Loading...
CPPC 11-10-97 Meeting Agenda+11-111141T - COUNTY of FREDERICK. 5r Department of Planning and Development 540/665-36:1 FAY: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director RE: November Meeting and Agenda DATE: November 3, 1997 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Monday, November 10, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items: I. Discussion regarding the Capital Improvements Plan for the 1998-1999 Fiscal Year. II. Discussion regarding the update of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. III. Other. Staff has been directed to advise all committee members that access to the County Administration Building for night meetings that do not occur in the Board room will be limited to the back door of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition or in the Joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalk to the back door of the four-story wing. Informatipn regarding each agenda item is included in this package. Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Thank you. 107 North rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Item #1: Capital Improvements Plan The CPPS will continue work on the update of the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan during the November and December meetings. This will provide various departments an opportunity to submit proposal for consideration by the CPPS and will allow staff to develop a final draft that will be presented to the subcommittee in January. During the September meeting, the CPPS considered project priorities from the Winchester Regional Airport, the Frederick County Public Works Department, the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department, and the Handley Regional Library. The Winchester Regional Airport was the only department to submit a new project request, while the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department submitted a proposal which modified four projects. Three of the projects were revised to scale back projects previously presented to the CPPS, while one project was modified to combine the previously approved field house and indoor pool projects into one project. This project was also increased in scale and scope. The CPPS requested additional information regarding this project during the next CIP discussion. Included under this item is new project requests by the Frederick County Public School Board and additional information regarding the Frederick County Parks and Recreation project proposal for the field house and indoor pool. Staff has invited the department directors to attend this meeting to answer questions regarding these projects. It should be noted that staff was contacted by Serena Manuel, Interim Director, of the Winchester Regional Airport and was advised that the new project for an apron expansion and helipad construction would not be pursued at this time and should be removed from the list of new projects. Staff asks that the CPPS review this information for the purpose of discussion with the department directors. Frederick County Public Schools Projects Frederick County Public Schools 1415 Amherst Street Post Office Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788 Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent October 7, 1997 Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 REF: Frederick County Public Schools 1998 Capital Improvements Plan Dear Evan: The Frederick County Public Schools, 1998 Capital Improvements Plan was approved by the school board at its October 2, 1998, meeting. Pertaining to this, please find the attached additional information and revised pages 2 and 3 of the 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Individual Description and Justification Forms for the Indian Hollow Elementary School Addition/Renovations project, Site Acquisition for Southern/Eastern Frederick County Elementary School, and the Northwestern Regional Educational Programs (NREP) Addition project. Along with the data requested for these three projects which had not been previously submitted (i.e., Indian Hollow Elementary School Addition/Renovations, Site Acquisition for Southern/Eastern Frederick County Elementary School, and NREP Addition), I have included for your review a memo from Dr. Richard T. La Pointe, Superintendent of Public Instruction for Virginia, which contains the following information: (1) a list of new public sc:.aoi Pr oje-:s put under contract in 1996"-9; (2) a list of addition and renovation projects contracted in fiscal 1996-9 and, (3) a graph indicating the chance In public school construct_^,^. costs Over a s_.- ,fear peri _ — estimates I have provided for these three projects are, in `part, based on the information provided to us by Dr. La Pointe. As I noted previously, the scope of work for an addition tc� the NR, faei li~v has not been determined as this point, and t:'— cost has been provided is only a very preliminary estimate ofzhe possib-e scope of work w'r.lch Wil'_ be undertatien. In addition, as Veu are probabiv aware, the sc'-0ol roard ar.-4 board c f sure= , istrs h.a-,e concept --ally discussed the constructlon Of a cz�mb_ned trar.sc _tat �n,'ma_.^.tenance,"central warehouse f t^ ty scnDO_ division and county. However, since this topic has no progressed beyond the discussion phase, it is not possible to attach any realistic cost estimate to this project at this time. I have also had Mr. Jim Boyd, director of finance, calculate the deist service for these projects assuming we used a corrbination^loans from the Virginia Literary Loan Fund and the Virginia F�blicSchool Author'_t: (VPSA). Frederic': County currently pays 3 interest on 1 funds borrowed from the Virginia Literary Fund and approximately 6% interest to borrow from the Virginia Public School Authority. These interest rates may change in the future, and, of course, financing an entire project or a portion of a project from county funds would significantly reduce the ultimate cost of the project. In order to be placed on the first priority waiting list for Literary Loan funds, a school division's total indebtedness cannot exceed 20 million dollars. The majority of the financing for these projects has been calculated using funds from the Virginia Public School Authority as a result of Frederick County reaching its debt limit through the use of Literary Loan funds. (See attached chart concerning interest rate calculations for CIP.) If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know at your earliest convenience. Attachments cc: R. Thomas Malcolm, FCPS Jim Boyd, FCPS 2 Sincerely, Thomas Sullivan Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 1998 Capital Improvements Plan Frederick County School Board 1. New Elementary School, Back Creek District (1998) 2. Northwestern Regional Educational Programs (NREP) Addition (1998) 3. Combined Transportation/Maintenance/Central Warehouse Facility (1998) 4. Third County High School (1999) 5. Elementary School Site Acquisition, Eastern/Southern. Frederick County (1998) 6. Indian Hollow Eleinentary School Addition/Renovation (1999) 7. Gainesboro Elementary School, New Facility (2000) 3 1993-99 DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST SUMMARY Department: Frederick County Public $ghools Approved By: Frederick County School Beard Dept. Priority Project Title FY 98 Cost FY 99 FY 2000 FFY 2001 FY 2002 TOTAL Debt Service Cost Cost Cost Cost CIP Cost* 1 Back Creek 9,200,000 9,000,000 5,926,816 Elementary School 2 Northwestern 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,610,548 Regional Educational Programs (NREP) Addition (Combined) 3 Transportation/ Maintenancei Central Warehouse** 4 Frederick County 2,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 30,000,000 18,338,918 High School III 5 Elementary School 500,000 500,000 322,110 Site Acquisition 6 Indian Hollow 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,388,438 Elementary School Addition 7 Gainesboro 1,500,000 8,500,000 10,000,000 6,442,192 Elementary School 8 9 IO 11 I TOTAL 12,700,000 4,000,000 15,500,000 ",500,000 54,200,000 33,929.0,1-2 Includes anti ipatcd defht service through use of combination of VPSA and Literary Loan Fund loans. ** Scope of work not determined. 