ED COMMITTEE 123 March 102014

Worksession

MEMORANDUM

March 72014

TO Education Committee

FROM~eith Levchenko Senior Legislative Analyst co _ Essie McGuire Senior Legislative Analy~~iAi

SllBJECT Agenda Item 1 Special Appropriation and CIP Amendment MCPS - $50 Million for Relocatable Classrooms (Source offunds Current Revenue)

Agenda Item 2 FY15-20 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

Council Staff Packet Summary

Agenda Item 1 Relocatable Classrooms Special Appropriation and Amendment bull Council Staff Recommends Approval NOTE The CE has recommended partially funding this

item with recordation tax revenue Council Staff is reviewing this option and suggests Council action be pushed backfrom March 18 to March 25

Agenda Item 2 bull Part One Fiscal Summary Previously discussed Summarized here for background bull Part Two Consent Projects (pages 5-6) Council Staff recommends approval of projects

which have no major changes in cost scope or timing andlor are already under construction bull Part Three Countywide Systemic and Other Projects (Pages 7-12) Council Staff provides

specific recommendations for each systemic project (not on the consent list) and in some cases identifies potential changes in some projects that the Council may wish to consider at CIP reconciliation in May NOTE Modernizations will be discussed at afuture date

bull Part Four School Capacity Issues and Projects (pages 12-23) Council Staff reviews capacity projects (new and approved) not yet under construction NOTE Affordability issues will be discussed at a future date once the Board ofEducation provides its specific priority list ofprojects as requested by the Committee at its February 10 meeting See copy5-6 for a March 5 letter from the Board ofEducation President to the Council President on this topic

Agenda Item 3 See discussion on page 22

2

0

The following officials and staff are expected to participate in this meeting

MCPS Philip Kauffman Board of Education President Patricia ONeill Board of Education Vice President Michael Durso Board of Education Member Joshua Starr Superintendent of Schools Larry Bowers Chief Operating Officer James Song Director Department of Facilities Management Adrienne Karamihas Budget and Operations Manager Department of Facilities Management

County Government Greg Ossont Deputy Director Department of General Services (Agenda Item 3 only) Blaise Defazio Office of Management and Budget Jane Mukira Office of Management and Budget

Montgomery Parks Mike Riley Deputy Director Parks (Agenda Item 3 only)

Agenda Item 1 Special Appropriation and CIP Amendment - MCPS - $50 Million for Relocatable Classrooms (Source offunds Current Revenue)

Background

On February 19 2014 the County Council received a request for $50 million from MCPS for the leasing purchase movement and rehabilitation of relocatable classrooms needed for the 2014-15 school year (copy1-2) This request would accelerate $50 million in current revenue-funded requested appropriation from FY15 to FY14 in order to allow MCPS to move forward with contractual work this spring so that the relocatable classrooms can be ready by the start of the 2014-15 schoolyear

As part of its FY15-20 CIP request MCPS is seeking an increase in FY15 expenditures (from $20 million to $50 million) for the Relocatable Classrooms project to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 schoolyear While the acceleration of appropriation by itself has no net budgetary impact the Council will need to amend the current FY13-18 CIP to include the FY15 expenditure increase requested by MCPS as part of this appropriation action

A public hearing and action on this request are scheduled for March 18 2014 at 1 30 pm

Current Allocation of Relocatable Classrooms

MCPS currently uses 498 relocatable classrooms for a variety of purposes (see copy4 for detailed listing of placements) Three units are in use at various schools to accommodate phased construction activities Seventy-three units are being used at holding schools Another 40 units are being used for miscellaneous purposes at schools and non-school locations The remaining 379 units are spread across elementary middle and high schools and are being used to address capacity issues (370) or provide daycare space (9)

-2shy

As shown in the chart below the number of relocatable classrooms in use is down by 35 from FY13 Enrollment-related units in use are down slightly (as a result of some school capacity coming onshyline in the past year) Phased Construction units are dOVVTI primarily as a result of the completion of the Gaithersburg High School modernization (which used 14 units)

Use of Relocatable Classrooms FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY14-FY13

Phased Construction Holding Schools Day Care EnrolimentlCSRlFDK Mise

45 41 11

454 24

41 43 11

413 24

40 50 11

426 24

24 53 12

406 44

29 73 10

340 42

23 75 10

385 40

3 73

9 373 40

(20) (2) (1)

(12) -

Total 575 532 551 539 494 533 498 (35)

change from prior year DIVO -75 36 -22 -83 79 -66

Overall the number of relocatable classrooms is about at the same level as in FY12 However given enrollment increases that have occurred since then and which are projected it is likely MCPS will not be able to significantly reduce its use of relocatable classrooms over the next six years

Request Detail

This following chart breaks out the components of the request

FY14 Relocatable Classrooms Project Costs of Units

MOes - New - Existing

69 69

Unit Cost 57000

Total Cost 3933000

Returns Design per site Fencing Other (electrical upgrades) Maintenance (Rehabs) Contingency

27 35

15000 7500

405000 262500 40000 75000

150000 134500

Total 5000000

The numbers shown are preliminary Each year many units are moved from where permanent classroom additions are completed However exactly where the units will go is more complicated and will not be firm until revised enrollment projections for each school (and the number of teaching stations required) are finalized in mid-April Given enrollment trends the overall number of relocatable classrooms in use is expected to rise in FY14 as the number of new units brought in will greatly exceed the number of returns

The bulk of the request is for the movement and placement of the units The move cost (currently estimated at $57000 per unit) covers the first year lease moving utilities and furniture and equipment

Over the past several years MCPS has returned older units (when no longer needed on their current sites) back to the vendor and where needed replaced these units with newer units In addition to being in better condition the newer units also take up less space on a site since groups of the newer units can be clustered closer together than is possible with the older units

-3shy

Last year MCPS estimated that the average age of its units is 9 years old and its oldest units (from as early as 1983) had all been rehabbed at least once

On February 28 the Executive forwarded his recommendation to approve the Relocatables request See copy3 for details The Executive recommends utilizing some recordation tax revenue to partially fund this request Recordation tax revenue is more typically used to offset GO Bond funding in the CIP rather than current revenue as in this case Before deciding whether to support this funding change Council Staff will need to review the County Executives Operating Budget (to be released on March 17) and its underlying revenue and expenditure assumptions

Council Staff recommends approval of MCPS Relocatable Classrooms special appropriationamendment request However Council Staff recommends that action on this item be moved from March 18 (after the public hearing) to March 25 to give Council Staff time to assess the implications of the use of recordation tax revenue recommended by the County Executive

Agenda Item 2 Worksession FY15-20 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

PART ONE FISCAL SUMMARY

The Committee received summary information at the February 10 Education Committee meeting Some of that information is repeated here as background

Expenditures

Board of Education Request and County Executive Recommended CIP

The following chart presents six-year and annual totals for the latest (ie Amended) FY13-18 CIP the FY15-20 Board request and the FY15-20 CIP as recommended by the County Executive

Table 1 FY15-20 versus Amended FY13-18 Ex

1372585 281427 251834 207438 238858 197000 196028 uest 1741972 251589 348228 397790 278312 236014 230039

369367 269 44151 109370 200790 82284

1717700 247542 344408 395151 275033 231394 224172 345115 251 40104 105550 198151 79005

(24272) -14 (4047) (3820) (2639) (3279)

The Boards FY15-20 request totals $174 billion This level of funding is $3694 million (or 269 percent) more than the Amended (latest) FY13-18 CIP of$137 billion

The County Executives Recommended CIP supports most of the Boards request He recommends about a $243 million reduction over six years in current revenue funding for the Technology Modernization project An excerpt of the County Executives Recommended FY15-20 CIP for MCPS is attached (copy16-28)

-4shy

County Executive Assumptions

Given the County Executives MCPS CIP expenditure recommendation is quite close to the Boards request it is important to consider the key assumptions underlying the County Executives MCPS CIP recommendations These include

bull Assume $40 million per year in state aid for school construction funding While the County has met or exceeded this number on occasion in past years in three of the past four years the County has been awarded less than $40 million

bull Assume $2304 million in a new state aid source (School Financing Bonds) The County is working with Baltimore County and Prince Georges County to get legislation passed that would create this new source offunding Under the program qualifYing counties would be able to leverage up to $20 million in state funding with a 2-to-1 County match to finance public school construction The bonds issued under this program would be state bonds that would not be subject to the Countys bond limits However the details of how such a plan would work how the County match would be calculated etc are not clear

bull Revise impact tax and recordation tax assumptions upward by substantial amounts Overall bonds would be reduced by $1924 million as a result

bull Increase the Countys spending affordability guidelines for bonds from $295 million per year to $3245 million per year This 10 percent increase to annual bond limits is the maximum the Council is allowed to do by law On February 4 the Council approved this higher limit

The new school financing bonds assumption represents the greatest uncertainty within the County Executives Recommended CIP If the necessary legislation ultimately fails to become law or if the funding related to this new effort remains cloudy even after the close of the State Legislative Session the Council will have a difficult time reconciling the MCPS CIP in the context of potentially $2304 million less in funding The early May reconciliation process is intended to make more marginal adjustments to the CIP and not such massive changes

At the February 10 Education Committee worksession the Committee agreed with Council Staffs recommendation to ask the Board of Education to review its FY15-20 Proposed CIP and develop a list of projects (in priority order by project or by group of projects) which if all were removed andor deferred would offset the $2304 million reduction within the six-year period

