AGENDA ITEM #5 February 28, 2012

Briefing

MEMORANDUM

February 24,2012

TO: County Council

FROM: "j!~eith Levchenko, Senior Legislative Analyst

SUBJECT: Briefing: MCPS' School Modernization Program

On February 6, James Song, Director ofFacilities Management for Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) briefed the Education Committee on MCPS' school modernization program. Given that MCPS' modernization program is a major cost driver of the County's Capital Improvements Program (CIP), Committee Chair Ervin asked Mr. Song to provide a similar briefing to the full Council.

Background

Modernizations are comprehensive facility improvements that involve building system upgrades as well as changes in programmatic space at a school (such as increases in, changes, and movement of core spaces). Modernizations may preserve some or all of the original building shell or may involve complete tear downs and rebuilds on site.

MCPS developed its modernization schedule (see ©6) through a Facilities Assessment with Criteria and Testing (FACT) scoring process (see ©1-2 for background).

The approved modernization and cost schedule by fiscal year is shown on ©1O. A similar list showing the Board of Education's FY13-18 request by modernization is attached on ©9. The school modernization program accounts for about halfof the entire MCPS CIP. The chart below highlights the magnitude and fiscal challenge of the modernization program.

'does not include special schools .,-:-,-,--,,==:===-:...==i.;;;.;;;..._=::...:..:..__---1

"Based on budgeted costs for projects in the modernization program. Note: There can be a wide variation in project costs.

The chart presents the current average replacement cycles by type of schooL According to MCPS, the replacement cycle is currently averaging about 65 years for elementary schools, 76 years for middle schools, and 50 years for high schools. Council Staff has noted rough costs per type of modernization. Actual costs for modernizations can vary tremendously.

The chart also shows the cost to achieve a 40 year replacement cycle (which is what MCPS, in past years, had identified as its goal). Expenditures would have to increase more than 50% (over $350 million) beyond approved levels to achieve a 40 year replacement cycle.

Recognizing that a 40 year replacement cycle was not feasible, MCPS has ramped up its systemic programs (Roofs, HV AC, PLAR, etc.) in recent years with the recognition that its schools will go much longer than 40 years before being modernized.

MCPS Briefing

Council Staff asked MCPS to address the following topics in its presentation:

• The old and new FACT assessment process (and the major programmatic and facility elements reviewed) (see ©1-2 for background)

• Typical schedule for an ES, MS, and HS modernization (from facility planning to completion)

• The differences between a modernization and a renovation (scope and costs) and why MCPS pursues modernizations

• Costs for modernizations (and the major cost drivers such as labor, materials, code issues, LEED, etc.)

• State aid eligibility for modernizations

• Reuse of the existing building shell versus rebuild - the factors that lead MCPS to pursue one option or another - plus the State role in reviewing this decision.

• Relationship of modernizations to the specific systemic projects in the CIP

• Holding School status and issues (see ©3-5 for background)

• The future of the modernization program and how the program may evolve over time as MCPS completes modernization at all assessed schools and begins to address its newer generation buildings.

KML:f:\Ievchenko\mcps\fy13 18 cip\council mod briefing 2 28 12.doc

-2­

Appendix R

Assessing Schools for Modernization On December 7,2010, the Board of Education adopted Policy FKB, Sustaining andModernizing Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) FaCilities. This policy updated Policy Moderniza­tion/Renovation that was adopted in 1992 and had never been updated by the Board of Education. The updated version of Policy FKB provides for a new emphasis on sustaining Mont­gomery County Public Schools (MCPS) facilities in good con­dition through systematic life-cycle asset replacement. At the same time, the policy recognizes the need to modernize schools as a facility reaches the end of its useful life cycle. In order to implement Policy FKB it was necessary to have an updated means of assessing and prioritizing schools for modernization.