1999-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests LA Page ., filename: 98fcrms.wpd 1998-99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM RETURN To: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Project Name: " '^ tern i i P=-amsQ=) 1 addition Date Prepared: September 26, 1997 Aoencv. Frederick County School Board Agency Contact Person: Thcrias Phone Number: 340 662-3888 ext. 112 860 Smithfield Ave. Location of Project: Magisterial District: Stena a i i Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Nor`hwestern Regional Educational Frog r (`P area school d .l�isions (Fr lerick ra.as ) is a joint oreration of gree County, Clarke County, and Winchester City) . NREP provides educational services to handicapped students ages 2-21 for the t! -sae divisions. Currently, NREP serves arnroximately 145 students, 105 of whic:� attend the main facility at the-ctuthfield Avenue location an':'- ap_oroximately 40 of which are preschool students (ages 2-6) who receive services at due to a lack of space ��,T several iodations off -c at the Smitl field Av`nuie sit`. O< t receive services tll-=u r `a 1 � C 1-� Stu4.2.^_tS gh ='., 99 are from Frederick County. I'Y=e facility, ;"idch is owned by Frederick County, was buil- 1986 wit^ the construction of an addition. In addition. to t in 1960, and�`�_�anded t �ciula_r u_n�ts were added in the ea , �, 1 the r��;n ulnaear`, eco Smittfie7 Ave -7- lecatior_. T' e to a 990's to prey;ce rare c`assroor, s -ace at - - _ t..- SqUcrc ::ootaue, nye, - is 23,941 sc. "7. (S \� �,r� - c :� : ccu_�_ Schedule: If the orciect will take several years to cor-I... ,outline the scc e ale -ere. Be sure to incline anv work that mi�,ht have been done in previous years. inciudin` studies r other planning. -At th 1993-99 Capital Improvements P! an Project Requests G� Pa_e Project Name: Northwestern Regional Educational Programs (NREP) Project Description (Continued): The project will consist of the construction of classroom addition to the NREP facility. Preliminary information provided by Mrs. Karen Legge, director, indicates two to three additional classrooms will be needed by the 1998-99 school year. In addition, Mrs. Legge has expressed the need for four additional classrooms by the 2001-02 school year (see attached correspondence from Mrs. Legge addressed to area school superintendents). At this time, the exact scope of the project has not been determined. (NI project) Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other prcjer:(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationshio between the projects. Not applicable. Project Priority: 2 If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and C' rrent status of project: Nerd on list for 1998. Estimate Cost (in I997 dolIars). (T -n Thousands) PROPOSED EXPENDITURES EIement I 1st FY grid FY 3rd FY 4th FY nth FY 1998 11999 12000 '001 00_ Be7:55 Total - '- ' FS Plannin;, I I Survevin„ 3c I 150 I Design 150 Land :acquisition I Site Preparation & II 200 Improvements I I Construction it 2 , 000 I Furniture and Equipme:it I 1 10 Other (openin, 2:.1y colleciorr) TOT. -,LL II 2,300 I I ( I 1998-a9 capital lmrro�ements Plan Project Zequescs FA 200 Page (i`IREP project) Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. COSI Of COR2L13ra)]Ie faEility nr PrniinmPnt From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received X "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. (In Thousands) PROPOSFD FTtNDTti"(r .;nTrR( Fo. Element 1st FY 1998 2nd FY 1999 3rd FY 2000 4th FY 2001 nth FY 3003 Beyond FY'S TOT.�h General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bunds and Debts 2,300 2,500 Other Fundraising TOT. �( 2, -)00 PIerse esc7be source of:-Lndinv (i_e. tvpe of ;raga) Ln ai_ __:`l�.ce;, rures .tii'__ be obtainer' _`or t' is _ rc ect `".rouch t~_e Se fa Liter -oa- _ loan. 1998-99 Capital imcrcvncnts Plan Project e:Requests PasP 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the Llnits of service to be provided by the project. Approximately 75 students to be served (exact number to be determined when the scope of work is determined). Please describe the need for this project. The construction of an addition for a program which has continued to grc years. Currently, due to a lack of c containing approxirately 40 students location. The new school is needed t in the special needs population in F N= will provide much needed space for w dramatically over the last several lassroom space, five preschool classes are not held at the �czuthfield Avenue o meet anticipated enrollment increases rederick County. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the oroject. Addition to the existina facility. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 9 Pale 4 Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? The project contributes to the improvement of educational services to Frederick County students with special needs. The project is consistent with established policies and procedures of the Frederick County School Board and the County of Frederick. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does iteliminate a c'.ear health or safety risk? Coripletion of this project will result in an irmroved educational environna^.t for students wto attend the 'N= faculty. It will allow students w'hc carre.^.tl y roust receive se -vices off-car..us to ret,== to the main N= facility. 1998-99 Capital Impro%-ements Plan Project Requests 10 Page Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other Iegal requirement? State and federal laws and regulations regarding the education of students who receive special education services are very detailed and complex. Increased student enrollr-ert in the area of special needs requires the school division to provide additional space. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? '1't:e oro"ect w .' 1 benefit children ages 2-21 wig^ Sr'-cial nems as re tired by state and federal. law. .�.0 Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development`' Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise gave a positive effect on the local economy') With the e-xception o the economic benefit of the projec� itsel� and Z: -.e eloyre.^.t oL additional sc` col s- :-c, t.e project wi11 not improve tax base, reduce operating e• -tenses, or produce revenue - 1998 -99 Capital Improvements Plan project Rcquests Pace 6 11 Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? Not applicable. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project'' List the methods used to determine public support. Superintendents of area school divisions are in the process of makina their respective boards aware of the need for additional space at the t,= facility_ Numerous ccmnents have been made at sc-hool board meetings by pare.Tts rec2:esting cwnsideration be given to uparadirg the c=-ent NREP fac_lit 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 12 Page 7 I'fename: 98forms.wpd 1998-99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION ANO JUSTIFICATION FORM RETURN TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Project Name: Sit- r i; ai t-; on F12ment . •- 7 4 hc5n1—c;outberrn /EaStern Frederick Count Date Prepared: Secternber 26, 1997 _ Agency: Frederi C y school Board Agency Contact Person: Thr=Acz c1. 1 1 ; -t.z1„ Location of Project: Phone Number: _trdm ���-��Ra� p-,&-112 Magisterial District: Shawnee or 07 -e=on Project Description: Give a brief (I-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Project involves the selection and purchase of a site in South e*,�n�east�,n Fr Ce�Yicic Courcy fora future elerentar_; sc::, 1. Based on vast experience, it wi1'_ be necessary to purchase twenty to twenty-five acres in order to construct a 750 -student capacity, K-5 elementary school. r Schedule: If the project will take several years ars to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years. including studies or other planning. Purchase of a site is anticicatec• during 1998 , wit. ccnstr lotion of a nes, ele*rer tar school wit: it a five tc eight year period, dependinc on c�rot' In eleTT ^.t_'rSC 1001 dCe 7ppll�at on. Ccnstruction scheGule will be 3djL'St to reflect e-n-ro'_ lment trey :ds Ln e aT.enLai .- SCnQ01 ace 'J0rulatron. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Pave I 13 Site Acquisition project Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Not applicable. Project Priority: 5 If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: Ned on list for 1998. Estimate Cost (in 1997 dollars): (In Thousands) PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element I 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 X00' FY 5 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land :acquisition I 500 500 Site Preparation & Improvements , Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening daY collection) TOT,U I) 500 I I I 500 1993-99 Capiml Improvements Plan Project Requests 14 Pa -e Site Acquisition project Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more derailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. x Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) Source of Fundin;: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. (In Thousands) PROPOSED FUNDLYG SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 11999 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOT kL 1998 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts X00 X00 Other Fundraising I I I TOT.