In correspondence with the Montgomery County delegation and with the Council President (see letter on copy5-6) the Board of Education President noted that the Board does not plan to submit this priority list to the Council prior to Sine Die (April 14) Therefore the Committees afford ability review of the MCPS CIP will need to occur late in the CIP process (late April or early May)

PART TWO CONSENT PROJECTS

The MCPS CIP includes 47 new or ongoing projects Council Staff has reviewed each of these projects and categorized them for the Committees review The projects in this section are categorized as consent projects and are projects which have no requested change in scope cost or timing They are summarized below

-5shy

School Projects Under Construction

Six school additions and 1 new school project are either under construction or recently completed These are presented in Table 1 below and account for $379 million within the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of the projects

Arcola ES Addition

Bethesda ES Addition August 2015

Clarksburg Cluster ES August 2014

Clarksburg HS Addition August 2015 342

North Chevy Chase ES Addition August 2015

Rosemary Hills ES Addition August 2015

Waters Landing ES Addition August 2014

Countywide Projects with No Changes

Table 2 below includes 4 countywide systemic projects (totaling $263 million) in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP that reflect no change in scope cost or timing from the Approved FY13-18 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of these projects (subject to final reconciliation in early May)

NOTE In the Restroom Renovations project work on all assessed facilities will be completed in FY18

-6shy

92

PART THREE COUNTYWIDE SYSTEMIC AND OTHER PROJECTS

Projects Recommended for Approval as Proposed

ADA Compliance (PDF on copy7)

6HXJ

This project provides program accessibility for all MCPS activities and facilities when modifications or improvements to existing buildings are needed MCPS states that the increased expenditures in FYl5 and FY16 relate directly to the Countys settlement with the Department of Justice and requirements to assess and remediate accessibility issues in public facilities

The Council received a briefing on this settlement with the County Government and the need for certain other County agencies including MCPS to address similar facility issues The ongoing level of effort for FY15-18 in this project continues a level of effort for ongoing ADA concerns

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

This project was first added to the CIP in FY07 and provides for improvements to schools that are not scheduled for capital improvements in the six-year period The limited modifications are related to instructional and support spaces for new or expanded programs or administrative space

The requested funding is nearly the same as the FY13 approved amount and $12 million higher than the FY14 approved amount The PDF indicates that the FY15 funds will renovate science laboratories provide special education facility modifications and modify space for program requirements In addition the PDF states that the funds will also support construction of an auxiliary gym at Thomas Pyle MS and classroom modifications at the Whittier Woods Center to be used by Walt WhitmanHS

MCPS also states that while FY16 projects have not yet been specifically identified and prioritized there is a significant list of projects that need to be addressed and would be evaluated in the commgyear

Council staff recommends approval of the Boards request for FY15 Council staff also acknowledges the backlog of projects waiting for FYI6 however the funding amount could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability at reconciliation

-7shy

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

The following officials and staff are expected to participate in this meeting

MCPS Philip Kauffman Board of Education President Patricia ONeill Board of Education Vice President Michael Durso Board of Education Member Joshua Starr Superintendent of Schools Larry Bowers Chief Operating Officer James Song Director Department of Facilities Management Adrienne Karamihas Budget and Operations Manager Department of Facilities Management

County Government Greg Ossont Deputy Director Department of General Services (Agenda Item 3 only) Blaise Defazio Office of Management and Budget Jane Mukira Office of Management and Budget

Montgomery Parks Mike Riley Deputy Director Parks (Agenda Item 3 only)

Agenda Item 1 Special Appropriation and CIP Amendment - MCPS - $50 Million for Relocatable Classrooms (Source offunds Current Revenue)

Background

On February 19 2014 the County Council received a request for $50 million from MCPS for the leasing purchase movement and rehabilitation of relocatable classrooms needed for the 2014-15 school year (copy1-2) This request would accelerate $50 million in current revenue-funded requested appropriation from FY15 to FY14 in order to allow MCPS to move forward with contractual work this spring so that the relocatable classrooms can be ready by the start of the 2014-15 schoolyear

As part of its FY15-20 CIP request MCPS is seeking an increase in FY15 expenditures (from $20 million to $50 million) for the Relocatable Classrooms project to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 schoolyear While the acceleration of appropriation by itself has no net budgetary impact the Council will need to amend the current FY13-18 CIP to include the FY15 expenditure increase requested by MCPS as part of this appropriation action

A public hearing and action on this request are scheduled for March 18 2014 at 1 30 pm

Current Allocation of Relocatable Classrooms

MCPS currently uses 498 relocatable classrooms for a variety of purposes (see copy4 for detailed listing of placements) Three units are in use at various schools to accommodate phased construction activities Seventy-three units are being used at holding schools Another 40 units are being used for miscellaneous purposes at schools and non-school locations The remaining 379 units are spread across elementary middle and high schools and are being used to address capacity issues (370) or provide daycare space (9)

-2shy

As shown in the chart below the number of relocatable classrooms in use is down by 35 from FY13 Enrollment-related units in use are down slightly (as a result of some school capacity coming onshyline in the past year) Phased Construction units are dOVVTI primarily as a result of the completion of the Gaithersburg High School modernization (which used 14 units)

Use of Relocatable Classrooms FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY14-FY13

Phased Construction Holding Schools Day Care EnrolimentlCSRlFDK Mise

45 41 11

454 24

41 43 11

413 24

40 50 11

426 24

24 53 12

406 44

29 73 10

340 42

23 75 10

385 40

3 73

9 373 40

(20) (2) (1)

(12) -

Total 575 532 551 539 494 533 498 (35)

change from prior year DIVO -75 36 -22 -83 79 -66

Overall the number of relocatable classrooms is about at the same level as in FY12 However given enrollment increases that have occurred since then and which are projected it is likely MCPS will not be able to significantly reduce its use of relocatable classrooms over the next six years

Request Detail

This following chart breaks out the components of the request

FY14 Relocatable Classrooms Project Costs of Units

MOes - New - Existing

69 69

Unit Cost 57000

Total Cost 3933000

Returns Design per site Fencing Other (electrical upgrades) Maintenance (Rehabs) Contingency

27 35

15000 7500

405000 262500 40000 75000

150000 134500

Total 5000000

The numbers shown are preliminary Each year many units are moved from where permanent classroom additions are completed However exactly where the units will go is more complicated and will not be firm until revised enrollment projections for each school (and the number of teaching stations required) are finalized in mid-April Given enrollment trends the overall number of relocatable classrooms in use is expected to rise in FY14 as the number of new units brought in will greatly exceed the number of returns

The bulk of the request is for the movement and placement of the units The move cost (currently estimated at $57000 per unit) covers the first year lease moving utilities and furniture and equipment

Over the past several years MCPS has returned older units (when no longer needed on their current sites) back to the vendor and where needed replaced these units with newer units In addition to being in better condition the newer units also take up less space on a site since groups of the newer units can be clustered closer together than is possible with the older units

-3shy

Last year MCPS estimated that the average age of its units is 9 years old and its oldest units (from as early as 1983) had all been rehabbed at least once

On February 28 the Executive forwarded his recommendation to approve the Relocatables request See copy3 for details The Executive recommends utilizing some recordation tax revenue to partially fund this request Recordation tax revenue is more typically used to offset GO Bond funding in the CIP rather than current revenue as in this case Before deciding whether to support this funding change Council Staff will need to review the County Executives Operating Budget (to be released on March 17) and its underlying revenue and expenditure assumptions

Council Staff recommends approval of MCPS Relocatable Classrooms special appropriationamendment request However Council Staff recommends that action on this item be moved from March 18 (after the public hearing) to March 25 to give Council Staff time to assess the implications of the use of recordation tax revenue recommended by the County Executive

Agenda Item 2 Worksession FY15-20 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

PART ONE FISCAL SUMMARY

The Committee received summary information at the February 10 Education Committee meeting Some of that information is repeated here as background

Expenditures

Board of Education Request and County Executive Recommended CIP

The following chart presents six-year and annual totals for the latest (ie Amended) FY13-18 CIP the FY15-20 Board request and the FY15-20 CIP as recommended by the County Executive

Table 1 FY15-20 versus Amended FY13-18 Ex

1372585 281427 251834 207438 238858 197000 196028 uest 1741972 251589 348228 397790 278312 236014 230039

369367 269 44151 109370 200790 82284

1717700 247542 344408 395151 275033 231394 224172 345115 251 40104 105550 198151 79005

(24272) -14 (4047) (3820) (2639) (3279)

The Boards FY15-20 request totals $174 billion This level of funding is $3694 million (or 269 percent) more than the Amended (latest) FY13-18 CIP of$137 billion

The County Executives Recommended CIP supports most of the Boards request He recommends about a $243 million reduction over six years in current revenue funding for the Technology Modernization project An excerpt of the County Executives Recommended FY15-20 CIP for MCPS is attached (copy16-28)

-4shy

County Executive Assumptions

Given the County Executives MCPS CIP expenditure recommendation is quite close to the Boards request it is important to consider the key assumptions underlying the County Executives MCPS CIP recommendations These include

bull Assume $40 million per year in state aid for school construction funding While the County has met or exceeded this number on occasion in past years in three of the past four years the County has been awarded less than $40 million

bull Assume $2304 million in a new state aid source (School Financing Bonds) The County is working with Baltimore County and Prince Georges County to get legislation passed that would create this new source offunding Under the program qualifYing counties would be able to leverage up to $20 million in state funding with a 2-to-1 County match to finance public school construction The bonds issued under this program would be state bonds that would not be subject to the Countys bond limits However the details of how such a plan would work how the County match would be calculated etc are not clear

bull Revise impact tax and recordation tax assumptions upward by substantial amounts Overall bonds would be reduced by $1924 million as a result

bull Increase the Countys spending affordability guidelines for bonds from $295 million per year to $3245 million per year This 10 percent increase to annual bond limits is the maximum the Council is allowed to do by law On February 4 the Council approved this higher limit