While a primary factor in the need to modernize a school is the age of the facility, a number of other factors also are considered in assessing the condition of a school. When the MCPS mod­ernization prograrn began in the early 1990s, a methodology known as Facilities Assessrnent with Criteria and Testing (FACT) was developed. The original FACT methodology was applied to three groups of school assessments-the first group in FY 1993, the seco!].d in FY 1996 and the third in FY 2000. Through the 2011-2012 school year, these assessments resulted in the modernizations 35 elementary schools, 8 middle schools,

. and 8 high schools. Another 12 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 9 high schools are now either under construction, in design, or are in the queue for modernization. The list of these schools is provided in Appendix E.

The list of elementary schools in the queue for modernization is almost complete, with the last three elementary schools in the queue scheduled for completion in January 2018. As a result, it was necessary to assess additional elementary and secondary schools that are aging and in need of modernization. A total of 53 facilities were identified for FACT assessments. The new list includes facilities that were built prior to the mid 1980s and had never been modernized, although some of these schools may have had some renovation work performed.

Beginnmg in spring 2010, a process to update the FACT methodology was undertaken. A multi-stakeholder committee reviewed and prepared recommendations to update the meth­odology. Board of Education supported the recommendations of the committee by adopting the updated FACT methodology on July 8,2010. The updated FACT methodology describes the criteria to assess the condition of schools, the measures

each criterion, and the relative weights to apply to various

criteria to obtain an overall score for each facility. Consultants EMG, Inc., provided technical expertise in the development the detailed revised FACT methodology and were responsible for conducting the assessments.

The old FACT methodology scoring system used a point scale and schools in worse condition scored lower while schools in better condition received a higher score. In contrast, the new FACT methodology uses a 600 points scale in which the buildings in worse condition received higher scores and the bUildings in better condition received lower scores. "Educational Program" parameters such as educational speCifications, open plan schools, and controlled access were assigned 300 points and "PhYSical Infrastructure" parameters, such as facihty design guidelines, utility and energy efficiency, maintenance cost, and community use of public facilities, were assigned 300 points. The final report of the assessments, including the facility scores, was presented to the Board of Education on October 11, 2011.

The table on the following page presents the scores for school in rank order for elementary schools and secondary schools. As the current queue of schools scheduled for modern­ization is completed (see Appendix E), schools on the follOWing page will be placed in the modernization queue according to their score. The movement of the newly assessed schools to the modernization queue will occur as planning and construction funds are programmed in the six year CIP period. At that time a completion date for the modernization also will be prOVided.

purpose of the follOWing list is to show the rank order and scores of all the schools that were recently assessed.

In addition to 34 elementary schools and 11 middle schools, the recent FACT assessments included three special education program centers-Stephen Knolls, Rock Terrace, and Carl Sandburg-the Blair G. Ewing Center, and the four elementary school holding centers. Stephen KnoJs is placed in the list of elementary schools on the follOWing page and Rock Terrace and the Blair G. Ewing Center are placed in the list obecondary schools. The Carl Sandburg Learning Center is not included on the following table because a recommendation to collocate this school at Maryvale Elementary School will be considered by the Board of Education in November 2011. Finally, the elementary school holding centers are not included on the following table because improvements to these facilities will be addressed through a separate capital project.

Appendix R • (y

FACT* Scores (Schools Assessed in 2010-2011)