-ki �� X00 I I I I SOC Please 4esc: be the source of unding ji.e. type of?rant): In alI i :e i.^xd, fu;,ds will be obtained for -:is -=pec::._o_,=touch -�e use oa Liters _a - Lc -: .1::'_d loan. - 1998-99 t'aoital Improvements Pian Project R::quests 15 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. Southern and eastern Frederick County has been designated as residential growth areas by the county. The school division continues to experience growth in school-age population as new developments are approved. It is anticipated this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, and the need will occur to add student capacity within the next five to eight years, if not sooner. Acquisition of a site for an elementary school at this time will result in a lower cost to the county and allow the school to be completed in a more timely manner once a decision is made regarding the need for the new facility. Please describe the need for this project. Continued growth in the elementary school age po-pulation in this area of the county will require additioral classroom space in the near future. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project_ Southern/eastern Frederick County has been desicrnated at residential croNt,-I areas by the county. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 16 Page 4 Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? Yes, the project conforms to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the ccraprehensive plan and is consistent with established policies to provide for the educational services to the school aa -e Population of Frederick County, Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? Not directly applicable; however, the ultimate constrsctior of a ne%, e1� `�_` x-;. school L t iS area will 1Ti�_ rove condi J ons ai f � ncr �� e Wel fare o f e school age population. 1998-99 Capital Impro-Cments Plan Project Requests Pa;e 5 17 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal regiiirement? The purchase of land will be the first step in the process of the school board continuing to Meet its legal obligation to provide educational facilities to students. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? The project, when cam, lete (construction of ele^,ertary schcol), will provide additional classroom space in this area of the county. In addition, 4e ultimate construction of a new school facility in this area will help maintain student - teacher ratios established by the school boast.. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encoura=e some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or other.vise have a positive effect on the loc-al economy? No direc-7: eco-crnL_ imtiac- reiary_ `o -)urcnase o 1998-99 Capital lincrovements Plan Project Requests 18 Pale 6 Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? Not applicable. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. As a result of 1) public cora^,ents during attendance zone hearings conducted in the spring of 1997; 2) data obtained from the Frederick Court-,, Planning Depar�ent; and, 3) input from elected school board ;nernbers, it is the need will e_-<st wl t in a relatively shore time period for the appare_^ of a ne*a elegy entar; school it this area of the count,,,. constr:ct�cr. 1998-99 Capital Improl•emezts Plan Project Requests Pave 7 19 filename: 98forms.wpd 1998-99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM RETURN TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Project Name: Indian Hollow Eleirentanr School Add, ic)n/Rf-r1QVa+-;nnc Date Prepared: cant -ha ')os. i aa -7 Agency; _Frederick County School Board Agency Contact Person: Thcunas Sullivan 48 11. Hayfield Rd. Location of Project: Winchester, VA 22603 Phone Number: (540) 662-3888, e.Yt. 112 Magisterial District: Gainesboro Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. The construction of an addition to Indian Hollow Elementary School will increase the capacity off the school from 585 students to 750 students in grades K through 5 by the addition of one ciassroam at each grade level. In addition, t e sewage treatment plant which serves the school is in excess of ten years old and needs to be replaced. r Schedule: If the project will take several years to cornpiete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include anv work that miszht have been done in pre,: ious years, including studies or other planning. It is a.^t cipate-` this project will take approxi:-,iately six-Lcnt.`- s to cor: lett once a decision is made regard-ing its timinc !Dv trre scnool boar:;. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 20 PaQc 1 Indian Hollow Elenern ntasy School project NEW Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project (s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Not applicable. Project Priority: 6 If previously included in the Capital Improvernents Plan, please indicate previous prior* and current status of project: New on list for 1998. Estimate Cost (in 1997 dollars): (In Thousands) PROPOSED EYPEYDITLZRES EIement 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FSC" Beyond Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 :002 I FY 5 I Plannin;, Surveying, 3c 100 Design Land :Acquisition I N/A Site Preparation & I�0 Improvements 100 Construction 11,600 I I Furniture and Equipment I 1 130 Uther (opening :Inti. colle�io�) TOTAL II 12,000 I I 1998-99 Capital Imprc%,cmert_s Plan Project Requests 21 1. 0 ?.nnn Pa,OP Indian Hollow Elerientary School project Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of camparahle facility, or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received Y "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. (In Thousands) PR0P0.1;FT) FTNnTN(, gnTTR('Fc Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY Sth FY Beyond TOTAL. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY S General Fund Other Fund State Grants j Bands and Debts 2,000 2,000 Other Fundraising TOTAL I 2,000 ( I I 2, )00 Please : esc ce the source of :undinz (i.e. type of grant) In a1- _�i211^CCC, farads 1 be obtained fOr tr:i5 arc ject ti:rcu j use 3_ a L,i tOr2= - man 7-=,c LOa^.. 1998-99 Capital improvements Plan Project Requests 22 Paoe Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the �r.*tits of service to be provided by the project. The project will increase the student capacity of Indian Hollow Zletnentasy School frcua 385 to 750 students. Please describe the need for this project. Continued increases in student population have resulted in the need to e-%-cand the capacity of the school. Increasing the capacity of the school will defer the need ro const..uct a new school to serve this area of Frederick County until some time in the future. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the oroject. Addition to e-xisting facility (not applicable). 1993-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 23 Page 4 Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? Yes, the project conforms to the attai=rent of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to provide educational facilities for the school age population in this area of the county. It is consistent with established policies of the school board to maintain acceptable student -teacher ratios in the schools of the division. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? Yes, the cc mletion of the project will result in ir-rproved conditions a`=ectirc the welfare of the school age population. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 24 Legal Requirement.- Is equirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? The construction of an addition and renovations to Indian Hollow Elementary School will meet the mandate off the school board to provide educational 1 facilities to the students of Frederick County. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? Not applicable. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development`' Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effe-t on the local economv'' Not applicable, Wj.tl1 t e e.YcpptlOrl of econoruc act'_vit-� generate as a resul Of construction act=vi- L''1vOlved Ln the mro]ect. 1993-99 Capital Imprgvemcnts Plan Project Rcquests Pace 6 25 Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? Not applicable. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. Data obtained during attendance zone hearings held in the spring of 1997; information provided by the Frederick County Planning Department; input from elected school board representatives; and, discussion with county officials. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 26 Page 7 jimldebtlliterary 10/9/97 CIP 98 27 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P. 0. BOX 2120 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 2218-2120 SUPTS. MEMO. NO.1JJ INFORMATIONAL September 19, 1997 TO: Division Superintendents FROM: Richard T. La Pointe Superintendent of Public Instruction SUBJECT: Public School Buildings Put Under Contract Between July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997 With Individual and Average Cost Data by School Type Attached are: 1. A list of new public school projects put under contract in fiscal year 1996-97 with individual and average cost data by school types; 2. A list of selected addition and renovation projects in fiscal year 1996-97 with individual and average cost data;. 3. A 6 -year (1991-92 through 1996-97) tabulation of average unit area and cost data; and 4. A graph, basad on the above, indicating the change in public school construction costs over a 6 -year period. For the first time we have identified site development cost (included in total construction cost), as a separate item for your use. Our thanks go to the school architects for providing this additional information.. The average cost per square foot rose dramatically over the school year (13% for elementary, 20% for middle, and 16% for high schools). The increased costs can be attributed to a strong construction market which reduces competition, the inclusion of full technology in most schools, and the continued rise in the amount of square feet per pupil as more special use spaces are added to school programs. The last six mcntts (March through August 1997) has seen a drop in projects submitted and a leveling of prices which may indicate a more reasonable inflation rate of five to six percent for the 1997- 98 school year. However, the projected large investment in school construction by North Carolina in the next few years could influence bidding in Virginia and lead to higher costs for future projects. If you have any questions concerning the above, please call Hunter L. Barnes, Architectural Consultant, Facilities Services at (804) 225-2035. RTL:cle Enclosures 28 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 (Costin$) NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PUT UNDER CONTRACT IN SCHOOL YEAR 1996-97 NAME/GRADES DIVISION CONTRACT AWARD DATE OPERATING CAPACITY TOTAL CONST. COST SITE TOTAL SQ. FT. TOTAL COST BUILDING TOTAL COST DEVELOPMENT SQ. FT. PUPIL SQ. FT. COST ONLY PUPIL Auburn Broadlands K-5 K-5 Montgomery Loudoun Dec -96 750 8,308,000 1,252,051 81,468 109 101.98 86.61 11,077 Chincoteague PK -5 Accomack May -97 Od-96 745 383 6,651,600 600,000 77,272 104 86.08 78.32 8,928 Emerald Hill K-5 Culpeper Aug -96 991 4,316,151 9,780,345 721,575 2,301,022 38,247 97,057 100 112.85 93.98 11,269 Evergreen Mill K-5 Loudoun Deo -96 745 8,270,000 1,495,218 77,172 98 104 100.77 107.16 77.06 9,869 Greensville PK -5 Greensville Mat -97 1623 13,374,000 1,340,538 142,100 88 94.12 87.79 84.68 11,101 8,240 Kingsbrooke Linkhorn Park K-5 K-5 Prince William Virginia Beach Apr -97 Jan 632 7,794,000 1,229,483 74,433 118 104.71 88.19 12,332 Northern PK -5 Accomack -97 Oct -96 766 749 6,861,000 1,168,740 76,845 100 89.28 74.08 8,960 Nuckols Farm K-5 Henrico Jul -96 766 6,130,349 7,331,080 684,791 1,554,320 67,677 90 90.58 80.46 8,185 Queen Chapel K-5 Prinipe William Apr -97 632 6,976,000 1,017,100 70,667 69,847 92 111 103.74 81 75 9,571 Ruckersville PK -5 Greene Mar -97 665 6,416,000 860,000 67,235 101 99.88 95.43 85.31 82.64 11,038 Southern Winderness PK -5 PK -5 Accomack Spotsylvania Od-96 Apr 749 6,090,348 641,635 67,677 90 89.99 80.51 9,648 8,131 Windsor PK -5 Isle of Wight -97 Jun -97 824 940 7,983,000 8,078,500 1,313,700 1,150,000 79,058 96 100.98 84.36 9.688 86,800 92 93.07 79.82 8,594 TOTALS STATEWIDE AVERAGE 11,960 114,360,373 17,330,173 1,173,555 98 97.45 82.68 9,562 1 Usually includes construction, site development, water system, sewage disposal, built-in equipment and demolition. A 8 E tees, value engineering, construction management tees, cost of site, loose equipment, and furniture are excluded. 2 Site cost includes road improvements, sewage treatment plant, and water system. 3 School plans identical, Broadlands bid conventionally, Evergreen Mill contract constructed under design build agreement. 29 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 (Gostin$) NEW MIDDLE, INTERMEDIATE, AND JR. HIGH SCHOOLS PUT UNDER CONTRACT IN SCHOOL YEAR 1996-97 NAME/GRADES DIVISION CONTRACT AWARD DATE OPERATING CAPACITY TOTAL ' CONST. COST SITE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL SQ. FT. SQ. FT. PUPIL TOTAL COST SQ. FT. BUILDING COST ONLY TOTAL COST PUPIL Harper Park 6-8 Loudoun Jun -97 1125 15,304,200 1,800,000 160,690 143 95.24 84.04 13,604 Prince George 6-8 Prince George Apr -97 1331 16,712,500 2,183,516 157,424 118 106.16 92.29 12,556 Southside 6-8 Richmond City Feb -97 691 12,264,070 1,490,577 124,6852 180 98.36 86.41 17,748 L. Douglas Wilder 6-8 Henrico Jut -96 900 12,901,938 2,290,815 112,893 125 114.28 93.99 14,335 TOTALS 4,047 57,182,708 7,764,908 555,692 STATEWIDE AVERAGE 137 102.90 88.93 14,130 1 Usually includes construction, site development, water system, sewage disposal, built-in equipment and demolition. A & E fees, value engineering, construction management fees, cost of site, loose equipment, and furniture are excluded. 2 Aditional square footage generated by unique program requirements. 30 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 (Costin$) NEW HIGH SCHOOLS PUT UNDER CONTRACT IN SCHOOL YEAR 1996-97 NAME/GRADES DIVISION CONTRACT AWARD DATE OPERATING CAPACITY TOTAL ' CONST. COST SITE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL SQ. FT. SQ. FT. PUPIL TOTAL COST SQ. FT. BUILDING COST ONLY TOTAL COST PUPIL Manassas Park City 9-12 Manassas Park Jul -97 710 11,639,502 1,356,744 107,275 151 108.50 95.85 16,394 Massaponax 9-12 Spotsylvanla Od-96 1592 24,453,000 4,218,000 257,000 161 95.15 7874 15,360 Monticello 9-12 Albemarle Nov -96 1121 22,301,000 3,132,000 181,611 162 122.80 96.95 19,894 TOTALS 3,423 58,393,502 8,706,744 545,886 STATEWIDE AVERAGE 159 106.97 91.02 17,059 NEW COMBINED OR TECHNICAL SCHOOLS PUT UNDER CONTRACT IN SCHOOL YEAR 1996-97 CONTRACT OPERATING TOTAL SITE TOTAL SQ. FT. TOTAL COST BUILDING TOTAL COST NAME/GRADES DIVISION AWARD DATE CAPACITY CONST. COST DEVELOPMENT SQ. FT. PUPIL SQ. FT. COST ONLY PUPIL Tangier Combined K-12 Accomack Od-96 160 2,935,486 195,941 23,311 146 125.92 117.52 18,347 TOTALS 160 2,935,486 195,941 23,311 STATEWIDE AVERAGE 146 125.92 117.52 18,347 1 Usually includes construction, site development, water system, sewage disposal, !wilt -in equipment and demolition. A & E tees, value engineering, construction management lees, cost of site, loose equipment and furniture are excluded. 2 Total includes stadium & irrigation system. 31 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 (Cortin$) SELECTED ADDITION AND RENOVATION PROJECTS PUT UNDER CONTRACT IN SCHOOL YEAR 1996-97 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION ' TOTAL TOTAL COST NAMEIGRADES DIVISION AWARD DATE COST SQ. FT. SQ. FT. Barrett Elementary Arlington County Sep -93 3,100,000 50,000 Byrd Elementary Goochland County Feb -96 2,761,200 19,060 Claremont Center Arlington County Jul -95 376,185 42,376 Coleman Elementary Fauquier County Dec -96 1,598,858 62,301 Deer Park Magnet Newport News City Dec -95 2,313,378 46,800 Dunbar Middle Lynchburg City Apr -97 1,767,500 20,225 Falmouth Elementary Stafford County Aug -96 1,253,900 12,835 Gunston Middle Arlington County Jun -95 5,517,974 59,399 Lord Botelourt High Botetourt County May -97 5,860,900 152,200 McKinley Elementary Arlington County Jun -94 2,870,190 57,360 Moncure Elementary Stafford County Aug -96 1,304,100 13,010 Oakland Elementary Virginia Beach City Jul -96 5,071,462 57,172 Payne Elementary Lynchburg City Jun -96 359,035 14,823 Pierce Elementary Fauquier County Oct -96 6,564,916 71,565 Prince Edward High Prince Edward County Feb -97 3,462,000 104,500 Ralph Elementary Goochland County Feb -96 2,464,700 18,802 TOTALS STATEWIDE AVERAGE 46,646,298 802,428 1 Construction cost may include both new construction and renovated cost within the same project. 