The new school financing bonds assumption represents the greatest uncertainty within the County Executives Recommended CIP If the necessary legislation ultimately fails to become law or if the funding related to this new effort remains cloudy even after the close of the State Legislative Session the Council will have a difficult time reconciling the MCPS CIP in the context of potentially $2304 million less in funding The early May reconciliation process is intended to make more marginal adjustments to the CIP and not such massive changes

At the February 10 Education Committee worksession the Committee agreed with Council Staffs recommendation to ask the Board of Education to review its FY15-20 Proposed CIP and develop a list of projects (in priority order by project or by group of projects) which if all were removed andor deferred would offset the $2304 million reduction within the six-year period

In correspondence with the Montgomery County delegation and with the Council President (see letter on copy5-6) the Board of Education President noted that the Board does not plan to submit this priority list to the Council prior to Sine Die (April 14) Therefore the Committees afford ability review of the MCPS CIP will need to occur late in the CIP process (late April or early May)

PART TWO CONSENT PROJECTS

The MCPS CIP includes 47 new or ongoing projects Council Staff has reviewed each of these projects and categorized them for the Committees review The projects in this section are categorized as consent projects and are projects which have no requested change in scope cost or timing They are summarized below

-5shy

School Projects Under Construction

Six school additions and 1 new school project are either under construction or recently completed These are presented in Table 1 below and account for $379 million within the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of the projects

Arcola ES Addition

Bethesda ES Addition August 2015

Clarksburg Cluster ES August 2014

Clarksburg HS Addition August 2015 342

North Chevy Chase ES Addition August 2015

Rosemary Hills ES Addition August 2015

Waters Landing ES Addition August 2014

Countywide Projects with No Changes

Table 2 below includes 4 countywide systemic projects (totaling $263 million) in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP that reflect no change in scope cost or timing from the Approved FY13-18 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of these projects (subject to final reconciliation in early May)

NOTE In the Restroom Renovations project work on all assessed facilities will be completed in FY18

-6shy

92

PART THREE COUNTYWIDE SYSTEMIC AND OTHER PROJECTS

Projects Recommended for Approval as Proposed

ADA Compliance (PDF on copy7)

6HXJ

This project provides program accessibility for all MCPS activities and facilities when modifications or improvements to existing buildings are needed MCPS states that the increased expenditures in FYl5 and FY16 relate directly to the Countys settlement with the Department of Justice and requirements to assess and remediate accessibility issues in public facilities

The Council received a briefing on this settlement with the County Government and the need for certain other County agencies including MCPS to address similar facility issues The ongoing level of effort for FY15-18 in this project continues a level of effort for ongoing ADA concerns

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

This project was first added to the CIP in FY07 and provides for improvements to schools that are not scheduled for capital improvements in the six-year period The limited modifications are related to instructional and support spaces for new or expanded programs or administrative space

The requested funding is nearly the same as the FY13 approved amount and $12 million higher than the FY14 approved amount The PDF indicates that the FY15 funds will renovate science laboratories provide special education facility modifications and modify space for program requirements In addition the PDF states that the funds will also support construction of an auxiliary gym at Thomas Pyle MS and classroom modifications at the Whittier Woods Center to be used by Walt WhitmanHS

MCPS also states that while FY16 projects have not yet been specifically identified and prioritized there is a significant list of projects that need to be addressed and would be evaluated in the commgyear

Council staff recommends approval of the Boards request for FY15 Council staff also acknowledges the backlog of projects waiting for FYI6 however the funding amount could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability at reconciliation

-7shy

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

As shown in the chart below the number of relocatable classrooms in use is down by 35 from FY13 Enrollment-related units in use are down slightly (as a result of some school capacity coming onshyline in the past year) Phased Construction units are dOVVTI primarily as a result of the completion of the Gaithersburg High School modernization (which used 14 units)

Use of Relocatable Classrooms FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY14-FY13

Phased Construction Holding Schools Day Care EnrolimentlCSRlFDK Mise

45 41 11

454 24

41 43 11

413 24

40 50 11

426 24

24 53 12

406 44

29 73 10

340 42

23 75 10

385 40

3 73

9 373 40

(20) (2) (1)

(12) -

Total 575 532 551 539 494 533 498 (35)

change from prior year DIVO -75 36 -22 -83 79 -66

Overall the number of relocatable classrooms is about at the same level as in FY12 However given enrollment increases that have occurred since then and which are projected it is likely MCPS will not be able to significantly reduce its use of relocatable classrooms over the next six years

Request Detail

This following chart breaks out the components of the request

FY14 Relocatable Classrooms Project Costs of Units

MOes - New - Existing

69 69

Unit Cost 57000

Total Cost 3933000

Returns Design per site Fencing Other (electrical upgrades) Maintenance (Rehabs) Contingency

27 35

15000 7500

405000 262500 40000 75000

150000 134500

Total 5000000

The numbers shown are preliminary Each year many units are moved from where permanent classroom additions are completed However exactly where the units will go is more complicated and will not be firm until revised enrollment projections for each school (and the number of teaching stations required) are finalized in mid-April Given enrollment trends the overall number of relocatable classrooms in use is expected to rise in FY14 as the number of new units brought in will greatly exceed the number of returns

The bulk of the request is for the movement and placement of the units The move cost (currently estimated at $57000 per unit) covers the first year lease moving utilities and furniture and equipment

Over the past several years MCPS has returned older units (when no longer needed on their current sites) back to the vendor and where needed replaced these units with newer units In addition to being in better condition the newer units also take up less space on a site since groups of the newer units can be clustered closer together than is possible with the older units

-3shy

Last year MCPS estimated that the average age of its units is 9 years old and its oldest units (from as early as 1983) had all been rehabbed at least once

On February 28 the Executive forwarded his recommendation to approve the Relocatables request See copy3 for details The Executive recommends utilizing some recordation tax revenue to partially fund this request Recordation tax revenue is more typically used to offset GO Bond funding in the CIP rather than current revenue as in this case Before deciding whether to support this funding change Council Staff will need to review the County Executives Operating Budget (to be released on March 17) and its underlying revenue and expenditure assumptions

Council Staff recommends approval of MCPS Relocatable Classrooms special appropriationamendment request However Council Staff recommends that action on this item be moved from March 18 (after the public hearing) to March 25 to give Council Staff time to assess the implications of the use of recordation tax revenue recommended by the County Executive

Agenda Item 2 Worksession FY15-20 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

PART ONE FISCAL SUMMARY

The Committee received summary information at the February 10 Education Committee meeting Some of that information is repeated here as background

Expenditures

Board of Education Request and County Executive Recommended CIP

The following chart presents six-year and annual totals for the latest (ie Amended) FY13-18 CIP the FY15-20 Board request and the FY15-20 CIP as recommended by the County Executive

Table 1 FY15-20 versus Amended FY13-18 Ex

1372585 281427 251834 207438 238858 197000 196028 uest 1741972 251589 348228 397790 278312 236014 230039

369367 269 44151 109370 200790 82284

1717700 247542 344408 395151 275033 231394 224172 345115 251 40104 105550 198151 79005

(24272) -14 (4047) (3820) (2639) (3279)

The Boards FY15-20 request totals $174 billion This level of funding is $3694 million (or 269 percent) more than the Amended (latest) FY13-18 CIP of$137 billion

The County Executives Recommended CIP supports most of the Boards request He recommends about a $243 million reduction over six years in current revenue funding for the Technology Modernization project An excerpt of the County Executives Recommended FY15-20 CIP for MCPS is attached (copy16-28)

-4shy

County Executive Assumptions

Given the County Executives MCPS CIP expenditure recommendation is quite close to the Boards request it is important to consider the key assumptions underlying the County Executives MCPS CIP recommendations These include

bull Assume $40 million per year in state aid for school construction funding While the County has met or exceeded this number on occasion in past years in three of the past four years the County has been awarded less than $40 million

bull Assume $2304 million in a new state aid source (School Financing Bonds) The County is working with Baltimore County and Prince Georges County to get legislation passed that would create this new source offunding Under the program qualifYing counties would be able to leverage up to $20 million in state funding with a 2-to-1 County match to finance public school construction The bonds issued under this program would be state bonds that would not be subject to the Countys bond limits However the details of how such a plan would work how the County match would be calculated etc are not clear

bull Revise impact tax and recordation tax assumptions upward by substantial amounts Overall bonds would be reduced by $1924 million as a result

bull Increase the Countys spending affordability guidelines for bonds from $295 million per year to $3245 million per year This 10 percent increase to annual bond limits is the maximum the Council is allowed to do by law On February 4 the Council approved this higher limit

The new school financing bonds assumption represents the greatest uncertainty within the County Executives Recommended CIP If the necessary legislation ultimately fails to become law or if the funding related to this new effort remains cloudy even after the close of the State Legislative Session the Council will have a difficult time reconciling the MCPS CIP in the context of potentially $2304 million less in funding The early May reconciliation process is intended to make more marginal adjustments to the CIP and not such massive changes

At the February 10 Education Committee worksession the Committee agreed with Council Staffs recommendation to ask the Board of Education to review its FY15-20 Proposed CIP and develop a list of projects (in priority order by project or by group of projects) which if all were removed andor deferred would offset the $2304 million reduction within the six-year period