Total FACT ScoreElementary SchoolsIRank

Maximum Score =600

382.04Cold Spring Elementary School 1

! 2 357.01Dufief Elementary School

349.28Belmont Elementary School 3 I

334.95Stonegate Elementary School 4

331.89Damascus Elementary School 5

Twinbrook Elementary School 330.586

328.90Summit Hall Elementary School 7

Rosemary Hills Elementary School 327.058

318.299 Burnt Mills Elementary School

I 314.4210 Poolesville Elementary School

314.09Woodfield Elementary School 11

302.6912 South Lake Elementary School

Cedar Grove Elementary School 302.4613

300.4714 Greenwood Elementary School

294.7315 Piney Branch Elementary School

293.2216 Whetstone Elementary School

292.8617 Takoma Park Elementary School

Gaithersburg Elementary School 290.88I 18

289.4619 Strathmore Elementary School

286.57Diamond Elementary School 20

Fox Chapel Elementary School 278.7121

276.56Stephen Knolls School 22

East Silver Spring Elementary School 276.4123

24 Broad Acres Elementary School 275.88

273.7225 Woodlin Elementary School

Germantown Elementary School 272.61i 26

27 Fallsmead Elementary School 267.41

Watkins Mill Elementary School 266.3328

Fields Road Elementary School 257.6129

249.5530 Stedwick Elementary School !

Cloverly Elementary School 244.3131

241.67Darnestown Elementary School 32

Washington Grove Elementary School 227.6833

34 Bradley Hills Elementary School 212.04

Sherwood Elementary School 210.9235

Rank Secondary Schools Total FACT

Score Maximum Score = 600

I 1 Rock Terrace School 382.13

2 Blair G. Ewing Center 380.99

3 Banneker Middle School 341.88

4 Arglye Middle School 322.24

5 Newport Mill Middle School 315.72

6 Ridgeview Middle School 309.03

7 Silver Spring Intl.Middle School 301.37

8 Neelsville Middle School 291.74

9 Baker Middle School 279.58

10 Frost Middle School 255.22

11 Loiederman Middle School 254.66

12 Redland Middle 5chool 245.35

13 North Bethesda Middle School 240.74

• FACT refers to the Facilities Assessment with Criteria and Testing methodology for evaluating and scoring the condition of schools.

2. Appendix R

Holding Facilities

l Future Holding Facility

.t Holding Facility

D Cluster

o 2 4 8 I I I I

Miles

ge g

MontgomelY County Public Schools - Division of Long-range P!a:1ning - October 11, 2011

4-144 • Recommended Actions and Planning Issues

®

OTHER EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

Holding Facilities Holding facilities are utilized for capital projects, such as mod­ernizations and large-scale addition projects to house students and staff during construction. By relocating students and staff to a holding facility, MCPS is able to reduce the length of time required for construction and provide a safe and secure envi­ronment for the students and staff. Currently, MCPS utilizes the following facilities as holding schools for modernizations and large-scale addition projects.

Elementary School Holding Facilities The elementary school holding facilities were assessed as part of the Facilities Assessment with Criteria and Testing (FACT) process during the 2010-2011 school year. To address needs at these facilities, an FY 2013 appropriation for faCility planning is recommended in the Modifications to Holding, Special Educa­tion and Alternative Centers Project for feasibility studies to identify improvements for these buildings. A recommendation for facility improvements will be made in a future CIP.

• Fairland • Grosvenor • North Lake • Radnor

Middle School Holding Facility Tilden Center MCPS has been unable to accelerate the pace of middle school modernizations because currently there is only one middle school holding facility. In addition, with the reopening of Northwood High School in 2004, there is no high school holding faCility, requiring high school modernizations to be constructed on site. In order to accelerate the pace of modern­izations, funding is approved in the Amended FY 2011-2016 CIP to replace the Tilden Holding Facility with the Woodward Holding Facility, which will serve as a secondary school holding faCility for middle and high schools. In addition, the Amended FY2011-2016 CIP includes funds to reopen the former Broome Middle School faCility as a middle school holding faCility for the county.

Broome Holding Facility Capital Project: FY 2015 expenditures for planning funds are approved to reopen the Broome faCility, currently owned by Montgomery County, for use as a middle school holding facility. This faCility will require significant modifications to support a middle school program. In order for this project to be completed on schedule, county funding must be provided at the levels approved in this CIP.

New Holding Facility for Elementary Schools Undergoing Modernization Upcounty In the coming years, elementary schools up county will reach an age and condition that will require modernization. Currently, all holding facilities for elementary schools undergoing mod­ernization are located in the mid-to lower part of the county. A site selection process began in spring 2011 to identify a site for an upcounty holding facility. The site selection process was completed in fall 2011. The Board of Education is expected to act on a site for the holding faCility by the end of 2011. Once a site has been selected, a feasibility study will be conducted to determine the feaSibility, scope, and cost of opening the hold­ing faCility. The timing of construction and completion of the holding faCility will be determined in a future CIP.