32 62.00 144.86 8.88 25.66 49.43 87.39 97.69 92.90 38.51 50.03 100.24 88.70 24.22 91.73 33.13 131.09 58.13 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 TABULATION OF VIRGINIA AVERAGES FOR CONSTRUCTION COST OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS SCHOOL YEARS 91-92 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 96-97 SCHOOL YEAR 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 ELEMENTARY: S.F./Pupil 100 105 104 97 97 98 Cost/S.F. 566.85 S67.29 S74.91 588.41 S86.33 597.45 Cost/Pupil $6,664 57,074 S7,802 S8,598 S8,372 $9,562 Numbs of New Schools 7 10 19 9 15 15 INTERIIffDIATE—JR. H.S.: S.F./Pupil 112 129 133 131 131 137 Cost/S.F. $70.45 $69.92 S74.46 $84.80 S86.03 $102.90 Cost/Pupd 57,916 S9,052 59,889 S11,136 $11,236 514,130 Number of New Schools 2 6 6 2 5 4 HIGH SCHOOLS: S.F./Pupil 152 133 99 129 152 159 CostlS.F. 568.97 S76.63 567.75 589.77 591.94 5106.97 Cosv?up1l 510,494 $10,228 56,740 511,619 S13,945 $17,059 Number of New Schools 6 2 1 4 4*** 3 COML BLYED VOC. TECHNIIC.ALL SCHOOLS: (R]-- NCS NOTES BELOW ' & S.F./Pupi1 114 127' 1152 128 1463 Cost/S-F. 558.74 S80.08' $70.162 582.53 S125.92' Cost/Pupil S6,713 S10,190' $8,0682 S10,548 518,347' Number of New Schools 1 NONE 1' 12 1 1' '93-94 is for a Combined Nfiddle/High School - not Voc. Tech. School. '94-95 is for a Combined N iddle/High School - not Voc. Tech. School. 396-97 is a Combined K-12 School. ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS: Cost/S.F. -- S40.97 S41.14 S42.31 545.12 S58.13 Number of Projects — 11 27 13 9 16 "'one project not built 33 $120 $115 $110 $105 $100 $93 $90 $� V $80 $75 $70 $6 5 $60 $55 $50 Averages for Construction Cost School Buildings �o Cost Per Sq. Ft. 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1854-95 1995-96 1996-97 M Elementary ® Intermediate E=1 High 34 Attachment No. 6 n u • C: Prea3erick "o:�� ty Parks and Recreation Projects COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Departme--- lames M. Doran. Dire::-_ - 540-665-56 FAX. 540-665-968- M 10-665-963- M E M 0 R A N D u M TO: Eric Lawrence, Department of Planning and Development FROM: James M. Doran SUBJ: 1998-99 CIP List DATE: August 21, 1997 At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 19, 1997, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved the attached CIP prioritization. (Motion by Robert Hartman, second by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously). JMD/sm Attach 1 101 North hint Street %� inchester. V_\ „601 1998-99 Departmental Request Summary Department: pari<C anti RPrrP,gtinn Approved By: Dept. Priority Project Title FY 98 FY 99 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 TOTAL Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost CIP Cost 1 Bicycle Facility 318,387 318.387 2 Parkland West.FC 1,181,332 1,181,332 3 Softball Complex 432,042 432,042 4 Baseball Field Ren. 677,998 677,998 5 Field House/Indo or Pool 10,030,000 10,030,000 6 Open Play Areas 426,381 426.381 7 Tennis/Bas ketball 3377163 337.163 8 Soccer Complex I 1,007,398 1.007.398 9 Tennis/Pic nic Area 344,611 54-3.611 10 Shelter/Sta i i ,e Seatin l 33.3.172 33.1.17'_ 11 Skateboard Park 204,600 204.600 12 `lain[. Com. &- Office 17=,413 172,413 TOTAL 11.499,719 1,110,040 10,456,581 11,344,561 11,255,798 15.666,699 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Evan Wyatt FROM: Jim Doran'1 v SUBJECT: CIP Standdrds DATE: September 3, 1997 COUNTY of FREDERIC K Paries and Recreation Departr-, _n: James M. Doran, Dire_.- 540-665 c _y FAX: 540-665-96S- MEMORANDUM 40-665-96S- Below you will find the standards for the items included in the Parks and Recreation Department's CIP as outlined in the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan: 1. Bicycle Facility - no standard listed. 2. Parkland - 10 acres per 1,000 population. 3. Softball Complex - 1 field per 3.000 population. 4. Baseball Field Renovation - 1 field per 6,000 population. (Based on local participation, this standard appears to be low for Frederick County.) 5. Field House%Indoor Pool: • No standard Cor field house listed • Olympic Size Pool - I per 20,000 population. 6. Open Play .-areas - no standard available. 7. Tennis/Basketball: • Tennis - 1 court per 2.000 population • Basketball - 1 court per 5.000 population. 3. Soccer Complex - 1 held per 3.000 population. 9. Tennis/Picnic Area: • Tennis - 1 court per 1000 population 3 l 0 % North Dent Street «inchester. VA 33601 Picnic Area - 10 units (tables) per 1,000 population. 10. Stage Area - no standard listed. 11. Skateboard Park - no standard listed. 12. Maintenance Area/Office - no standard listed. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. JMD/sm V 1998 -99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM reLurn Lo: Deo�,rtmentL o� !'larnin, an I De�,eioment FreCderic,� County_ V1r2!r i',a Date Prepared: 11Agency: Agency Contact Person: James M Doran Location of Project: County Qx fri T an i Phone Number: "-; Magisterial District: Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. The Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project would be approximately 118,000 square feet and include an indoor area large enough to accommodate a 200 meter track and a minimum of four basketball courts. This court area would also be designed for utilization by indoor soccer, baseball. softball. wrestling, volleyball, tennis and badminton with the installation of in -floor sleeves and drop curtains or partitions. This area could also be used for special events such as dances, proms, music festivals, garden and home, outdoor, craft, antique, quilt, or boat shows. Thus providing a flexible facility for a multitude of activities to take place at one time. The facilinr would also house a fitness center. multipurpose rooms, office, storage. locker rooms and a 25 vard x 50 meter indoor swimming pool . This facility should be located on property owned or proffered to the county and would utilize approximately 10-12 acres with parking. Schedule: if the project will take several years to complete. outline the schedule here. Be sure to include ani, work that might have been done in previous dears, including studies or other planning. The Parks and Recreation Commission is requesting that this project be funded and completed during the 1999-2000 fiscal year. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Proliect Requests ps,_c Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. In previous years, the Fieldhouse and Indoor Swimming Pool were two separate projects, but citizen input and cost analysis has lead the Paries and Recreation Commission to recommend the two projects be combined into one. Project Priority: 5 If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: Previously listed as Priorities #6 and #8. Estimate Cost (in 1997 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 Planning, Surveying, & Design 500,000 500,000 Land Acquisition Site Preparation Improvements 800,000 800.001 Construction T-8,230,000 8.230.000 Furniture and Equipment 500,000 500.000 Other (opening da}, collecrion) TOTAL 10,030,000 1 0.030,000 199S-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Pa_e _' Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment X From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) This project has been projected on a development cost of $85 per square foot, based on discussions and information provided by various architectual firms. Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL, 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 General Fund 10,030,000 10,030,000 Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fundraising TOTAL I 1 10,030,000 I I I 10,030,000 Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of `rant): Present1%. there are no federal or state grant funds available for this project. As a result. this project \,would need to be funded through the County Capital Improvement Fund. through donations or by funds generated through the collection of proffers. If federal, state or other grant monies become available, they will be actively pursued by this department. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 7 Pa_e 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. Since it's inception, the Parks and Recreation Department has relied solely on the use of the county public schools to house our programs. This arrangement was adequate when the department first started out, but now the department offers over 750 programs annually and at this same time, space within the schools is more difficult to secure. This has created a situation where the department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the county residents. Additionally, there are no indoor pools in Frederick County, by constructing the indoor pool in conjunction with the Fieldhouse facility it would permit the department to meet citizen programming demands, provide an instructional facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be available to all area residents. Please describe the need for this project. As stated above, the Department and the community have outgrown the use of school facilities far prograrnrning. In the past four years, the Department has experienced a fifty four percent increase in program offerings. The construction of this project will provide a facility the Department will be able to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The Fieldhouse.?ndoor Pool facilin should be Iocated in an area con%•e;liert to the naier transportation cc ,-,7'dors of the county on a county proffered site. However, as an alternative one of the two county regional parks could be used to house the facility, since these locations are already Identified as centers for recreation programs and activities. Additionally, lccatin_, the facility or property.