In correspondence with the Montgomery County delegation and with the Council President (see letter on copy5-6) the Board of Education President noted that the Board does not plan to submit this priority list to the Council prior to Sine Die (April 14) Therefore the Committees afford ability review of the MCPS CIP will need to occur late in the CIP process (late April or early May)

PART TWO CONSENT PROJECTS

The MCPS CIP includes 47 new or ongoing projects Council Staff has reviewed each of these projects and categorized them for the Committees review The projects in this section are categorized as consent projects and are projects which have no requested change in scope cost or timing They are summarized below

-5shy

School Projects Under Construction

Six school additions and 1 new school project are either under construction or recently completed These are presented in Table 1 below and account for $379 million within the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of the projects

Arcola ES Addition

Bethesda ES Addition August 2015

Clarksburg Cluster ES August 2014

Clarksburg HS Addition August 2015 342

North Chevy Chase ES Addition August 2015

Rosemary Hills ES Addition August 2015

Waters Landing ES Addition August 2014

Countywide Projects with No Changes

Table 2 below includes 4 countywide systemic projects (totaling $263 million) in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP that reflect no change in scope cost or timing from the Approved FY13-18 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of these projects (subject to final reconciliation in early May)

NOTE In the Restroom Renovations project work on all assessed facilities will be completed in FY18

-6shy

92

PART THREE COUNTYWIDE SYSTEMIC AND OTHER PROJECTS

Projects Recommended for Approval as Proposed

ADA Compliance (PDF on copy7)

6HXJ

This project provides program accessibility for all MCPS activities and facilities when modifications or improvements to existing buildings are needed MCPS states that the increased expenditures in FYl5 and FY16 relate directly to the Countys settlement with the Department of Justice and requirements to assess and remediate accessibility issues in public facilities

The Council received a briefing on this settlement with the County Government and the need for certain other County agencies including MCPS to address similar facility issues The ongoing level of effort for FY15-18 in this project continues a level of effort for ongoing ADA concerns

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

This project was first added to the CIP in FY07 and provides for improvements to schools that are not scheduled for capital improvements in the six-year period The limited modifications are related to instructional and support spaces for new or expanded programs or administrative space

The requested funding is nearly the same as the FY13 approved amount and $12 million higher than the FY14 approved amount The PDF indicates that the FY15 funds will renovate science laboratories provide special education facility modifications and modify space for program requirements In addition the PDF states that the funds will also support construction of an auxiliary gym at Thomas Pyle MS and classroom modifications at the Whittier Woods Center to be used by Walt WhitmanHS

MCPS also states that while FY16 projects have not yet been specifically identified and prioritized there is a significant list of projects that need to be addressed and would be evaluated in the commgyear

Council staff recommends approval of the Boards request for FY15 Council staff also acknowledges the backlog of projects waiting for FYI6 however the funding amount could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability at reconciliation

-7shy

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Last year MCPS estimated that the average age of its units is 9 years old and its oldest units (from as early as 1983) had all been rehabbed at least once

On February 28 the Executive forwarded his recommendation to approve the Relocatables request See copy3 for details The Executive recommends utilizing some recordation tax revenue to partially fund this request Recordation tax revenue is more typically used to offset GO Bond funding in the CIP rather than current revenue as in this case Before deciding whether to support this funding change Council Staff will need to review the County Executives Operating Budget (to be released on March 17) and its underlying revenue and expenditure assumptions

Council Staff recommends approval of MCPS Relocatable Classrooms special appropriationamendment request However Council Staff recommends that action on this item be moved from March 18 (after the public hearing) to March 25 to give Council Staff time to assess the implications of the use of recordation tax revenue recommended by the County Executive

Agenda Item 2 Worksession FY15-20 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

PART ONE FISCAL SUMMARY

The Committee received summary information at the February 10 Education Committee meeting Some of that information is repeated here as background

Expenditures

Board of Education Request and County Executive Recommended CIP

The following chart presents six-year and annual totals for the latest (ie Amended) FY13-18 CIP the FY15-20 Board request and the FY15-20 CIP as recommended by the County Executive

Table 1 FY15-20 versus Amended FY13-18 Ex

1372585 281427 251834 207438 238858 197000 196028 uest 1741972 251589 348228 397790 278312 236014 230039

369367 269 44151 109370 200790 82284

1717700 247542 344408 395151 275033 231394 224172 345115 251 40104 105550 198151 79005

(24272) -14 (4047) (3820) (2639) (3279)

The Boards FY15-20 request totals $174 billion This level of funding is $3694 million (or 269 percent) more than the Amended (latest) FY13-18 CIP of$137 billion

The County Executives Recommended CIP supports most of the Boards request He recommends about a $243 million reduction over six years in current revenue funding for the Technology Modernization project An excerpt of the County Executives Recommended FY15-20 CIP for MCPS is attached (copy16-28)

-4shy

County Executive Assumptions

Given the County Executives MCPS CIP expenditure recommendation is quite close to the Boards request it is important to consider the key assumptions underlying the County Executives MCPS CIP recommendations These include

bull Assume $40 million per year in state aid for school construction funding While the County has met or exceeded this number on occasion in past years in three of the past four years the County has been awarded less than $40 million

bull Assume $2304 million in a new state aid source (School Financing Bonds) The County is working with Baltimore County and Prince Georges County to get legislation passed that would create this new source offunding Under the program qualifYing counties would be able to leverage up to $20 million in state funding with a 2-to-1 County match to finance public school construction The bonds issued under this program would be state bonds that would not be subject to the Countys bond limits However the details of how such a plan would work how the County match would be calculated etc are not clear

bull Revise impact tax and recordation tax assumptions upward by substantial amounts Overall bonds would be reduced by $1924 million as a result

bull Increase the Countys spending affordability guidelines for bonds from $295 million per year to $3245 million per year This 10 percent increase to annual bond limits is the maximum the Council is allowed to do by law On February 4 the Council approved this higher limit

The new school financing bonds assumption represents the greatest uncertainty within the County Executives Recommended CIP If the necessary legislation ultimately fails to become law or if the funding related to this new effort remains cloudy even after the close of the State Legislative Session the Council will have a difficult time reconciling the MCPS CIP in the context of potentially $2304 million less in funding The early May reconciliation process is intended to make more marginal adjustments to the CIP and not such massive changes

At the February 10 Education Committee worksession the Committee agreed with Council Staffs recommendation to ask the Board of Education to review its FY15-20 Proposed CIP and develop a list of projects (in priority order by project or by group of projects) which if all were removed andor deferred would offset the $2304 million reduction within the six-year period

In correspondence with the Montgomery County delegation and with the Council President (see letter on copy5-6) the Board of Education President noted that the Board does not plan to submit this priority list to the Council prior to Sine Die (April 14) Therefore the Committees afford ability review of the MCPS CIP will need to occur late in the CIP process (late April or early May)

PART TWO CONSENT PROJECTS

The MCPS CIP includes 47 new or ongoing projects Council Staff has reviewed each of these projects and categorized them for the Committees review The projects in this section are categorized as consent projects and are projects which have no requested change in scope cost or timing They are summarized below

-5shy

School Projects Under Construction

Six school additions and 1 new school project are either under construction or recently completed These are presented in Table 1 below and account for $379 million within the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of the projects

Arcola ES Addition

Bethesda ES Addition August 2015

Clarksburg Cluster ES August 2014

Clarksburg HS Addition August 2015 342

North Chevy Chase ES Addition August 2015

Rosemary Hills ES Addition August 2015

Waters Landing ES Addition August 2014

Countywide Projects with No Changes

Table 2 below includes 4 countywide systemic projects (totaling $263 million) in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP that reflect no change in scope cost or timing from the Approved FY13-18 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of these projects (subject to final reconciliation in early May)

NOTE In the Restroom Renovations project work on all assessed facilities will be completed in FY18

-6shy

92

PART THREE COUNTYWIDE SYSTEMIC AND OTHER PROJECTS

Projects Recommended for Approval as Proposed

ADA Compliance (PDF on copy7)

6HXJ

This project provides program accessibility for all MCPS activities and facilities when modifications or improvements to existing buildings are needed MCPS states that the increased expenditures in FYl5 and FY16 relate directly to the Countys settlement with the Department of Justice and requirements to assess and remediate accessibility issues in public facilities

The Council received a briefing on this settlement with the County Government and the need for certain other County agencies including MCPS to address similar facility issues The ongoing level of effort for FY15-18 in this project continues a level of effort for ongoing ADA concerns

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

This project was first added to the CIP in FY07 and provides for improvements to schools that are not scheduled for capital improvements in the six-year period The limited modifications are related to instructional and support spaces for new or expanded programs or administrative space

The requested funding is nearly the same as the FY13 approved amount and $12 million higher than the FY14 approved amount The PDF indicates that the FY15 funds will renovate science laboratories provide special education facility modifications and modify space for program requirements In addition the PDF states that the funds will also support construction of an auxiliary gym at Thomas Pyle MS and classroom modifications at the Whittier Woods Center to be used by Walt WhitmanHS

MCPS also states that while FY16 projects have not yet been specifically identified and prioritized there is a significant list of projects that need to be addressed and would be evaluated in the commgyear

Council staff recommends approval of the Boards request for FY15 Council staff also acknowledges the backlog of projects waiting for FYI6 however the funding amount could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability at reconciliation

