Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-28-2001-4ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 28, 2001 Action Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: County/OCS/CHCCS Informational Reports _ DEPARTMENT: OCS/CHCCS/Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: As listed in "Background" Neil Pedersen, 967-8211 Barry Jacobs; 732-4941 -_ -- - - - ---Donna Dean, ext 2`i 51 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham fi$8-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive reports from staff /elected officials regarding several school related issues. BACKGROUND: This portion of the meeting provides an opportunity for the three elected boards to receive updates on the topics noted below. As time permits, the Boards may wish to discuss same or all of these topics, and to identify any points that staffs may need to research and bring back as the subject of subsequent reports. a. Status of CHCCS Overcrowding and Projections No Attachments b. Status of Smith Middle School Construction and Opening Date No Attachments c. National Trust for Historic Preservation During meetings of the Smart Growth Commission in recent months, there has been discussion of factors that contribute to the problem of urban sprawl. One concern raised has been the difficulty of acquiring large sites needed for schools in accordance with the acreage guidelines established by the State Department of Public Instruction (DPI). School systems often have to look for these sites further and further out from the center of the urban area as there are relatively fewer large acreage tracts available in or near urban centers. 2 Commissioner Jacobs has provided an extract:from a report prepared by the National Trust for Historic Preservation on the topic of protecting neighborhood schools. The boards may wish to discuss some of the issues raised in this report. On a related note, County staff have consulted with DPI staff concerning the origins of and basis for standards related to school. sites. Attachment 4c-1-Extract from "Why Johnny Cant Walk to School" (the entire report maybe viewed on-line and/ar downloaded at htt ://www.nationaltrust.or /main/abouttrust/schaolshome.htm) Attachment 4c-2 - 3/22/01 Memo, from Budget Director Donna Dean FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the review/discussion at this meeting of these reports. However, any discussion is likely to influence future school operating and capital budgets. . RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards receive the reports for - information only. - - ~ - National Trust for Historic Freservation: Protecting Neighborhood Schools http://www.nationaltrust.org/main/abauttrust/schoolshon ~~~~~~~ ~'^~ C More on Neighborhood Schools: 'T'heir listing in The 11 Most En.dan.gered Historic Places 2000 Enter the Preservation Week 2001 Poster Contest about schools Law anal Public Policy Home Page Contact the Public Policy Department: pol.icy~n~,nthQorg Why Johnny Can't Walk to School An important part ofAmerica--the small school you could walk to in a neighborhood where you knew your neighbors--is disappearing. It's being replaced bymega-school sprawl--giant education facilities in remote locations that no child can walk to. Across the country, parents and teachers aze clamoring for smaller, community-centered schools on the basis that they are better for kids and better for learning. Many historic neighborhood schools fit precisely that description and could be renovated to meet state-of--the-art tec}inology, code, and education programs if given the chance. Instead, handsome buildings that once inspired civic pride are being discarded for nondescript, "big box" schools. Acres of asphalt are replacing close-knit, walkable neighborhoods as the typical school setting. Increasingly, a stressful drive through traffic separates parents and children from even more distant schools. Sprawl has made our environment so inhospitable to pedestrians that only one in eight children walks or bikes to school today. This report looks at haw public policies are contributing to these problems and at what citizens and public officials are doing to change them. It ends with an Agenda for Change--recommendations for policy reforms. Download the Executive Surnmary or the Full Report. This report was authored by Constance E. Beaumont with Elizabeth G. Pianca of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's State and Local Policy Program. The National Trust gratefully acknowledges support provided by the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training for this project. HOW SHORTSTGHTED POLICIES UNDERMINE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS To a surprising extexit, public policies have cut schools and communities off from each other by encouraging the closure of small, community-centered schools and promoting mega school sprawl. Acreage Standards Many state education departments either mandate or recommend a minimum number of acres for schools. National, guidelines recommended to states by.the Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPn call for the following: Elementary Schaal • At least 10 acres of