Woodward Holding Facility Capital Project: With the reopening of Northwood High School in 2004, there has been no high school holding facil­ity. Tilden Middle School is currently located at the former Woodward High School facility, which is located on Old Georgetown Road. Tilden Middle School has a modernization scheduled for completion in August 2017. Although the school is currently located in the Woodward faCility, the current Tilden Holding Facility, located on Tilden Lane, will be modernized to house Tilden Middle School. The Woodward faCility will then become a secondary school holding faCility for school modernizations scheduled after Tilden Middle School. Tilden Middle School will remain at the Woodward facility until the modernization of the Tilden Lane facility is complete in August 2017. FY 2017 expenditures are programmed in the CIP to design the renovations of the Woodward faCility for use as a secondary holding facility.

CAPITAL PROJECTS

School Project Project Status· Date of Completion

Broome Holding Facility Renovations Programmed TBD New Holding Facility in Upcounty New facility Proposed TBD Woodward Holding Facility Renovations Programmed TBD •Approved-Project has an FY 2012 appropriation approved in the Amended FY 2011-2016 (IP. Recommended-Project has an FY 2013 appropriation recommended in the FY 2U 13-2U18 (IP.

Programmed-Project has expenditures programmed in a future year of the (IP for planning and/or construction funds. Proposed-Project has facility planning funds approved m the Amended FY2011­2016 CIP for a feasibility study or recommended in the FY 201::l-2018 (IP.

Recommeoded A,';o", "d PI,,0"9 '"UO> •4-1 ®

- -

--

OTHER EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

Holding Facility Schedule

I SY 13 14 SY 1~15 SY 15-16 SY 16-17 SY 17 18 SV 11 12 SY 12 13 I I IHoldinq Facility I

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS'

WI1eaton Woo ds Maryvale Beverlv Farms Bel Pre BelmontNorth Lake I I Seven Cold

Rock Creek Forest Wayside SprinQBradley Hills PotomacRadnor lod"

Garrett Weller Road undlewood Brown Station l uxmanor Grosvenor Park OuFief

Cannon GlenaUanFairland Road Stoneqate

- MIDDLE SCHOOLS

I Wi!llOm H. Farauhar • Tilden Herben Hoover TIlden at Woodward

Hid'mg Tt D t (2011 2012 S h 00IVear)0 FaCI I[Y a a - C

Total square Site Size Relocatable

Holding Facilitf Level Facility Address Rooms Footage Acres ICiassrooms

Fairland Center Elementary 13313 Old Columbia Pike 26 45,082 9.21 9

Grosvenor Center Elementary 5701 Grosvenor Lane 19 36,770 10.21 21

Radnor Center Elementary 7000 Radnor Lane 16 36,663 9.03 13

North Lake Center Elementary 15101 Bauer Drive 22 40,378 9.66 16

Tilden Center Middle 6300 Tilden Lane 39 119,516 19.7 14

4-146 • Recommended Actions and Planning Issues

®

BoE' R(..,[IIeJ";­

Appendix E

Modernization Schedule for Assessed Schools

FroM N FAC-r

fJSJ c. rr~ t:.....:::.

Schedule

1948 1973 1388

1966 1418 3

1965 142 7 1/2013

1953 19 75 1461 8/2013 1968 14 76 8/2014

1968 1489

1950 1971 1492 1/2015

1969 1502 8/2016

1969 1516 8/2016 1976

1949 1976 1550 1/2018 1966 1578 1/2018

1969 1578 1/2018

1975 8/2019 8/2019

9

1952 1986 330.58 1/2021 1971 328.90 112021 1956 1988 327.05 1/2021

Middle Francis Scott Key 1967 1389 8/2009 Cabin John 1968 1422 8/2011 Herbert Hoover 1966 1427 8/2013 William H. Farquhar 1968 1434 8/2016 Tilden @ Woodward 1966 1455 8/2018 Eastern 1951 1976 1472 8/2020 E. Brooke Lee 1966 1479 TBD