• already owned by the count-- would reduce developrnent costs. 1995-99men's Plan Project Requests 8 Pa,� T - noun Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? The Fieidhouse/Indoor Pool project meets the following County comprehensive planning goals: • Contribute to the physical, mental, and cultural needs of the communi social well-being, and its sense of civic pride and social responsibility through ecaits no miplete program of parks and recreation. • Provide recreational programs and activities based on identified needs and available funding. • Continue to develop the County's regional parks as a major source of recreational facilities and activities. • Support a business climate conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth. • Provide support to travel and tourist related activities. The project meets policy recommendations for the development of parks and recreation facilities and programs, as well as supporting economic development in the county through the support of businesses and the travel and tourism industry. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? The Fieldhouse,'Indoor Pool project addresses the need for an indoor recreational facility in Frederick County, The construction of this facility will provide the community with a public facility that could be used for not only recreational pursuits, but rehabilitation and wellness programs. In addition, the development of project would assist in reducing the overcrowding in Overcrowd - the school facilities and provide a nevv outlet to expand the existing scholastic actin hies programs within the schools. 1998-99 capital 177PMVements Plan Proicct Rrguests Page 9 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other Iegal requirement? The project is not mandated by state or federal requirements, but is in compliance with the adopted County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility development. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? In initial stages of planning, the Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project is projected to potentially serve over 150 community organizations and groups. This assistance would be provided in either facility or programming provisions within the facility. There is currently no other similar facility located within the County. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? ""ouId the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economv? Studies have shown that the provision of park and recreational facilities and programs are a Primary consideration when locating or expanding business development within a cornmunit%_ The financial investment in recreation projects and sen -ices pay dividends throushout the community equating to a higher return than the original outlay. Parks and recreation serti.ice, contibute to the ph% sical and meatal well being of the citizens, provide for a more produce wort: force and preventative health ser -,"ices, as well as serving as a catalvst for the tourism ar. travel industr,-. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 10 Page 6 Coordination with other Projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? The Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project is not dependent upon another project, however, in previous Years they were identified as two separate projects. Designed as one facility, development and construction costs would be reduced considerably as opposed to being developed separately. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The Fieldhouse/Indoor Swimming Pool project has been identified by the Parks and Recreation Cornrnission and the County's Capital Improvements Plan. A Parks and Recreation Commission sub -committee has been formed to determine the final size and content of the facility. In addition, the Commission has prepared a user survey to solicit input from community organizations who would benefit from the facilirv. ' 1998-99 Capital Irr;proverne::ts Plan Project Requests 11 Pa�,e COUNTY of FREDERICK Parrs and Recreation Department James M. Doran. Director 540-665-5678 FAX 540-665-9687 MEMO To: Evan A. Wyatt, Assistant Director, Planning Department From: James M. Doran, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Subject: Indoor Pool/Field House Date: September 30, 1997 On numerous occasions. Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department has been contacted by individuals and groups expressing a desire for the development of an indoor swimming pool and field house. In fact, a community center was included in our 1987 Board of Supervisors' approved Master Development Plan for Sherando Park. In 1993. the Planning Commission initiated the idea of providing the county with an indoor swimming pool when they included the covering of the Sherando park swimming pool on the list of county projects (see attached memo). It was later determined that covering the pool would be cost prohibited. The need for additional indoor facilities for community use has been a consideration of the commission for over ten years. and the community center concept was revised in 1996 and included in the Parks and Recreation Commissions Capital Improvement program as a field house. The combination of interest expressed by the citizens and the Planning commission lead the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission to establish a Field House Committee to formulate the basics for the development of these projects. As part of the initial planning. and atter visitinL, several indoor pools. community centers and field houses. the committee proposed combining these two facilities into one and developin-a facilin- that would include an indoor area large enough to accommodate multiple athletic courts. an indoor track. fitness areas, multipurpose rooms and an indoor swimmincr pool. The desi(gn of the facility would lend itself not only to athletic purposes but community use as well, such as hosting after prom activities. (graduations, after graduation activities, dances. Apple Blossom activities. outdoor shows. home and ,arden shows, trade shows, etc. 12 10, North Kent Street �k inchc,tcr. ti*:\ "OO I Evan Wyatt Page 2 In its second phase of planning, the committee compiled a listing of organizations and groups that would potentially use the facility. One hundred forty-five local groups were mailed a questionnaire and asked to provide input regarding the potential development of the facility. The committee received a response from 53 organizations representing 41,855 people. It should be noted that the vast majority of the questionnaires were mailed to youth serving, professional and service organizations. The committee has yet to measure the potential positive impact a facility such as this would have on local businesses and their employees. Attached, you will find the questionnaire mailed to each organization and a summary of the responses received. I believe that this very preliminary study indicates that a field house/indoor pool facility would have a positive impact for the entire Winchester/Frederick County area. This project was presented to the Parks and Recreation commission by the Field House committee. In addition to the responses received through the questionnaires, the committee shared the following observations: A facility, as described would provide the additional space needed to house the growing demand for programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department. A field house would provide a facility that would encourage our diverse population to participate in activities together. It was noted that this may offer the unique opportunity of having the youth of the community and the adult population coexisting in a very positive and beneficial way. It was stated that a field house would strengthen the economic development viability of the area as a result of providing a quality of life asset that the WinchesteriFrederick County area is missinc. Evan, I hope this information answers the question asked by your commission: however. if �'ou should have any additional concerns. please let me know. JMD/sm attachs copy: R. Hartman. Chairman. Field House Committee J. Vickers 13 r_ vt L!J To From: 0. COUTN7Y of FREDERIC, Dcparuncnt of Planning and Dcvcloprrcn,, 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678_()632 MEMORANDiJIy# Jim Doran, Parks and Recreation Director Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directorj�f� Addition of Pool Cover at Sherando Park to Capital Improvements Plan Date: January 25, 1993 This memo is a follow up to our conversation of last week concerning the Planning Commission's recommendation to add a twenty-ninth project to the CIP consisting of the covering of Sherando Pool to allow for year-round use. During our conversation, you mentioned several reasons why this may not be the most efficient way to meet the desire for an indoor swimming facility for the County. All the factors you cited made good sense, not the least of which was that the pool was not designed or built as a competitive lap pool and has no gutters. I believe that if the Commission was aware of this information at the time that they reviewed the CIP, they would have formed their recommendation differently. The mere fact that the Parks and Recreation Commission has been Iooking at the feasibility of covering the pool is in part a step toward fulfilling the Planning Commission's request. I would ask that you make the Parks and Recreation Commission aware of the Planning Commission's desires for a year-round pool to be included in the CIP. It would also be helpful if you could put together a memorandum to the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors pointing out the limitations of the Sherando Pool in terms of converting it for vear- round use. You may also wish to fill them in on the status of your investigation into the costs and feasihilitti of covering the pool. I would be happy to include any pertinent information you have with the CIP materials when we forward them to the Board of Supervisors. It may be that the most appropriate way to proceed with this is for the Parks and Recreation Commission to look into, and develop a proposal for, the most efficient and cost effective way to provide a year-round pool Cor the County, taking factors such as location into aczount_ 1fate �i�ur assistance in answer,saver, this matter. Please let me knox it there art ani questions I can KCT/rsa 14 P_0 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department Capital Improvements Program Questionnaire Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool Facility Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the enclosed envelope to the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department, Fieldhouse Committee, 107 North Kent Street, W-Mchester, Mug= 22601 by September 5', 1997. 1. Name of Organization 2. Address .3. Telephone 4. Contact Person 5. How many people are in your organization or group? 6. How many people in your organization or group would benefit from the described Fieldhouse Facility? 7. What types of facility needs would best serve your organization? Atrietic Coua. Areas Fitness Areas Targe Indoor Areas for Special Events ndoor Swimming Pool —_Indoor Track Other (Please describe in Multipurpose Rooms comments section below) 8. What time(s) of the year would your organization utilize the facility? tiZ inter Summer Year Round _Spring 9. What area of the county would the facility best be located to serve your organization? r —Northern Central Southern 10. Would your organization require any special facility or equipment needs? No Yes (If yes, please describe in comments section) 11_ Would vour organization be interested in having a member of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission's Fieldhouse Committee discuss the project with your organization? Yes No 12. Do you know of another organization or group that would like to receive this questionnaire or who would benefit from these facilities.? (please list in comments section) 13. Comments (Please feel free to use back of this sheet or attachments): 15 The following answers were given for the quesionnaire on the Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool Facility: When asked, What types of facility needs would best serve your organization? 36% Athletic Court Areas 62% Large Indoor Areas for Special Events 28% Indoor Track 67% Multipurpose Rooms 370/6 Fitness Areas 67% Indoor Swimming Pool 12% Other (which included: classroom area, indoor play area for children(similar to Tammin' Gym), ice skating rink) When asked, What time(s) of the year would your organization utilize the facility? 24% Winter 15% Spring 4% Summer 17% Fall 74% Year Round When asked, What area of the county would the facility best be located to serve your organization? 19% Northern 65% Central 24% Southern 2% Western 2% Eastern When asked, Would your organization require any special facility or equipment needs? 63% No 26% Yes (which included: ADA, Large meeting rooms, banquet facilities for 400 people, time- out room. basketball courts, platforms, outlets, full kitchen w/appliances and counter space, slide projector/screen, indoor batting cage) When asked, Would your organization be interested in having a member of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission's Fieldhouse Committee discuss the project with your o banization? 39% Yes 54''0 No 16 The following are some of the various comments that were made: -If we were permitted to use the indoor pool, it would enable our volunteers to provide additional training opportunities in lifeguarding, water safety and swimming lessons. (American Red Cross) -Meeting/Conference Rooms; CLEAN doesn't sponsor events directly - but we are very supportive of this project. -Our students and staff, individually and collectively, would really benefit from such a facility - What a benefit to this community (Grafton School) -A facility such as this could benefit the Sheriff's Office, as well as the community, by providing a place for "in-house" training for the employees and also providing a place for Law Enforcement Officials to hold special programs for the citizens such as, Neighborhood Watch Program, Cadet Program Meetings, and Personal Safety Classes. The fitness facilities would greatly benefit the department by providing a place for officers, who are not able to afford the cost of the local gyms, to workout and stay fit. - The community as a whole needs a facility that can accomodate special events and indoor activities. (Robinson EIementary) - This would be great for After Prom Parties. (Sherando Warrior Club) - A facility of this type would be extremely beneficial to this area. It would also reduce the stress of scheduling use of the various school sites. (Indian Hollow Elementary) - NREP serves physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped students. - This would be a Beat facility for the citizens of Frederick County. (Bass Hoover Elementary) -We could use a place to hold meetings (15-20 people) and a large indoorarea to hold special events - volunteer recognition (300 people). (Habitat for Humanity) 17 Item #2: Comprehensive Policy Plan Update The CPPS will complete work on the review and editing of various components of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The information that has been recommended by the CPPS will be presented to the Planning Commission for discussion on November 19, 1997. Staff will advertise the proposed amendments to this plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in December. During the October meeting, the CPPS reviewed revised sections of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan provided by the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department and the Handley Regional Library, as well as updates to the following maps: Geologic Formations and Aquifers, Airport Support Area, Schools, Community Facilities and Services, and Neighborhoods. The CPPS recommended that this information be implemented into the plan update as presented by staff. The Frederick County School Administration has provided staff with proposed amendments for their section of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff has also received an update to the Refuse Collection, Landfill, and Recycling section to address a question raised by the subcommittee regarding recycling mandates. Included under this agenda item is the proposed amendments from Frederick County Schools, the revised section for the Department of Public Works, and a revision to the Business Corridors section prepared by the Department of Planning and Development. Staff asks that the CPPS review this information for the purpose of discussion. Staff will present the remaining updates to the Comprehensive Policy Plan maps during the meeting. Staff asks that the CPPS forward a recommendation regarding this new information which will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Refuse Collection, Landfill, and Recycling Refuse collection service is provided by Frederick County at 12 refuse collection stations. Nine of these stations consist of hydraulic compactor machines with separable roll -off containers; the other three sites consist of front end dumpsters. Currently, the County is in the process of converting dumpster sites to compactor stations when warranted by tonnage levels. The County should continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites as tonnage increases. Consolidation of sites during the conversion process is also desirable, when practical. The idea ofcurbsidP pickup is being: studieij in the densely populated areas of Frederick County that are currently served by public water and sewer: The Frederick County Landfill is a regional facility that receives refuse from Frederick and Clarke Counties and the City of Winchester. The landfill is operated by Frederick County as a an enterprise fund and the landfill operation is fee sustaining. The management and planning of landfill operations is solely the responsibility of Frederick County, with' input from an oversight eomittee comprisedof representatives, from Frederick County, Clarke'County, and. the City of Winchester.: Closure of the older section of the landfill, which opened in 1976, was completed in 1994. A new 160 acre tract of adjacent land, purchased in 1986, was opened for land filling during 1993. Approximately 90 acres of this tract has been permitted for land filling under the newly adopted Subtitle "D" Solid Waste Regulations. Both the close-out of the old section and the construction of the new section have been carried out in accordance with new state regulations that require much more sophisticated environmental protection measures, including composite impermeable liners, a complete leachate collection system, leachate treatment facility, groundwater monitoring and gas monitoring. The current landfill was originally estimated to have adequate capacity for 25 years commencing in October of 1993. The development of a construction debris landfill should extend the life of the current sanitary landfill approximately eight years, resulting in a life of 33 years. A tract of land consisting of 109 wooded acres was purchased from Ryland Carper for the future development of a construction debris landfill. The permitting and design of this new construction debris landfill vvas will be completed in +996 1997, with the commencement of construction in the same calendar year. The County should reevaluate tonnage, revenue, and expenditure trends every year and set fees accordingly. The County should also continue to evaluate new technologies for waste reduction that would extend the life of the landfill. During the 1990's, the County b boxes b . placed collection' boxes for recyclable materials at all of the Citizen Conveyance Centers located `within. the. County: Most will be locateda g ,inia has mandated that local b ovel_11,11ellts 11 sulid wastebly f0% by 1:99i, 15% by +993, mid t:5% by 1995 ffi,ough recyclin - _fforts. T+ri3-wiii LeqtllLc 111101C 111terlsive-mild coordinated a b . Through this effort, the County was able to meet the 1995 recycling mandate of 25 % placed on localities by the Commonwealth of Virginia. I Due to the rapid growth in the County, additional progFams have been implemented to enable'the c mandate of 25g'o... These .:programs County to maintain the 199 . ling p grams include brush and; yard haste mnechfng, waste oid r ycling, tore shredding3 acid horasehoId hazardoLs vaste' flections ''hese new programs assisted the. County in achieving the 25 % recycling mandate for 1996;. (Staff Note: The last two paragraphs have been revised as requested by the CPPS following discussion with Ron Kimble, Environmental Technician, Frederick County Public Woks Department.) Schools During the past several decades, student enrollment has increased steadily. In particular, the decade of the 90's has seen witnessed a dramatic increase in student enrollment. In 1990, student enrollment was 8,223 students. In the fall of +996 1997, student enrollment was 9 10,215, which represents ^. " an increase of �i 1,992 students, ora 24:2% since 1990. In +996 1997, of the mine ten elementary schools, five exceed 90% of capacity: Apple Pie Ridge (93%), Armel (iO3%) (92%), , Indian Hollow f ) (90%), Middletown (101%), and Redbud Run (96% (92%). in the f�fl of . The new Stonewall Elementary School opened in the fall of 1997. Construction of additions to.Armel and Middletown elementary schools will be complete by the beginning of the 1998-1999 school year and will result in increased elementary capacity of approximately 270 students. A new elementary school in the Back Creek Magisterial District is slated to open for the 1999-2000 school year. Middle school enrollment is 85% of capacity and high school enrollment is 91 % of capacity. IF • • . • • • IImumej or. my- _ OR jt.O.TV..MWj lift psi •� •� :w■ �. .. �� ••- .., r:- • •• • M VVIMP • �%. • T'he''impact of providing instruction in the use of technology to prepare students to work and live in the21st century will necessitate increased expenditures for computer" and computer related hardware and software. In addition, mandates from state and federal governments will require the°;localities to expend additional financial resources to meet educational requirements set forth by numerous laws and regulations. 3 School Capacity and Enrollment for Frederick County 1997-1998 Source: Frederick County School Board, September 1997 Please note: Six schools utilize a total of nineteen modular units as follows: Armel Elementary, 3; Gainesboro Elementary, 2; Robinson Elementary, 1; Robert E. Aylor Middle, 3; Frederick County Middle, 4; James Wood High, 6. 4 OF' SCHOOLSGRADE PRACTICAL 1997-1998 PRACTICAL LEVEL =...CAPACITY ENROLLMENT CAPACITY Apple Pie Ridge Elementary K-5 625 584 93% i Armel Elementary K-5 645 591 92% Bass -Hoover Elementary K-5 735 640 87% Gainesboro Elementary K-5 260 179 69% j Indian Hollow Elementary K-5 585 528 90% Middletown Elementary K-5 585 592 101% Redbud Run Elementary K-5 750 690 92% I� Robinson Memorial Elementary K-5 318 156 490 '€€; Senseny Road Elementary K-5 570 477 84% 'I Stonewall Elementary K-5 550 421 77% ! TOTAL ELEMENTARY K. 5 5,.623' 4,:858 86%' Robert E. A for Middle 6-8 965 754 ii 785.1- 8%Frederick FrederickCounty Middle 6-8 845 704 83% ^� James Wood Middle 6-8 1,000 936 i 94% i TOTAL MIDDLE 6-8 2,810 2,394 85% James Wood High 9-12 1,670 1,535 92% Sherando High 9-12 1,550 1,398 900 TOTAL HIGH 9-12 3,220 2,933 91% NREP A es 2-21 56 30 i 540 TOTAL K-12 11,709 10,215 87% Source: Frederick County School Board, September 1997 Please note: Six schools utilize a total of nineteen modular units as follows: Armel Elementary, 3; Gainesboro Elementary, 2; Robinson Elementary, 1; Robert E. Aylor Middle, 3; Frederick County Middle, 4; James Wood High, 6. 4 Business Corridors A project begun in 1993 and continuing into 1994 was the development of land use plans for the County's commercial and business corridors. The task of developing these plans was assigned to the County's Comprehensive Plans and Programsul�£-ornrnittce Subcommittee. The committee scorim�ttee met monthly throughout the first part of 1993 to review and evaluate existing information and formulate an approach for the study. Public meetings were held in the summer of 1993 to gain citizen input. The three corridors studied were Route 7 from the interchange with Interstate 81, east to Woods Mill Road (Route 660); Route 50, from the 81 interchange, east to the eastern edge of Westview Business Park; and Route 11 South, from the Route 37 interchange, south to Stephens City. The subeommxtte. recognized that other corridors within the County +�itielt warrant warranted study; however, these three were felt to be in the most immediate need for attention In the ease of Route 7 and Route .0, new development in additron; to the corer iercial level opment w. has been m existence. for some time made the evmdors a high pnonty In the ease of Route ;;11.. a,,reque t from the, town of :Ste S_ Ci to 1. pty pamcrpate in„the..planning of ;the Route I, I.. to r! made. this a ;;logical choice f©r study at :that ti .... Corridor Plans were developed as a result of a focused evaluation of the three corridors listed, including careful consideration of the characteristics of the particular areas and the stated desires of their residents. ibe same efforts mid Pfi,116*3 =17-m1d shottid, be appHed to odic, business 1_ulildors- The 'development of future business corridor land use plans will be undertaken by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Potential areas for study include the extension of the Route 11 North Land Use Plan, as well as those corridors which are impacted by the construction of the Route 37 Eastern By-pass. `1