-7shy

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

County Executive Assumptions

Given the County Executives MCPS CIP expenditure recommendation is quite close to the Boards request it is important to consider the key assumptions underlying the County Executives MCPS CIP recommendations These include

bull Assume $40 million per year in state aid for school construction funding While the County has met or exceeded this number on occasion in past years in three of the past four years the County has been awarded less than $40 million

bull Assume $2304 million in a new state aid source (School Financing Bonds) The County is working with Baltimore County and Prince Georges County to get legislation passed that would create this new source offunding Under the program qualifYing counties would be able to leverage up to $20 million in state funding with a 2-to-1 County match to finance public school construction The bonds issued under this program would be state bonds that would not be subject to the Countys bond limits However the details of how such a plan would work how the County match would be calculated etc are not clear

bull Revise impact tax and recordation tax assumptions upward by substantial amounts Overall bonds would be reduced by $1924 million as a result

bull Increase the Countys spending affordability guidelines for bonds from $295 million per year to $3245 million per year This 10 percent increase to annual bond limits is the maximum the Council is allowed to do by law On February 4 the Council approved this higher limit

The new school financing bonds assumption represents the greatest uncertainty within the County Executives Recommended CIP If the necessary legislation ultimately fails to become law or if the funding related to this new effort remains cloudy even after the close of the State Legislative Session the Council will have a difficult time reconciling the MCPS CIP in the context of potentially $2304 million less in funding The early May reconciliation process is intended to make more marginal adjustments to the CIP and not such massive changes

At the February 10 Education Committee worksession the Committee agreed with Council Staffs recommendation to ask the Board of Education to review its FY15-20 Proposed CIP and develop a list of projects (in priority order by project or by group of projects) which if all were removed andor deferred would offset the $2304 million reduction within the six-year period

In correspondence with the Montgomery County delegation and with the Council President (see letter on copy5-6) the Board of Education President noted that the Board does not plan to submit this priority list to the Council prior to Sine Die (April 14) Therefore the Committees afford ability review of the MCPS CIP will need to occur late in the CIP process (late April or early May)

PART TWO CONSENT PROJECTS

The MCPS CIP includes 47 new or ongoing projects Council Staff has reviewed each of these projects and categorized them for the Committees review The projects in this section are categorized as consent projects and are projects which have no requested change in scope cost or timing They are summarized below

-5shy

School Projects Under Construction

Six school additions and 1 new school project are either under construction or recently completed These are presented in Table 1 below and account for $379 million within the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of the projects

Arcola ES Addition

Bethesda ES Addition August 2015

Clarksburg Cluster ES August 2014

Clarksburg HS Addition August 2015 342

North Chevy Chase ES Addition August 2015

Rosemary Hills ES Addition August 2015

Waters Landing ES Addition August 2014

Countywide Projects with No Changes

Table 2 below includes 4 countywide systemic projects (totaling $263 million) in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP that reflect no change in scope cost or timing from the Approved FY13-18 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of these projects (subject to final reconciliation in early May)

NOTE In the Restroom Renovations project work on all assessed facilities will be completed in FY18

-6shy

92

PART THREE COUNTYWIDE SYSTEMIC AND OTHER PROJECTS

Projects Recommended for Approval as Proposed

ADA Compliance (PDF on copy7)

6HXJ

This project provides program accessibility for all MCPS activities and facilities when modifications or improvements to existing buildings are needed MCPS states that the increased expenditures in FYl5 and FY16 relate directly to the Countys settlement with the Department of Justice and requirements to assess and remediate accessibility issues in public facilities

The Council received a briefing on this settlement with the County Government and the need for certain other County agencies including MCPS to address similar facility issues The ongoing level of effort for FY15-18 in this project continues a level of effort for ongoing ADA concerns

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

This project was first added to the CIP in FY07 and provides for improvements to schools that are not scheduled for capital improvements in the six-year period The limited modifications are related to instructional and support spaces for new or expanded programs or administrative space

The requested funding is nearly the same as the FY13 approved amount and $12 million higher than the FY14 approved amount The PDF indicates that the FY15 funds will renovate science laboratories provide special education facility modifications and modify space for program requirements In addition the PDF states that the funds will also support construction of an auxiliary gym at Thomas Pyle MS and classroom modifications at the Whittier Woods Center to be used by Walt WhitmanHS

MCPS also states that while FY16 projects have not yet been specifically identified and prioritized there is a significant list of projects that need to be addressed and would be evaluated in the commgyear

Council staff recommends approval of the Boards request for FY15 Council staff also acknowledges the backlog of projects waiting for FYI6 however the funding amount could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability at reconciliation

-7shy

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

School Projects Under Construction

Six school additions and 1 new school project are either under construction or recently completed These are presented in Table 1 below and account for $379 million within the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of the projects

Arcola ES Addition

Bethesda ES Addition August 2015

Clarksburg Cluster ES August 2014

Clarksburg HS Addition August 2015 342

North Chevy Chase ES Addition August 2015

Rosemary Hills ES Addition August 2015

Waters Landing ES Addition August 2014

Countywide Projects with No Changes

Table 2 below includes 4 countywide systemic projects (totaling $263 million) in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP that reflect no change in scope cost or timing from the Approved FY13-18 CIP Council Staff recommends approval of these projects (subject to final reconciliation in early May)

NOTE In the Restroom Renovations project work on all assessed facilities will be completed in FY18

-6shy

92

PART THREE COUNTYWIDE SYSTEMIC AND OTHER PROJECTS

Projects Recommended for Approval as Proposed

ADA Compliance (PDF on copy7)

6HXJ

This project provides program accessibility for all MCPS activities and facilities when modifications or improvements to existing buildings are needed MCPS states that the increased expenditures in FYl5 and FY16 relate directly to the Countys settlement with the Department of Justice and requirements to assess and remediate accessibility issues in public facilities

The Council received a briefing on this settlement with the County Government and the need for certain other County agencies including MCPS to address similar facility issues The ongoing level of effort for FY15-18 in this project continues a level of effort for ongoing ADA concerns

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

This project was first added to the CIP in FY07 and provides for improvements to schools that are not scheduled for capital improvements in the six-year period The limited modifications are related to instructional and support spaces for new or expanded programs or administrative space

The requested funding is nearly the same as the FY13 approved amount and $12 million higher than the FY14 approved amount The PDF indicates that the FY15 funds will renovate science laboratories provide special education facility modifications and modify space for program requirements In addition the PDF states that the funds will also support construction of an auxiliary gym at Thomas Pyle MS and classroom modifications at the Whittier Woods Center to be used by Walt WhitmanHS

MCPS also states that while FY16 projects have not yet been specifically identified and prioritized there is a significant list of projects that need to be addressed and would be evaluated in the commgyear

Council staff recommends approval of the Boards request for FY15 Council staff also acknowledges the backlog of projects waiting for FYI6 however the funding amount could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability at reconciliation

-7shy

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

PART THREE COUNTYWIDE SYSTEMIC AND OTHER PROJECTS

Projects Recommended for Approval as Proposed

ADA Compliance (PDF on copy7)

6HXJ

This project provides program accessibility for all MCPS activities and facilities when modifications or improvements to existing buildings are needed MCPS states that the increased expenditures in FYl5 and FY16 relate directly to the Countys settlement with the Department of Justice and requirements to assess and remediate accessibility issues in public facilities

The Council received a briefing on this settlement with the County Government and the need for certain other County agencies including MCPS to address similar facility issues The ongoing level of effort for FY15-18 in this project continues a level of effort for ongoing ADA concerns

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

This project was first added to the CIP in FY07 and provides for improvements to schools that are not scheduled for capital improvements in the six-year period The limited modifications are related to instructional and support spaces for new or expanded programs or administrative space

The requested funding is nearly the same as the FY13 approved amount and $12 million higher than the FY14 approved amount The PDF indicates that the FY15 funds will renovate science laboratories provide special education facility modifications and modify space for program requirements In addition the PDF states that the funds will also support construction of an auxiliary gym at Thomas Pyle MS and classroom modifications at the Whittier Woods Center to be used by Walt WhitmanHS

MCPS also states that while FY16 projects have not yet been specifically identified and prioritized there is a significant list of projects that need to be addressed and would be evaluated in the commgyear

Council staff recommends approval of the Boards request for FY15 Council staff also acknowledges the backlog of projects waiting for FYI6 however the funding amount could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability at reconciliation

-7shy

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

This project funds positions essential for implementation of the multi-year capital improvements program MCPS states that the FYl5 increase reflects the compensation increases anticipated in the Boards requested operating budget

Council Staff recommends approval of the Boards request as submitted

Facility Planning MCPS (PDF on copyIO)

The PDF states that the FY15 funding is requested to support pre-planning of nine elementary school additions five middle school additions one high school addition one new elementary school and four elementary and one high school revitalizationexpansion projects

Funding for this project typically reflects the scope of work necessary to implement the final approved CIP project schedule As a result Council staff recommends preliminary approval of this project as requested by the Board anticipating that adjustments may need to be made based on final Council project decisions

Fire Safety Code Upgrades (PDF on copyII)

This project addresses sprinklers escape windows exit signs fire alarm devices exit stairs and hood and fire suppression systems to comply with annual Fire Marshall inspections

In the last full CIP cycle MCPS requested and the Council approved additional funding ($15 million in FY13 and FYI4) to address interior and exterior roof access ladder issues that were out of compliance in older schools MCPS states that the continued increased funding requested in FY15-16 is to continue this work

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Improved Safe Access to Schools (PDF on copyI2)

This project funds improvements to both pedestrian and vehicular access to schools Projects are developed through coordination with the School Transportation Efficiency Planning (STEP) Committee

-8shy

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

This committee includes representatives from MCPS DOT M-NCPPC Fire and Rescue Police OMB and others Each year requests from schools are submitted to address safe access issues