High Walter johnson 1956 1977 1405 1/20 I 0 Building

8/ 2010 Site Paint Branch 1969 1425 8/2012 BuHding

8/2013 Site Gaithersburg 1951 1978 121 4 8/2013 Building

8/2014 Site Wheaton 1954 1983 1220 8/~8uilding

8/ 20195ite Seneca Valley 1974 1254 8/ 2017 Building

8/2018 Site Thomas S. Wootton 1970 1301 8/2019 Building

8/ 2020 Site Poolesville 1953 1978 1362 8/2021 Building

8/20225ite-Col. Zadok Magruder

~

1970 1471 TBI!> Damascus 1950 1978 1496 TBD Northwood 1956 ..2004

_.. rao

OIS"

No. te: Sc;hool1 were ~I$esjed for mOdem,u,lJoo In 1992, 1996, and 1999. AsJ.ewnenu wer~ completed on the rema,n ont;j 34 e!enwntilry and I ! middle ichooh during Decemoer 2010 and )vne 101 1. (Thvr. school! are h!t ~d above W'l nabo.) >0 ..... 11010"'9 centen, thfee Spe<oal EdU<:dtion Lur",1'19 Cenlerl, al'\d 011"- Alternat,ve ~rog r~m Center Jl.!o WeI""- as\.Cued dur..-.g December 2010 and June 201 1. School! WIll be a(lded to the mOdern 'ZOItion lost once pl ~ nn,"9 ~nd 01 ,on~tr\lC"llOt"1 expenditures ~ re I"d~d 10 the Ilx·year C~ pllal Impfovemenu Progr~m . .see "Pp,,-I'\dIX R for a complete hit Of ICMOII that were Ulesie(l 11"1 the 2010-2011 school year

PrOjectl ...... th ~ T80 are projKU th~t wef@ aHelled prror to Decembe-< 1010 ar.d do not have pl~nnln9 MId/or C()/11tl"U(t,on expel"ld,rure! ,n the Superintender"u'l Recommended FY20 1 3 Capital Budget .nd the FY201 3-20\ B CiP hdv~ completion date~ to be dewmmed (TBO). Thll TBO ItatUI wdl be f,,-,,' l ed In J future CIP .

Appendix E • 1

©

Current Replacements/Modernizations -- No. 926575 - Master Project Category Montgomery County Public Schools Dale last Modified November 22,2011 SubCategory Countywide Required Adequate Public Fadlity No Administering Agency MCPS Relocation Impact None Planning Area Countywide Status On-going

Cost Element

Plann.ng, Design, and i Land iite I ; and Util~ies

)ther Total

:urrent I

;'0 . Bonds itat. Aid

IPAYGO

;urrent IScl100~ mpact Tax

I

Tax

EX 'ENDITlIRE

Total

67,256 27,934 o 0 o 0

131,120 1,5 1'.8861

"." SOOO1

FY13

9,63' o

FY14 FY1S

8 ,124 5,71' o o

1,806 11,100

FY18

4,1!J.4 o

FY17

1,480 a

l' 11

I,"

7!~ 8!,5551 9 , ,765 1

790 o790 0 0 I o o 0 5,778 '78 01

o 0 2.335

.. 7, 10 u

4

o o

815,574 199 ,923 ~~~~_5_22~ ,,~5't-0_3"-i+-_90'~, 9260rr-_9l_:2: ,,~3'+-_93i " 7~:__92',,~:54t-_491~,, 851:t--_9'~,, 34 66,5991 49 I r

o 0 0 u 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 o

91,826 1C 955 ),81 ,820 25 ,788 9,763 25 ,502 0 o

m ,18: 400 6, ~~~' 77~:~~'~~~~~~tJ~@t~~0tt=~2.' 17 106, ~31 119,223 92,549 '9,851 9,345