land plus one acre for every 100 students Middle School . • At least 20 acres of land plus one acre for every 100 students High School • At least 30 acres of land plus one acre for every 100 students Thus an elementary school with 400 students would need 14 acres; a middle school with 600 students, 26 acres; and a high school with 2,000 students, SO acres. Many states apply guidelines similar to those recommended by the CEFPI, while other .states have developed their awn formulas. New York, for example, recommends only three acres of land -plus one acre for every 100 students - for an elementary school. Minnesota, on the other hand, recommends twice as much land as does CEFPI for a large high school: 60 acres plus one acre for every 100 students.12 Local governments, too, ey-~b]ish minimum sc1i001 Site sizes. Albemarle County, Va,, fog example, r~ommends 15 acres for an elementary school with 600 students, 30 acres for a middle school with 750 students, and 45 acres for a high school with 1,500 students. The county's current high school sites exceed 60 acres.13 Since sites that large can generally be found only in outlying areas, which are too remote for students to walk to or reach by public transit, schools often require a vast 16 expanse of asphalt far parking. Santa Fe, N.M., requires parking spaces for 50% of the high school student body.l~ At 300 square feet per parking space, a student lot far 1,000 cars would need 300,000 square feet, or about seven acres of land for blacktop. Teacher and staff parking requires still more asphalt. In Charleston, S.C., schools serving 3,000 students are being built with nearly ten acres of parking, according to the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, aland-use planning advocacy organization that examined 200 schools in Charleston's Lowcountry.l s When asked about multi-level schools as a way to reduce land consumption, the architect of a large Midwestern firm specializing in school construction responded: "We 7d~~o7n't believe in three-story schools. Kids can fall on the stairs. So they're considered a habilrty 79. _. _ . , _ _ Sites as large as those recommended today aze hard to find in older cities and towns, where older schools typically occupy only two to eight acres, are surrounded by densely developed neighborhoods, and have no room to expand. Although big-city school districts can easily get waivers from these requirements, small and mid-sized communities often struggle with them because acquiring more land is not considered a big problem. "Expansiveness is taken for granted" in most suburban and rural areas, say the CEFPI guidelines.16 The system thus recognizes the difficulties large cities encounter in meeting the acreage standards, but it ignores the fact that small and mid-sized communities might want to keep schools in town for the sake of maintaining vibrant town centers and cohesive neighborhoods. Alternatively, large school site requirements may force a community to encroach upon land already occupied by businesses or homeowners, who are then forced to move.l ~ In New Castle, Pa., the local school district has condemned -- and plans to demolish -- no fewer than 13 historic homes to make way for a new school, athletic fields, and parking. In Massachusetts, older .communities have had to give up precious parkland and farmland so schools could meet acreage standazds. In some cases, state acreage standards are actually more flexible than they are represented to be. However, some school districts treat recommendations as if they were regulations, particularly when they want an excuse to tear down and build new. When citizens working to save older neighborhood schools try to distinguish between what's 17 required and what's merely recommended, they sometimes run into a brick wall, buck- passing between state and local officials, or both. State funding biases Like acreage standards, state reimbursement policies can also tip the. scales in favor of building new schools and against the upgrading of existing schools. One problem is the so-called "60% rule." This says: If the cost of renovating an older school exceeds 60% of the cost of a new school, the school district should build a new school if the district wants to receive financial assistance from the state.l $ The ....percentages vary: Massachusetts has applied a 50% rule; Minnesota, a 60% rule; Washington State, an SO% rule. The problem with such arbitrary percentage rules is that they prevent a full cost analysis by state and local governments and arbitrarily eliminate sound renovation projects. Certain new construction costs -- items such as land acquisition, water and sewer line extensions, transportation and road work, for example -- may not be factored into the comparison. The same thing is true of the costs of maintaining or demolishing a school building taken out of service. If these costs were considered, renovation projects might meet the percentage rule more easily.19 The rules also discount other values, such as a community's desire to maintain a school as a neighborhood anchor ar to have a school to which children can walk. State reimbursement policies can also discourage the proper