The PDF identifies Julius West MS North Bethesda MS Ashburton and Judith Resnick ES as the schools with identified projects in FY15

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

This project funds mechanical retrofits and building envelope modifications necessary to address schools experiencing Indoor Air Quality issues

Countywide HVAC projects are programmed systematic replacements of major components (boilers chillers air handlers unit ventilators and associated piping) that are well beyond their life expectancy L4Q projects on the other hand are determined in response to specific problems and usually involve targeted components such as replacement ofpipe insulation or carpet or major repairs to masonry or other parts of the building envelope Environmental testing and remediation (such as lead radon and PCBs) also are funded in the capital budget

The FY15 and FY16 request is an increase of $650000 each year above the approved level of effort for this project The PDF states that the additional funds are requested to replace pipe insulation where identified for indoor air quality The requested funding level for the out years would return the project to the approved level of effort

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

School Security Systems (PDF oncopy14)

This project addresses aspects of security throughout MCPS and has funded several security initiatives These have included installation and replacement of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in secondary schools and installation of visitor management and access systems in all schools

In FY13 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation to accelerate completion of installing visitor access control systems in all remaining elementary schools In FY14 the Council approved a supplemental appropriation of State and County funding to accelerate completion of the remaining security installation initiatives in this project There is no FY15 appropriation request for this project The FY15 expenditures shown here reflect anticipated completion of the current work in the summer of2014

MCPS states that at this time the school system is assessing security enhancement needs and that once those assessments are complete funding will be considered in a future CIP request

-9shy

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Council Staff recommends approval as submitted by the Board of Education

Systemic Projects with Requested Increases - Roof Replacement HV AC and PLAR

The Board requested significant increases in the HVAC and PLAR projects over the six-year period These projects are continually high priorities for MCPS with considerable backlogs of work to be done

These projects (along with Roof Replacement and Fire Safety Systems) were reviewed in the most recent Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force (IMTF) Report The report identifies an Acceptable Annual Replacement Cost (AARC) of how much money should be budgeted annually for replacement or rehabilitation so that if continued ultimately the entire inventory of the element will last over its acceptable life span Rarely is the AARC achieved but if funds are available it is useful as a target The MCPS portion of the report is attached on copy20-24

For both the HVAC and PLAR projects the Board has requested significant increases in each CIP and capital budget cycle since FYll For both projects the Council has in most years approved an increase in the level of effort but not as much of an increase as was requested by the Board

For each project Council Staff notes below the requests in comparison to the reports AARC amount While Council Staff acknowledges the scope and priority of the HV AC and PLAR projects the question again will be how much if any additional funding can be allocated to these projects in the context of affordability and other priorities in the capital budget This question typically cannot be definitively answered until later in the budget process and during final reconciliation Council Staff also notes that given the significant increase requested the Council could again approve a smaller amount than requested and still increase the level of effort

Roof Replacement MCPS (PDF on copy15)

The Boards request for this project reflects the same level of effort $65 million in FYI7-20 but requests $8 million in FY15 and FY16 an increase of$15 million each ofthose two years

The IMTF reflects an AARC of $108 million for roof replacement with a $26 million backlog The FY15 and FY16 requested funding is 73 of the AARC and the level of effort in the out years is 60 of the AARC

The PDF states that the FY15 funds are expected to support full or partial roof replacements at 3 elementary schools 3 middle schools and one high school The Committee may want MCPS to comment on whether there are specific or time sensitive needs at the identified schools that require increased funding in FY15 and FY16 only

Council Staff supports the FY15-16 increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of

-10shy

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

competing pnontIes for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project provides for the systematic replacement of heating ventilating air conditioning automated temperature controls and plumbing systems for MCPS This is a critical systems project for MCPS with an extensive backlog of projects to be completed and is continually a high priority for the school system

The IMTF report identifies an AARC for HVAC of $258 million The Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is $28 million $22 million above the AARC The requested level of effort of $10 million for the remainder of the six-year period is 39 of the AARC

MCPS reports that on average HV AC replacements cost $28 million for elementary schools $48 million for middle schools and $88 million for high schools

While the Boards request for FY15 and FY16 is above the AARC it does speak to the extensive backlog of projects that need to be addressed given that funding in recent years has not been as high as the AARC The IMTF report cites a backlog of $1637 million in HVAC work

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

This project funds replacement of key facility and site components based on an inventory of their ages and conditions Components addressed in this project cover a wide range including code corrections flooring lighting and playground equipment

The Board requested an increase of $2 million in FY15 the same funding in FY16 and an increase of $3 million over the approved level of effort in FY17-20 Again PLAR is an area of high priority as it addresses key facility components each year and has an extensive backlog of projects to address

The IMTF report indicates an AARC for this project of $106 million per year This is the combined total of a wide range of projects that fall under PLAR the report breaks out various

-11shy

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

subcategories of work in this project on circles 20-24 This is clearly an out-of-reach funding target but does indicate the range and number of outstanding projects in this area

Council Staff supports an increase in this area if funds are available but notes that this is an area that could be reduced if necessary to meet affordability concerns Again the Council will need to determine how much additional funding is available given the number of competing priorities for the capital budget within schools and across all agencies Council Staff highlights that the Council could reduce the Boards request and still increase the level of effort if necessary due to affordability considerations

PART FOUR CAPACITY PROJECT REVIEW

Enrollment

Enrollment changes are one of the biggest drivers of both the Operating Budget and CIP for MCPS From a CIP perspective enrollment increases drive the need for additional classrooms as well as core space improvements

Bruce Crispell Director of Long-Range Planning for MCPS provided the Committee with a presentation on enrollment and demographic trends and forecasts on February 10 at the Committees first meeting on the MCPS CIP Some summary information is noted below

bull Official enrollment for the 2013-14 schoolyear is 151289 students This is 2510 students more than 2012-13 official enrollment and extremely close (+6 students) to the number projected for 2013-14 at this time last year

bull Enrollment is expected to climb across elementary middle and high school throughout the sixshyyear period although greatest at the middle and high school levels Birth rates have remained at historically high levels over the past 10 years (13064 in 2012) and are a major reason for the sustained increases in elementary school enrollment and the expected large jumps in middle and high school enrollment over the next six years

bull Overall enrollment is expected to climb to 162255 (nearly 10600 more students) through FY20

This continued growth in enrollment is causing significant projected space needs throughout the County over the next six years Specific capacity issues and MCPS requested projects to address these issues will be discussed at a later Committee worksession

Also MCPS is still working to address the capacity needs of programmatic initiatives (such as class size reduction and the expansion of Full-Day Kindergarten countywide) Many schools accommodated these programs initially with relocatable classrooms As MCPS plans additions and modernizations these programmatic needs are assumed to be addressed through permanent classroom space

Subdivision Staging Policy School Test

The school test within the Subdivision Staging Policy looks at projected enrollment and capacity at the beginning of the 6th schoolyear of the CIP period (August 2019 for the FY15-20 CIP) in 25 high school clusters at each school level (elementary middle and high school) For purposes ofthe test the Northeast Consortium schools and the Downcounty Consortium schools are divided into the home high school areas

-12shy

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

There are three categories into which a cluster may fall within the school test

bull Cluster utilization is at 105 percent or below at each of the three school levels The cluster passes the test

bull Cluster utilization is between 105 percent and 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board may approve a residential subdivision if the developer commits to paying a school facilities payment

bull Cluster utilization is above 120 percent at one or more school levels The Planning Board must not approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the upcoming fiscal year

Currently no school clusters are in moratorium The Bethesda-Chevy Chase (B-CC) Cluster would have been in moratorium this year (for the August 2018 test done as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP process) if the Council had not approved a high school cluster solutiont project as part of the FY13-18 Amended CIP last May

A number of school clusters fell within the school payment category within last years school test (see copy18)

August 2019 Test Cbased on the BOE Request)

With regard to the FY15-20 CIP period which begins July 1 2014 the summary chart on copy19 shows that no clusters would go into moratorium under the Board of Educations Proposed CIP although a number of clusters would fall within the school payment category

Table 3 below details projected utilization rates by cluster and by school level and the new capacity (not already under construction) assumed in these rates

1 A cluster solution project is a placeholder with dollars for classroom space in the out years of the CIP that provides sufficient capacity to keep a cluster below the 120 percent moratorium threshold The Council utilizes placeholder projects only in cases where MCPS has the capability to add the required space within the window of the school test period In the case of the B-CC cluster MCPS included facility planning dollars in FY14 to develop a classroom addition project at B-CC High School so assuming this new space could open by August 2018 was reasonable This addition project is now proposed for inclusion in the FY15-20 CIP with an opening date of August 2017

-13shy

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Table 3 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on the Board of Education uest

BCC 905 844

Churchill 903 838

888

866 992

- Northwood

- Wheaton 885 1009

Walter Johnson

Richard MontnnrnllrIJ

Northwest

Haven ES addition to open in 818 Mill ES addition to open in 818 Brookhaven ES addition to open in 818 Shriver ES addition to open in 818 lMleaton Woods ES mod to open in 817 FP for Parkland MS addition requested for FY15 Loiederman MS addition is in FP in FY14

-14shy

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

While no clusters would be in moratorium a number would fall within the school facility payment range (between 105 and 120) with some at the top end of that range