0)

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (SOOOI EnerQy 3,715 467 887 ' .191 1,190 0 o Maintenance 7.D93 892 1,655 2,273 2,273 0 o Net Impact 10,808 1,359 2.522 3,464 3,463 0 o

DESCR)P110N This project combines all current modernization projects as prioritized by the FACT assessments . Future modemizations with planning in FY 2013 or later are in PDF No. 886536. All FY 2007 appropriation was approved for the balance of conslr\Jctlon funds for t\YO modernizations; cons lnJ ction funds for two modernizations; and planning funds for five modernizations. The County Council, in the FY 2007·2012 CIP, approved the acceleration of the modernization of Bells Mill Elementary School . An amendment to the FY 2007-2012 CIP was approved to provide an additional $3.5 million in construction funding for one modernization project.

Due to fiscal constraints, the County Council, in the adopted FY 2009-2014 CIP. delayed high schOOl modernizations one year, with the exception of Wheaton HS which was delayed two years, beyond the Board of Education's request An FY 2009 appropriation was approved 10 provide planning funds for three mOclernizations; conslnJction funds for lhree modernizations; and furniture and equipment funds for five modernizations. An FY 2010 appropriation was approved to provide planning funds lor five modernizations; construction funds lor t\YO modernizations; and furniture and equipment funds for three modernizations. An FY 2011 appropriation was approved to provide planning funcls for one project construction funds for three projects; and furniture and equipment funds for one project. An FY 2012 appropriation was approved to provide planning funds for five modernizations and constr\Jction funds fOf four modernizations .

Due to fiscal constraints, the Board of Education's Requested FY 2013-2018 CIP includes a one year delay for middle school modernizations beginning with William H. Farquhar Middle School and a one year delay for high school modernizations beginnning with Seneca Valley High School. An FY 2013 appropnation is requested to provide planning funds for six modernizations and construction funds for one modernization .

OTHER DISCLOSURES - MCPS asserts that this project confonns to the requirements of relevant local plans, as required by the Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Ptanning Act. _. Expenditures will continue indefinitely.

APPROPRIATION AND COORDINATION MAP EXPENDITURE DATA Mandatory Referral - M·NCPPC ,, Date First A ropriation FY ($000) Department of Environmental Protection

First Cost Esbmate Building Permits: FY 331.923 Code Review

Last FY's Cost Es\Jmate 1,158,912 Fire Marshallnspections Department of Transportatlon

Appropriation R ues1 FY13 21,433 Sediment Control A propriation Request Est. FY1. 48,611 Stormwaler Management Supplemental Appropriation R uest 0 WSSC Pennils Transfer 0

Cumulative Appropriation 632,514 nures I Encumbrances 407,203

Unencumbered Balance 225,311

Partial Closeout Thru FYIO 54,146 New Partial Closeout FYI1 155,796 Total Partial C/o$OOUI 209,942

111221201110:53:16AM

(301;

Future Replacements/Modernizations -- No. 886536 -- Master Project Category Montgomory County Public Schools Date last Modified November 22, 2011 SubCategory Countywide Required Adequate Public Facility No Administering Agency MCPS Relocation Impact Non. Planning Area Countywide Status On-gOln9

Co.C Element

I Design, and land

Total ~~~ I 24,186 0

a SHe ; and Utilities 35,178 a

~ 320,530 a

18,575

"8,'0' G.O. Bonds 398,469 a :urrent , Ta, 0 0

; Im pact T .. 0

'.bI' 0

::;2 0 0

I a 0

0

IRE <.,," =nlll " $000)

6~O.~~ ·FY13 FY14 FYI. FY16

14,41 0 1,070 2,58' 0 a 0 0 a

9,329 a a 62,5: I

11

: (SOliD) 87,261 a 0 1,070 2,581

a 0 0 0 0 0 0

'7,26' 0 1,070 2,58'

FY17 FY18

4.29' 6 ,46: 0 a

2.70 6, 16,46, 46,

60

23,47t 60,139 0 0 0 0

23 ,47" 60,1"

16Y.... 9.71

0 25.849

I 258,004 " ,OOU

1311,208

oeSCRt PTtON The Board of Education strongly supports the upgrading of tacilltles through comprehensive modernizations to replace major building systems and 10 bring schools up to current educaUon~1 standards. As feasibility studies are completed and architectural planning is scheduled, individual schools move from this project to the Current Replacementsl Modernizations PDF No. 926575.

