may consider in the future.
Employee Feedback
The following is a summary of the feedback received by HR through focus groups, emails, phone
conversations, and office visits. There is also a discussion of FAQs that arose from the feedback along
with questions that remain unanswered at this stage
Major Concerns/Hurdles
Employees expressed two major concerns regarding switching from monthly to bi-weekly. The first is
related to their personal budgeting, as the 8% decrease during ten months of the year would be difficult
for many employees. Many employees also voiced concern about the difficulty in changing bill payment
deadlines. Some believe it is impossible to change due dates for some or all of their bills, and some
expressed concerns that they may be charged to change bill deadlines. In addition, some employees are
concerned that if they set a new date that they may, in some months, run out of money to pay bills as
they come due. This was a particularly important issue for employees who primarily utilize automatic bill
paying services. The additional burden of tracking bills beyond month-to-month was a concern that also
arose, as well as the difficulty for some employees to hold/save money between paychecks.
Ten-month employees, questioned whether they would have the choice to be paid either 22 weeks or
26 weeks, similar to the options they currently have.
Potential Benefits of a 26-Pay System
Compliance
Description: As discussed in the introduction, bringing pay closer to when hours are worked will help
with ensuring continued compliance with federal laws and the IRS.
Response: Employees on the whole see this as a benefit to the organization rather than to employees.
Some felt strongly that it is the Finance Department’s responsibility to do more frequent audits to
ensure continued compliance.
Increase Frequency of Pay
Description: Going to 26 pay periods would increase the frequency of pay from monthly to bi-weekly.
Specifically, employees would be paid two or three times per month, depending on the month.
Response: On the whole, employees were receptive to the idea of more frequent checks. However,
many expressed more interest in a 24-pay schedule, which would keep their monthly salary closer to
their current pay. Employee reactions to redistribution as a trade-off for more frequent pay ranged from
very positive to indifferent to very negative.
Overtime Payments
Description: Overtime (OT) payments would be received by employees closer in time to when the OT is
worked, making it easier for employees and pay administrators to track OT hours and pay.
Response: Prior to soliciting feedback, it was believed that those employees who receive a high amount
of overtime would prefer being paid more regularly. It was also believed that Fire-Rescue and Police
employees would value the pay periods aligning with pay cycles to make it easier to reconcile OT worked
with OT paid. Feedback received at the focus groups, however, was mixed. Many employees like the
idea of more frequent pay but about half of employees who work a lot of overtime feel that the hurdles
of 26 pays outweighed the benefits. In contrast, a significant number of employees who do not receive a
large amount of overtime also preferred being paid more regularly on 26 pay periods, and found this
overcame any hurdles presented.
Leave Usage and Accrual Output
Description: Leave usage and accrual is displayed on paystubs every month. However, because of the
manual nature of inputting leave into the pay system, the differences in a 40 hour/week vs. a 28-day pay
cycle, and the timing of payroll in a given month, leave usage and accrual leave rates that appear on
paystubs are 4 to 6 weeks behind.
Response: The ability to see more accurate leave balances was perceived as a greater benefit among
those employees that do not feel comfortable frequently asking their leave administrator their current
balances. This was also seen as a greater benefit to those who are close to their annual leave
accumulation cap as well as those who are on FMLA leave. For those employees who do not closely
track their leave or do not reconcile leave use with their paystubs, this benefit was of minimal value.
Effect on errors
Description: The increased frequency of pay will allow for quicker adjustments to hours changes and pay
errors. Employees will be able to reconcile their time worked with time paid, and changes in pay or leave
will be more noticeable.
Response: The potential positive effect on decreasing errors or catching errors sooner was only seen as
a benefit in those departments with employees whose hours and pay frequently change (more frequent
pay changes introduce more possibility for errors in pay). Those departments whose employees have
fewer pay changes did not feel that this was a strong benefit. Also, there were some employees who
strongly felt that any effect on errors should not outweigh their personal burdens in making a switch,
and believed this to be an HR/Finance problem that HR/Finance staff should address through audits, etc.
Effect on Recruiting and New Hires
Description: New employees are generally more comfortable and familiar with being paid on a more
frequent basis. Newly hired employees often have to wait 4 to 6 weeks before receiving their first
paycheck. This is a major inconvenience for many and for some, an insurmountable hurdle when
considering a job with the County. (The County does currently offer a one-time salary advance.)
Response: The potential impact on recruiting individuals currently on non-monthly pay period schedules
was perceived as a minimal benefit by current employees. Some employees felt that since they were
able to adjust to a monthly pay schedule, other new hires could also do so.
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers:
Why are we considering this switch? What benefit does it hold for the County? What benefit does it hold
for employees?
See Introduction – Background and Pros/Benefits section above.
What affect on taxes will this change have if any?
There will be no affect on taxes paid over the course of the year. There may be some month-to-
month differences which will even out when taxes are filed in the spring. Taxes for each
paycheck are figured based on the number of pay periods. In a 12-pay period system, the total
gross salary minus any pre-tax deductions is multiplied by 12 to determine which annual tax
bracket an individual falls into for that paycheck. In a 26-pay period system, the same
calculation would occur: the total gross salary minus any pre-tax deductions is multiplied by 26
to determine which annual tax bracket an individual falls into for that paycheck. The tax bracket
can vary from paycheck to paycheck depending on overtime payments, which may bump an
individual check into a different tax bracket. At the end of the year, the IRS determines how
much an individual was actually paid, where that amount falls in the federal tax brackets, and
how much the individual actually paid in taxes. On an annual basis, these amounts should be the
same regardless of the number of pay periods.
When will this transition take place?
It is not clear at this time if this change will take place at all. County/School Leadership is still in
the early stages of collecting information to get a full picture of the challenges and benefits such
a change would create. If the recommendation is made to switch to 26 pays and the Board of
Supervisors and School Board approve this change, employees will be given six months
advanced notice at a minimum.
Who does this affect? Only Schools? Only Local Government? Does it affect constitutional officers and
other affiliated organizations?
This potential change affects all current employees who are paid through the County’s payroll.
This includes all regular, part-time, and temporary employment types for all school employees,
all local government employees, CATEC, all employees of constitutional offices (Sheriff,
Commonwealth Attorney, Clerk of the Court), and all affiliated organizations (Blue Ridge,
Regional Jail).
Why are Finance and Human Resources both involved with this initiative?
In response to concerns about pay compliance, leadership in the County and Schools
determined that a study of both the financial feasibility and the effect on employees of
switching to a 26 pay period needed to be undertaken. The Finance Department has been
tasked with conducting the feasibility study and examining the effect this change would have on
the administration of payroll. Human Resources has been tasked with investigating the effect
this change would have on employees and collecting feedback from employees. If this change
moves forward, Finance will also be tasked with transitioning the payroll system and training
pay administrators in departments and schools. Human Resources would be tasked with
assisting employees with the transition from 12 to 26 pay periods in regards to paying bills,
budgeting, etc.
What effect would this have on current monthly deductions such as VRS, medical and dental insurance,
child support, tax-sheltered retirement accounts, etc?
The answer to this isn't certain at this time, but we believe that it is likely VRS, medical and
dental insurance would be taken out of only 24 paychecks. The third check that employees
receive two months per year would not have these deductions. This will be clarified by Finance if
we continue to pursue a switch.
Questions which remain unanswered:
If payroll runs every two weeks, what effect will this have on timekeeping/payroll administrators
within departments, especially those departments that have only one such employee with no
back-up. Would it create a situation where these employees would be unable to take a 2 week
vacation?
Will this change apply to retirees? If so, how?
What affect will this have on 10 month employees? Will they have a 22-pay option?
For public safety employees, if we switch from 12 to 26 pay periods will the 28-day cycle also be
decreased to 14 days, thereby increasing the amount of overtime available?
If this transition takes place, will employees receive the last paycheck of the month prior to the
switch? What effect will the transition have on that check, if any?
Next Steps
This report serves as a summary of feedback for County/School employees, County/School executive
leaders and County/School Board members. Finance staff is conducting a system assessment and
workforce analysis. This information will be used to develop recommendations regarding this change.
12/10/2012
Albemarle County
B.F. Yancey School Work Group
Charter
The Albemarle County School Board and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
seek to identify additional uses for the B.F. Yancey Elementary School as a result of
reduced student enrollment and to ensure maximum use of the building beyond
traditional classroom use. The Boards are interested in understanding, on a broader level,
actions that can be taken to improve services to the citizens of southern Albemarle
County within the capacity of this school building.
Keeping in mind the overall missions and visions of both the school system and general
government, the work group to be developed to undertake this assessment is charged with
developing recommendations for both boards that would include the identification of
service needs in the area as well as new and existing partners willing to engage in
enhanced delivery of service in southern Albemarle. Additionally, the boards are
interested in learning about model programs, funding sources and/or grant opportunities
that will address identified service needs in the southern Albemarle area; therefore, the
work group shall consider these alternative forms of financing to accomplish any capital
investment required to undertake any needed alterations to the building.
Primary Objectives of the Workgroup
1. Identify service needs of the southern Albemarle community including review of
existing needs assessments and other data compiled by the County and other
community partners over the past 5-10 years.
2. Develop recommendations for enhanced use of the school building. Ideas for
strategies might include first identifying how much and what kind of space may
be available, identifying any restrictions on the use within the building and
identifying activities/programs that are aligned with continuing the building as an
elementary school.
3. Identify other individuals, entities, and/or organizations already engaged in or
interested in enhanced service delivery, and to determine feasibility for
public/private partnerships to support program development.
4. Conduct research into best practice models where successful programs or uses
have been identified and implemented.
5. Research avenues of possible funding support for model programs, including
foundations with interest in enhanced service delivery in settings such as the
Yancey Elementary School.
12/10/2012
While it is not the responsibility of the work group to provide cost estimates for the
recommendations, the work group should be mindful of the potential cost and scope of
projects recommended and the need to implement said recommendations with non-
traditional funding sources, partnerships and grants. It is critical to consider
public/private partnerships, thus the work group is empowered to explore potential
avenues for these kinds of agreements.
Resources Available to the Work Group
The County Executive and School Superintendant shall ensure that sufficient
administrative staffing support will be made available for the activities of the work group.
However, it is expected that the work group will draw upon its membership and others in
the community for support as well.
Work Group Membership
The work group will include a total of 12 members to be appointed by the County
Executive and School Superintendant as follows:
Six (6) community members selected through an application process similar to
one utilized by the School Division for its Redistricting Committee appointment
process
Six (6) members representing community agencies and partners as identified by
general government and school division staff
Co-chairs of the work group are to be selected by the County Executive and School
Superintendant.
Timeline
It is anticipated that applications for participation on the work group will be
advertised/solicited in January 2013 and the group will organize its first meeting during
the month of February 2013. At this time, the group will determine its own meeting
frequency and schedule as well as group roles and norms, facilitation, note taking, etc.
The Workgroup will report on its progress to the Board of Supervisors and to the School
Board in May and submit its final report & recommendations to both bodies in December
2013.
Return to agenda