Ofparticular note are bull Clarksburg Cluster (HS 116) The Clarksburg HS addition project is assumed to open

in August 2015 However the 116 utilization rate in August 2019 assumes this addition No other projects are currently being planned and the overutilization is assumed to get worse beyond August 2019

bull Wheaton Cluster (MS 1192) A potential addition at Loiederman Middle School is in Facility Planning in FYI4 A potential addition to Parkland Middle School is requested for Facility Planning in FYI5

Utilization Rates by Cluster Assuming No New Capacity

In considering the urgency of projects it is helpful to look at what would happen in each cluster if requested capacity projects were not to happen The following table presents each clusters utilization rates based only on existing capacity (and capacity currently under construction) and what would be the resulting subdivision staging policy for schools test result

-15shy

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Table 4 FY20 (August 2019) Utilization Rates by Cluster and School Type Based on Existing Capacity and New Capacity Under Construction

ES MS HS Comment

BCC Moratorium

Churchill

Adequate Capacity

~ 1043 ~ _~______~~_UJ

- Blair 1078 1135 1039 School Facil ent

- Einstein 110~6 909 108~6 School Facil

944 1069 975 School Facil ent

- Northwood 1172 1129 1119 Moratorium

- Wheaton 1080 1218 1009 School Facil ent

Gaithe 1143 1003 967 School Facility Payment

Walter Johnson 1101 1153 1126 School Faci ent

Magruder 1069 797 834 School Facility Payment

Richard Mo

Northeast Consortium 1

- Blake 1043 903 1003

- Paint Branch 1142 997 1006 School Facility Payment

- Springbrook 1028 1030 886 Adequate Ca

Northwest 1178 1014 1084 School Facility Payment

PoolesAlle 739 615 979 Adequate Capacity

Quince Orchard 1216 883 1083 Moratorium

RockAlle 121 1107 958 Moratorium

Seneca Val 113 914 933 School Facili nt

Sherwood 789 754 818 Ade

Watkins Mill 973 941 872 Adequate Ca

Whitman 1096 1097 1127

Wootton 841 887 1002 Under Construction Does not include capacity for additions new schools and roods going to construction in FY15 or beyond

-16shy

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

This chart shows the criticality of MCPS upcoming capacity projects Without this new capacity 6 clusters go into moratorium and 11 fall within the School Facility Payment range (gt 105) Only 8 clusters have adequate capacity (ie below 105)

The major problem areas are B-CC Clarksburg Northwood Richard Montgomery Quince Orchard and Rockville (which would all go into moratorium without new capacity) The Northwest and Wheaton clusters would be very close to going into moratorium

In fact under this no new capacity scenario elementary school utilization averages 1046 percent middle school utilization is at 1026 percent and high school utilization is at 1018 percent These numbers mean that adjacent capacity from other clusters is likely not sufficient to avoid the need for specific capacity projects although Council Staff will look at each capacity project to see if adjacent capacity may be available

Summary of Capacity Projects

Capacity projects include new schools additions and those modernizations which include increases in capacity

Table 5 below presents the 20 newreopenedaddition school capacity projects that are not yet under construction Note Six of the projects reviewed are in the Approved ClP Others are newly requested projects

-17shy

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Wood Acres (Nhitman)

RM Cluster ES 5 (Hungerford Park site)

BethesdamiddotChell) Chase MS (BmiddotCC)

Northvest ES 8 (NW)

addition (207 seats) to open in No appropriation requested

As shown on the chart approximately $349 million (about 20 percent of the MCPS CIP) is requested for these projects over the six-year period These projects in total provide for 7060 additional seats

Modernizations that add capacity need to be taken into account as well and will be looked at by Staff when a more detailed analysis by cluster is done The modernization schedule itself will be discussed more specifically at a future Education Committee meeting when the Committee discusses general MCPS affordability issues

-18shy

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Cost Changes in Capacity Projects

The following table presents capacity project costs as they appear in the Approved FY13-18 CIP (as amended July 12013) and in the Board of Educations Requested FY15-20 CIP

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Costs in Individual School Projects

~ Project Approved FY15-20 BOE Change Change Individual Schools Arcola ES Addition 3841 3841 - 00 Bethesda ES Addition 3970 3970 - 00 B-CC Middle School 2 46485 52314 5829 125 Clarksburg Cluster ES (Clarksburg Village Site 1) 28218 28218 - 00

(f)

U Clarksburg HS Addition 11823 11823 - 00 Q) ClarksburgDamascus MS 44808 52764 7956 178 ~

a Highland View ES Addition 10591 - (10591) -1000 Cl c North Chevy Chase ES Addition 6820 6820 - 00 0 Clc 0

Northwest ES 8 28157 32450 4293 Rosemary Hills ES Addition 5708 5708 -

152 00

Waters Landing ES Addition 8827 8827 - 00 Julius West MS Addition 12311 15303 2992 243 Wood Acres ES Addition 6853 8606 1753 256 RM ES 5 (Hungerford Park Site) (in RROCs) 29481 35381 5900 200

(f)-u Q) ~

a ~ z

Ashburton ES Addition nla 7221 nfa Lucy v Barnsley ES Additionj nla 12974 nfa B-CC High School Addition 4398 30787 nfa Brookhallen ES Addition nfa 5381 nla BurtonslAlle ES Addition nfa 12818 Diamond ES Addition nfa 8926 rita Blair Ewing Center Improllements nfa 16579 nla Glen Hallen ES Addition nla 4092 nfa Highland ES Addition na 8225 nfa Kemp Mill ES Addition 8658 Kensington-Parkwood ES Addition 11156 S Christa McAuliffe ES Addition 10171 North Bethesda MS Addition 18610 Judith Resnik ES Addition 11512 Sargent Shriller ES Addition 3881

nla nla nla nla

nfa nfa nfa nfa

As would be expected a number of projects already under construction show no cost increase However after several years of relatively flat square footage costs for construction MCPS has seen increases in its bid prices over the past couple of years and has adjusted a number of ongoing projects and is pricing its new projects accordingly From FYI0 through FY12 MCPS noted average construction costs per square foot of $203 for modernizations and $211 for addition projects In FY12 and FY13 MCPS has experienced square foot costs averaging approximately $280 per square foot for additions and modernizations

For the ongoing projects these cost increases total about $287 million (not including the removal of the Highland View ES Addition pending a capacity study in the DOhTIcounty Consortium)

-19shy

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Summary Review of Capacity Projects by Cluster

This section summarizes Council Staffs review of each of the clusters with capacity projects As noted on Table 3 earlier the following clusters do not have capacity projects requested in the six-year period

bull Blair and Kennedy areas (within the Downcounty Consortium) bull Gaithersburg bull Springbrook areas (within the Northeast Consortium) bull Poolesville bull Sherwood bull Watkins Mill bull Wootton

In some cases utilization in the above clusters is within the school facilities payment range (105 to 120) at one or more school levels so MCPS is likely to consider projects in these areas in the future and may in fact already have projects in facility planning However the focus of Council Staffs review is on those clusters where major capacity projects are already requested

In general Council Staff looked at utilization rate trends both within the cluster and at the existing school (if applicable) The timing of the project is also important since the subdivision staging test looks at August 2019 Projects requested to open one or more years prior to that date could be deferred without affecting the test Some summary information is provided in Table 7 below

Ouster utll1aoon rates include additional capacity from projects already under construction but not any capacity from projects approved or proposed which are not already under construction

Based on Council Staffs initial review all of the projects are justified However the timing for some projects is more urgent than others

It is also important for Councilmembers to keep in mind that most of these capacity projects are newly requested by the Board of Education and do not have approved completion dates Therefore if

-20shy

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

the Council approves a new project on a later schedule from what was requested this is still the inclusion of a new project to the CIP and not a deferraL

For a future Education Committee meeting Council Staff will develop expenditure scenarios across the full breadth of the MCPS CIP including capacity projects modernizations systemic projects and others When it is received the Board of Educations priority list of projects will be a key component in developing these expenditure scenarios

Agenda Item 3 MCPS Food Distribution Facility relocation and MCPS and M-NCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation

MCPS Food Distribution Facility Relocation (PDF on copy25-26) This project is part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for design and construction of a

new 77000 square foot food distribution facility for MCPS The new facility includes expansion space to meet the current and future needs of the program and also includes new food processing equipment

The source of funds is interim financing The Executives FY15 recommendation reflects completion of the project and does not show any funding recommended in FY15-20 Executive staff reports that the food distribution facility will be complete by the end of this calendar year MCPS reports that the transition to the new facility will occur shortly after the new facility is completed with some overlap timing included to allow for continuity of service

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

MCPS and MNCPPC Maintenance Facilities Relocation (PDF on copy27-28) Expenditures Total 6 Years FY13 FYl4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

FY13-18 Approved

69039 69039 0 1994 2570 33072 31403 0

FY15-20 Recommended

69039 67045 2570 33072 31403 0 0 0

This project is also part of the Smart Growth Initiative and provides for the relocation of MCPS and M-NCPPC maintenance facilities from the East Side of the County Service Park to the Webb Tract While the facilities are currently separate a joint facility will be designed and constructed There was agreement by all parties to this joint facility as a part of the site master plan process The source of funding is interim financing

Executive staff reports that the design phase of the maintenance facilities will conclude at the end of this calendar year (2014) Construction of the joint maintenance facility should commence shortly thereafter assuming permitting goes smoothly The PDF states that construction is expected to be completed in 22 months

Council staff recommends approval of this project as submitted

KMLflevchenkomcpsfy15 20 cip reviewed 3 1020 14docx

-21shy

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg

Office of the Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 132014

MEMORANDUM

To The Honorable Isiah Leggett County Executive

The Honorable Craig Rice President coun~neil _~__ ~_

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of Schools I i

Subject Transmittal-Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation and Amendment to the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program for Relocatable Classrooms