Due to fiscal constraints and delay in the elementary school modernization projects in the adopted FY 2005-201 0 C1P, only one middle school modernization project moved from this project to the Current ReplacemenVModernlzalions Project. As a result of the adopled FY 2007-2012 CIP, five elementary schools , one middle school, and one hIgh school moved from this project 10 the Current ReplacemenVModernizations Project. Also, six elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school now show expenditures in the adopted CtP, and therefore, were given completion dales for their modemizations.

The Soard of Education's Requested FY 2009-2014 CIP moved six elementary schools, one middle school, and two high schools from this project to the Current ReplacemenVModernizatlons Project. The Board of Education's request also provided completion dates for three elementary schools , one middle school and two high SChoOlS. Due to fiscal constraints, the County Council, in the adopted FY 2009-2014 CIP, delayed high school modemizations one year, with the exception of Wheaton HS which was delayed two years, beyond the Board of Education's request.

The adopted FY 2011-201 6 CIP moved three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school from this project to the Current ReplacemenV Modernization project. Also, the adopted FY 2011-2016 CIP provided completion dates for one middle school and one high school.

The Board of Education's Requested FY 2013-2018 CIP moves three elementary schools and one high schoot from this project to the Current Replacement/Modernization project . Also. based on the new Facility Assessment with Criteria and Testing (FACT)cooducted in 2010-2011. eight elementary schools were appended to the current modernization schedule. Due 10 fiscal constrainls , the Board of Education's Requested FY 2013-2018 CIP includes a one year delay for middle school modemizations beginning with WilHam H. Farquhar Middle School and a one year delay for high school modemizatlons beginnning with Seneca Valley High School. A complete list of modernizations Is in Appendix E of the Superintendent's Recommended FY 2013-2018 CIP,

FtSCAL NOTe Stale Reimbursement: Reimbu(sement of the slate share 01 eligible costs wlll continue to be pursued. The impact tax reflected in the expenditure schedule shown above is applied to the addition portions of some modernizations within this project.

Expenditures will continue indefinitely.

APPROPRIATION AND COORDINATION MAP EXPENDITURE DATA Mandatory Referral - M-NCPPC / ~~

Department of Environmental Protection Date Fi", Appropriation FY ($000) " ,.; 1,' ....Building Permits:Fi rst Cost Estimate FY 8,200 Code RevIew " '"

Last FY's Cost Estimate 268,683 Fire Marshal Department of Transportation

A pro . bon Request FY'3 0 Inspections 'ationR uest Est. FYI. 0 Sediment Control

SuP '" emental Appropriation R uest 0 Stormwater Management Transfer 0 WSSC Permits

Cumulative Appropriation 0

Ex endltures I Encumbrances 0

Unencumbered Balance 0

Partial Closeout Thru FY'O 0

New Partial Closeout FYl1 0

Total Partial Closeout 0

11 122120'110:50:22AM ®

--­<­

uested FY13·18 Modernization LOA..,'"

____ . ,.__L ,~

~ 0-,

pring

I UL.I ... . U . uur\<:i ,-0;;:<;; IVI ,.;}

n (\)

-0, tl

'" -t­

__TSD Col. Zadok Magruder HS TBo Damascus H S

'TBO 'Northwood HS Subtotal· Future Mods 398,469 87,261 - 1,070 2,581 23,471 60,139 311,208

~

@

"9 Learning

costs

~ ~..,.

"" c. <'" <L

.~