maintenance of existing schools. A Massachusetts report found that state funding sources for school maintenance and repair have the "iu~urteritional side effect of rewarding schools that allow their facilities to deteriorate with new school buildings." In many areas; claims for building maintenance funds must compete with demands on operating budgets. Faced with the choice of hiring several new teachers or fixing a leafing roof, a school district is more likely to hire the teachers, even though deferred maintenance of the school building may generate a huge tab later on. Criven reimbursement rates, it may seem more cost effective for a town to build a new school -- , or undertake a maj or renovation in a few years -- than to properly care for a school building over the long term. 18 Finally, it is worth noting that whereas private corporations receive state and federal tax incentives for rehabilitating historic buildings, public agencies such as school districts receive no such incentives for renovating historic schools. Conflicts between community planning and school planning Local governments typically use planning, zoning, and other growth management laws to protect their community's quality of life. Through these laws, municipalities can preserve or create close-knit neighborhoods that permit kids to walk to school. These laws can also help make sure that taxpayer funds are not squandered, but rather used to maintain public assets, including those important to young people, like schools, libraries, parks and recreation centers. _ At the same time, construction of new schools in outlying areas can greatly alter a community's future growth patterns. Often such schools establish beachheads for residential sprawl. New school sites selected by local school systems can force a municipality to speed up the construction of new roads, water mains, and sewer lines. Research into local planning and development activities in Lincoln, Nebr., prompted W. Cecil Steward, dean of the College of Architecture at the University of Nebraska, to conclude that "the public school system...is the most influential planning entity, either public or private, promoting the prototypical sprawl pattern of American cities" He refers to public school systems as "advance scouts for urban sprawl." 20 In same states, school districts are exempt from local planning and zoning laws or they simply ignore them. In Georgia, for example, a local court held that the Bibb County School District did not have to comply with caning regulations after the local planning commission tried to require the district to address the adverse effects of a school stadium on the surrounding neighborhood.2 r School superintendents and school boards "have regularly ignored or bypassed local master plans, capital improvement plans, and even zoning in the siting and operations of their facilities," writes a Massachusetts planner. "It is as if they were above planning." Under California law, public schools can be.located with little regard to local plans intended to promote orderly, well-planned growth. New schools are often built on 19 productive farmland located outside urban growth boundaries. The city of San Jose recently objected to a plan by the Morgan Hill School District to build a new high school on a greenbelt separating San Jose from Morgan Hill. San Jose's objections: • The proposed school site is zoned for agriculture and is on a greenbelt slated for permanent protection. • The school would require the extension of city services outside of the designated urban service areas of both San Jose and Morgan Hill. This would violate growth management policies established by San Jose to prevent sprawl. • If San Jose is forced to extend services to the school site, the services will have to be made available throughout the entire length of the Coyote Valley, thus stimulating - new development pressures throughout the whole region.2~ According to the Stanislaus County (Calif:) Farm Bureau, schools often act as a catalyst for growth patterns that destroy farming 2s Once new subdivisions attracted by schools move into an agricultural area and make it hard to farm, fanners start looking for other uses for their land. Many of these uses conflict with farming. To survive economically, farmers feel they must sell out to development. The rift between school planning and general community planning has become so great in California that State Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) has sponsored legislation to address this problem. Her proposal would require school districts to defer to local zoning laws in jurisdictions that have local comprehensive plans, provided these plans contain provisions to accommodate the need to build or renovate public schools. Cwrrent state law permits school districts to exempt themselves from local land-use regulations with atwo-thirds vote of the school board. In 1994, the South Carolina. General Assembly passed a 1aw24 requiring local planning agencies to plan for growth in their respective jurisdictions. However, if a local school district's plan conflicts with a local comprehensive plan - if, for eatample, a proposed school site falls outside a jurisdiction's urban growth boundary - no government authority can stop the project, even if the location makes no sense to the community, according to the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League zs "Local [school] districts are not obligated to work with local planners or other government 20 officials on selecting a new site," says the League, "and they need not ensure that its location fits into a community's overall comprehensive plan." a6 In short, school districts may, if they choose, ignore plans for sensible, well- managed, "mart growth." In addition, they often act as magnets for sprawl. Building codes Everyone, preservationists included, agrees that schools must be safe. The debate in this area centers on the path taken to achieve the level of safety that all agree is essential. At the core of the problem is the application of modern building codes written with oily modern construction methods and materials in mind" to older schools. Since building codes are updated every few years, most existing buildings, even recent ones, do not comply with every code provision. This does not mean the buildings are unsafe. Installation of sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, and other early warning systems can compensate for items required by modern codes -items that may not have existed when the older buildings were const<ucted In fact, many state building codes recognize that older buildings may not fully comply with modem codes but that they can be made safe through compliance with alternative code provisions. New Jersey's Rehabilitation Code and Massachusetts' Article 23 are two examples. Architects experienced in the rehabilitation of older buildings can often retrofit older schools to provide a level of life safety equivalent to that found in a brand-new building. But renovation alternatives are often not given that chance. One reason is that architects inexperienced in rehabilitation techniques sometimes overestimate the costs of bringing an older school up to code. If they overestimate renovation costs by hundreds of 6 thousands of dollars, or by millions of dollars, as sometimes happens (see p. 33 on Kokomo, Ind.'s experience), the school district will usually opt for new construction even though renovation is cheaper. Much cotifusion.surrounds the concept of `wood-frame" construction, a basic construction type used throughout the ages and often found in older schools. Although the mere presence of wood framing does not render a building obsolete or unsafe -and although code compliance altematives exist for the incorporation of wood-flamed 21 structures into contemporary school programs -older schools with wood framing are often automatically treated as unsafe. In North Carolina, such schools are placed in a category that can disqualify them for building maintenance funds. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) should be considered a given for any school renovation project. But experience has shown that carefully planned ramps, elevators, and lifts can successfully address the majority of handicapped accessibility issues. These items should not prevent the continued use of existing school buildings, particularly since the installation of "accessibility features" normally represents a small percentage of a school renovation budget. _ ..... _ . _ In .general, it is wise for school districts and school renovation advocates to retain .... .. _ :._ consultants experienced in renovation and code compliance alternatives to assist in the architectural. evaluation of a school. TRANSPORTATION COSTS: TIME AND MONEY • The costs of busing children longer distances as a result of building schools in remote locations are sometimes ignored, even though these costs can be substantial. In Maine, for example, between 1970 and 1995, the number of students statewide declined by 27,000. During this same period, however, school busing costs rose from $8.7 million to over $54 million.27 • "I rode the bus to school with the children. Four-year-olds involved in a special pre- school program -- and five- and six-year olds -they were getting up before 7:00 a.m. far a long, 4S-minute bus ride. They didn't return unti14:30 p.m. That's a long day far small children. They were exhausted. They were sleeping to and from school" - - Rachel Southworth of Sadieville, Ky, which lost its elementary schoal to a newly developing area several years ago. 22 BETTER MODELS FOR PUBLIC POLICY A few states have taken steps to avoid the problems discussed earlier and to make it easier for communities to preserve historic neighborhood schools. Acreage Standards If, as U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley has argued, "size matters" in the creation of supportive learrvxig environments, both size and Zocatian matter when it comes. to creating community-centered schools. If a school's huge size and auto- orientation dictate anedge-of--town location, the school is more likely to be surrounded by a large parking lot than by ahuman-scaled neighborhood. As noted earlier, a handitil of states -New York, 'Washington, Florida, and New _ Hampshire -- recommend smaller sites for schools than those recommended by the Council of Educational Facility Planners International. Maryland and Oregon impose no acreage requirements at all. Maryland's decision to abandon acreage requirements dates to the 1970s, when the state recognized that the application of such standards would force older cities like Baltimore to close almost all their schools. Although the state could have waived the standards for Baltimore and still applied them to smaller communities, state officials decided it did not make sense to have two sets of standards: one for big cities, another for small and mid- sized cities. In recent years, Maryland has earned a national reputation for its Smart Growth Program. The philosophy behind this program, in the words of Governor Parris N. Glendening, is that "we should not use taxpayer money to promote sprawl... Instead, we should use our tax dollars to revitalize existing communities."30 Even before Maryland enacted smart growth legislation in 1997, the state's Public School Construction Program was already promoting smart growth principles. Consider, for example, Maryland's criteria for evaluating local applications for state financial assistance: • "Projects should not encourage `sprawl' development." 41 • "Projects should not be located in agricultural preservation areas...unless other options are not viable and the project's development will have no negative effect on future growth and development in the area." • "Projects should encourage revitalization of existing facilities, neighborhoods, and communities." • "Projects should be located in developed areas or in alocally-designated growth area." • "Projects should be served by existing or planned water, sewer, and other public ixifrastntcture." - - .Maryland's progressive approach to acreage standards and school siting criteria -- - - warrants attention by other states. Coordination between school facility and general community planning Maine has emerged as a.leader in promoting better communication and coordination between school facility planners and general community planners. The state's Department of Education encourages school superintendents to contact the State Planning Office (SPO) staff before making decisions about where to build new schools. Such contacts enable SPO staff to arrange meetings with local school planners for the purpose of coordinating school facility planning and local planning. Through these contacts, superintendents are better informed about the community's plans for new growth and development, and they are encouraged to take these plans into account. Following SPO site visits and meetings, the SPO stafFinakes recommendations to the state education board regarding the merits of state financial assistance for local projects. The board is not required to accept these recommendations, but it often does. In a model of interdepartmental coordination, the Maine State Planning Office and State Board of Education recently collaborated on the publication of a brochure designed to help local officials make better school siting decisions. Entitled "The ABC's of School Site Selection," the brochure urges school districts to: • avoid sprawl; • consider school renovations or expansions in central locations whenever possible; 42 • analyze school sites for their proximity to village centers and established neighborhoods; and • select sites served by adequate roads, utilities, and other essential services. The brochure gives real-life examples of schools that have followed these principles. Kittery, for example, is cited for using local funds to rehabilitate the historic Frisbee School. The school now meets current life-safety and ADA standards. Vermont Vermont has explicitly recognized the importance of older schools to town.centers.. Consider this policy, adopted in August 1997 by the Vermont Education Department: "It is... in the public interest to protect Vermont's historic schools for future generations and it shall be the policy of the Vermont State Board of Education that: School districts be encouraged to use the existing infrastructure to meet the needy of Vermont's students and therefore funding far renovations, including major repairs, and additions to existing school buildings shall be given preference over new school develapment, taking into consideration the educational needs of students and that the costs of rehabilitation do not unreasonably exceed the costs of such new development. 1. YVith specific respect to historic school buildings listed on or eligible for the State. or National Register of Historic Places, school districts shall make all reasonable efforts to preserve and protect such buildings and wherever possible, rehabilitate or add to such buildings to permit continued use as a school building. " State funding Maryland. Maryland also leads the way in the elimination of handing formulas that discriminate against older schools and favor new ones. In fact, Maryland's formula actually favors the renovation of existing schools over the construction of new ones. Whereas the majority of the state's funds for capital projects formerly went into new school construction, today, 84% goes to existing schools."~ ~ Maryland's Smart Growth 43 AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE: POLICY REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS If it's time to bring back smaller, community-centered schools, as many educators believe, it's also time to stop destroying such schools where they already exist.. Many historic neighborhood schools embody the very benefits seen in smaller, community- centered schools. It's also time to give kids the option of walking to school and to free families from the burden of financing a third or fourth car in order to give young people the independence they should have. It's time to preserve -and upgrade, when necessary - historic schools whose architecture inspires civic pride. When such schools cannot be preserved, communities should have the choice of replacing them on the same site with well-designed new schools that can continue to provide the "glue" that older _. - neighborhoods need. The recommendations below aze offered by the Natio nis_t or Historic Preservation to move these goals forwazd. Top Twelve Policy Recommendations Put historic neighborhood schools on a level playing field with new schools. Eliminate fiznding biases that favor new construction over school renovation and good stewardship. 2. Eliminate arbitrary acreage standards that undermine the ability of established communities to retain and upgrade (or replace on the same site, when necessary) historic and older schools that could continue to serve as centers of community. 3. Avoid `mega-school sprawl" -massive schools in remote locations that stimulate sprawl development and are accessible only by car or bus. ~1. Develop procedures for accepting land doniated by developers for new schools. Land in "sprawl locations" that are inappropriate for schools should be rejected. 5. Encourage school districts to cooperate with other institutions - e.g., government agencies, nonprofits, churches, and private businesses -- to share playgrounds, ball fields, and pazking as well as to provide transit services, when appropriate. 6. Establish guidelines, training programs, and funding mechanisms to ensue adequate school building maintenance. Create disincentives for school districts to defer needed maintenance and allow buildings to fall into disrepair. 7. Require feasibility studies comparing the costs of new schools with those of renovating existing schools before new schools are built and existing ones abandoned. Hire only architects with experience in rehabilitation work to conduct such studies. These studies should also consider the impact of a school's closing on existing neighborhoods, long-term transportation costs, and municipal service 49 burdens. Finally, these studies must be presented to the public for comment before projects move forward. If they are presented only to the superintendent anal school facilities committee, their use is limited. 8. Reexamine exemptions given to local school districts from local planning, zoning, and growth management laws. 9. Work to ensure that a minimum of 50% of the students can walk or bike to school in cities, towns, and suburbs. Promote safe-routes-to-school legislation in the states. 10. When a historic school cannot be preserved and reused, school districts and/or local governments should implement plans for the building's adaptive use or replacement so that it does not become a source of blight in the neighborhood. 11: ~ Promote "smart codes" legislation to encourage the rehabilitatian and modernization of historic schools as well as other still serviceable buildings. 12. Provide education and training in school renovation techniques and options for school facility planners, contractors, private consultants, architects, school board members, municipal officials and others. 50 ~c~~~e~ ~"{G- MEMORANDUM TO: Rod 1/isser. FROM: Donna Dean DATE: March 21, 20Q1 W_.~ -RE: - - - ~ DPI Standards for School Sites - I spoke with representatives from the State Department of Instruction (DPI) today regarding the Commissioner questions you relayed to me about school siting and acreage. The original State standards were developed about 50 years ago -and DPI is seeing mare and more situations where school systems are either unable to find or unable to afford the "'suggested" amount of acreage far a new school. To that end, the State appears to be fairly flexible with regard to acreage standards. They indicated that many factors come into play when they review a proposed site -examples of these include (1) whether the school is one story or multi-level, (2) co-location of recreational or library facilities. that can be used by the students, or (3) consideration of "off-site" parking (for example, if a nearby church has a parking lot that can be used during the week by teachers and on the weekends by the congregation). While DPI did indicate that it is not likely that they would deny a project, it is possible, in certain cases where acreage did not meet standards, that they may issue a "statement" indicating that the school site did not meet State guidelines. Each project is reviewed on a case-by-case, site-by-site basis. This would also be the case when a school did not meet the minimum square footage guidelines.