Board of Education Meeting Date February 11 2014

Type of Action

[2J Supplemental Appropriation

D Transfer

D Notification

JPSJSak

Attachment

Copy to Mr Bowers Mr Klausing Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

97 ACTION

Office ofthe Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville Maryland

February 112014

MEMORANDUM

To Members ofthe Board ofEducation

From Joshua P Starr Superintendent of S~

Subject Fiscal Year 2014 Supplemental Appropriation Request for Relocatable Classrooms

WHEREAS The Board of Educations Requested Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program includes $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget for relocatable classrooms to accommodate student population changes for the 2014-2015 school year and

WHEREAS These funds are programmed to be expended during summer 2014 but will not be available until the County Council takes final action on the Board of Educations Capital Improvements Program request in May 2014 and

WHEREAS The contracts for the leasing relocation and installation work for the Fiscal Year 2015 relocatable classroom moves must be executed prior to May 1 2014 in order to have the units ready for the start of school in August 2014 and

WHEREAS The appropriation authority to expend the funds programmed for Fiscal Year 2015 must be approved by the County Council before the Board of Education can enter into contracts now therefore be it

Resolved That the Board of Education requests a Fiscal Year 2014 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50 million to accelerate the requested Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation to provide for the execution of contracts for leasing and relocatable classroom moves planned for summer 2014 to address school emollment changes in time for the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year and be it further

Resolved That this request be forwarded to the county executive and the County Council for action

JPSLABJSd1d

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 208S0Isiah Leggett

County Executive

MEMORANDUM

February 282014

TO Craig Rice President County Council

FROM Isiah Leggett County Executive--- __1V1V

SUBJECT Supplemental Appropriation l-SlS-CMCPS-l to the FY15 Capital Budget Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms (No 846540) $5000000

I am recommending a supplemental appropriation to the FY15 Capital Budget in the amount of$5~000000 for the moving and installation ofrelocatable classrooms (project No 846540) for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to accommodate student population changes for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year

These funds have already been included in my MCPS Capital Budget recommendation but would not become available until the County Council takes final action on that request and the next fiscal year begins in July 2014 This action is needed because the contracts for the relocation and installation ofthese relocatable classrooms must be executed before May 12014 to have them ready prior to the first day ofthe new school year This action does not change the scope of the project but the appropriation authority to expend these funds during the current fiscal year must be approved by the County Council before MCPS can proceed

I recommend that the County Council approve this supplemental appropriation in the amount of$5000000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue ($1054000) and Recordation Tax ($3946000) I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action

ILjm

Attachment Board ofEducation Request

Appendix D

Montgomery County Public Schools Relocatable Classrooms 2013-2014 School Year

I I Clusterl

School

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS Westland MS Bethesda North Chevy Chase Rosemary Hills

Total Winston Churchill Potomac

Total Clarksburg Clarksburg HS Rocky Hill MS Clarksburg ES Daly Little Ben nett

Total Damascus Cedar Grove

Total Downcounty Consortium

Reloeatables on site for Clusterl Reloeatables on site for Clusterl 2()13-2014 to Address School 2013-2014 to Address School

Overutllization DC Total Overutllizatlon DC Total Col Zadok Magruder Watkins Mill

4 4 Flower Hill 4 4

I

South Lake 4 1 5 Mill Creek Towne 3 3 Total 5 5 Judith A Resnik 5 5 an 5 5 Total 12 0 12 Bannockburn 6 6 Richard Montgomery Burning Tree

24 1 25 Julius West MS 4 4 Wood Acres Be1I 8 8 Total

5 5 College Gardens 4 4 Thoma S Wootton 5 0 5 Ritchie Park 6 6 Thomas S Wootton HS

Twinbrook 4 4 Cold Spring 11 11 Total 26 0 26 DuFief 9 9 Northeast Consortiummiddot Total 4 4 James H Blake HS 4 4

4 4 Broad Acres 6 6 Grand Total bv Use 8 8 Burnt Mills 4 4

36 0 36 Burtonsville 6 6 SCHOOL TOTAl Cloverly 2 2

7 7 Greencastle 6 6 7 0 7 Page 2 2

Stonegate 3 1 4

I Reloeatables on site for 2013-2014 to Address

Overutllization DC Total

3 3

3 0 3

2 2 4 4 7 7

13 0 13

9 9 1 1 1 1 2

11 1 12

373 9 382

382

Wheaton HS 2 2 Westover 4 4 Other Reloeatable Uses

Arcola 6 6 Total 37 1 38 Units Comment Forest Knolls 4 4 Northwest Construction

Harmony Hills 5 5 Clopper Mill 4 4 Waters Landing ES 2 Class displacement Highland View 6 6 Diamond 3 1 4 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Class displacement Oak View ES 1 1 Great Seneca Creek 3 3 Total 3 Kemp Mill ES 2 2 Spark M Matsunaga 14 1 15 Holding Schools Oakland Terrace 2 2 Ronald McNair 6 6 Emory Grove Center 7 Candlewood Pine Crest 4 4 Total 30 2 32 Fairland Center 9

Rolling Terrace 6 6 Quince Orchard

I

Grosvenor Center 21 Sargent Shriver 9 9 Brown Station 6 6 North lake Center 16 Bel Pre ES

Wheaton Woods 8 8 Rachel Carson 7 1 8 Radnor Center 20 Rock Creek Forest bull

Woodlin 7 7 Jones Lane 6 6 Total 73

Total 62 0 62 Marshall 3 3 Other Uses at Schools Gaithersburg Total 22 1 23 Gaithersburg ES 1 Parent Resource Ctr Gaithersburg ES 3 3 Rockvlle Monocacy ES 1 Goshen 5 5 Lucy V Bamsley 10 10 Rosemary Hills ES 1 Benchmarks Program

laytonsville 0 1 1 Flower Valley 1 1 Seneca Valley HS 1 Transitions (CCC) Rosemont 0 1 1 Maryvale 1 1 Sherwood ES 1 Baldrige Lab Strawberry Knoll 6

I 6 Meadow Hall 4 4 Summit Hall ES 1 Judy Center

Summit Hall 9 9 Rock Creek Valley 4 4 Wootton HS 1 Mont College Program Total 23 2 I 25 Carl Sandburg Center 2 2 Wootton liS 1 Bathroom

Walter Johnson Total 22 0 22 i Total 8

Ashburton 6 6 Seneca Valley Nonsehool Locations

OffKes IKensington-Parkwood 7 7 lake Seneca 7 7 Bethesda Depot 3 Luxrnanor

bull

3 3 S Christa McAuliffe 6 6 ChildrenS Res Ctr 1 Infants amp Todd offices bull Totall 16 0 I 16 SaUy K Ride 4 4 Clarksburg Depot 1 Maintenance

Waters Landing 7 7 bull Clarksburg Depot 2 Transportation Total 24 0 24 Kingsley 5 Transitions

Sherwood

lincoln Warehouse 1 Copy Plus Program Belmont 0 1 1 Montgomery College 2 Germantown

Total 0 1 1 Randolph Depot 3 Offices Rockinghorse 2 ESOlOffices Shady Grove Depot 10 Smith Center 2 Outdoor Education

Total 32

OTHER TOTAL 116

DC = Paid for by day-care provider to enable a day-care center to operate inside school bull In terms of the number of schools the Downcounty Consortium is the equivalent of 5 clusters and the NE Consortium is the equivalent of 3 clusters

Appendix D bull 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 850 Hungerford Drive + Rockvilie jlaryland 20850

March 5 2014

The Honorable Craig Rice President Montgomery County Council Stella B Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville Maryland 20850

Dear Mr Rice

During the 2014 legislative session the Maryland General Assembly introduced Senate Bill (SB) 927House Bill (HB) 1323 Supplemental Public School Construction Matching Fund Program The county executive in his Recommended FY 2015 Capital Budget and FY 2015-2020 CapitaImprovements Program assumed approval of the legislation and programmed $2307 million in School Financing Bonds for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016-2018

On February 10 2014 the Education Committee held a work session to begin review of the Board ofEducation 8

Requested FY 2015 CapitaZBudget and FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program At that time Council members raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the School Financing Bonds as a funding source in the CIP and asked that the Board ofEducation submit a list of projects that could be delayed or removed from the CIP if the $2307 million is not available for our construction projects

At this time the Board of Education is not prepared to submit a specific list of projects that could be delayed or removed from our CIP request however should such action be necessary we will forward a specific list once the 2014 legislative session has ended If such an action is required the impact could include a one- or two-year delay of elementary and secondary revitalizationexpansion projects removal of vital addition projects and delays to our roof replacement and heating ventilation and air conditioning projects I am enclosing a list of the options that would have to be considered

I believe that another option that should be considered ifthis legislation is not approved this session is to maintain the assumption of the School Financing Bonds in the CIP for FY 2016-2018 As there is no funding in FY 2015 from these bonds and none of the projects that would be impacted will begin before FY 2016 we could wait to make this decision until next year We would have one year to work with our delegation and the Maryland General Assembly to pass the legislation

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact Mr Larry A Bowers chief operating officer at 301-279-3626 or Mr James Song director Department of Facilities Management at 240-314-1064

Sincerely

~~ President

PKjs Enclosure Copy to

Members of the Board ofEducation Dr Starr Mr Bowers Dr Schiavino-Narvaez Dr Statham Mr Ikheloa Dr Zuckerman Mr Song

Phone 301-279-3617 Fax 301-279-3860 boemcpsmdorg + wwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorg