planning for community-oriented schools
TRANSCRIPT
PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED
SCHOOLS
A Guide to School Siting in North Texas
2017
NCTCOG Executive Board 2017-2018
President Tom Lombard Councilmember City of North Richland Hills
Vice President Kevin Strength Mayor, City of Waxahachie
Secretary-Treasurer J. D. Clark County Judge, Wise County
Past President Lissa Smith Former Mayor Pro Tem City of Plano
Director Douglas Athas Mayor, City of Garland
Director Kelly Allen Gray Councilmember City of Fort Worth
Director Clay Lewis Jenkins County Judge, Dallas County
Director Lee M. Kleinman Councilmember, City of Dallas
Director Curtistene McCowan Mayor, City of DeSoto
Director Bobbie Mitchell Commissioner, Denton County
Director Nick Sanders Mayor, Town of Trophy Club
Director Keith Self County Judge, Collin County
Director Ray Smith Mayor, Town of Prosper
Director Paul Voelker Mayor, City of Richardson
Director Kathryn Wilemon Councilmember City of Arlington
Director B. Glen Whitley County Judge Tarrant County
Director Bruce Wood County Judge Kaufman County
Ex-Officio, Non-Voting Member Ron Simmons Texas House of Representatives
Executive Director R. Michael Eastland
Regional Transportation Council 2017-2018
Rob Franke, P.E., Chair Mayor, City of Cedar Hill
Gary Fickes, Vice Chair Commissioner, Tarrant County
Andy Eads, Secretary Commissioner, Denton County
Douglas Athas Mayor, City of Garland
Tennell Atkins Councilmember, City of Dallas
Sara Bagheri Mayor Pro Tem, City of Denton
Carol Bush County Judge, Ellis County
Loyl C. Bussell, P.E. Acting District Engineer, Texas Department of Transportation Fort Worth District
Rickey D. Callahan Councilmember, City of Dallas
Mike Cantrell Commissioner, Dallas County
David L. Cook Mayor, City of Mansfield
Rudy Durham Mayor, City of Lewisville
Charles Emery Chairman, Denton County Transportation Authority
Kevin Falconer Mayor, City of Carrollton
George Fuller Mayor, City of McKinney
Sandy Greyson Councilmember, City of Dallas
Mojy Haddad Board Member, North Texas Tollway Authority
Roger Harmon County Judge, Johnson County
Clay Lewis Jenkins County Judge, Dallas County
Ron Jensen Mayor, City of Grand Prairie
Jungus Jordan Councilmember, City of Fort Worth
Lee M. Kleinman Councilmember, City of Dallas
Harry LaRosiliere Mayor, City of Plano
David Magness Commissioner, Rockwall County Scott Mahaffey Chairman, Fort Worth Transportation Authority
B. Adam McGough Councilmember, City of Dallas
William Meadows Board Vice Chair Dallas Fort Worth International Airport
Steve Mitchell Councilmember, City of Richardson
Cary Moon Councilmember, City of Fort Worth
Stan Pickett Mayor, City of Mesquite
Mark Riley County Judge, Parker County
Kelly Selman, P.E. District Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Dallas District
Gary Slagel Board Secretary, Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Will Sowell Mayor Pro Tem, City of Frisco
Mike Taylor Councilmember, City of Colleyville
Stephen Terrell Mayor, City of Allen
T. Oscar Trevino, Jr., P.E. Mayor, City of North Richland Hills
William Tsao, P.E. Citizen Representative, City of Dallas
Oscar Ward Councilmember, City of Irving
Duncan Webb Commissioner, Collin County
B. Glen Whitley County Judge, Tarrant County
Kathryn Wilemon Councilmember, City of Arlington
W. Jeff Williams Mayor, City of Arlington
Ann Zadeh Councilmember, City of Fort Worth
Michael Morris, P.E. Director of Transportation, NCTCOG
Surface Transportation Technical Committee Loyl Bussell, P.E., Chair, Texas Department of Transportation, Fort Worth District
PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED
SCHOOLS
A Guide to School Siting in North Texas
2017
What is NCTCOG? TheNorthCentralTexasCouncilofGovernmentsisavoluntaryassociationofcities,counties,schooldistricts,andspecialdistrictswhichwasestablishedinJanuary1966toassistlocalgovernmentsinplanningforcommonneeds,cooperatingformutualbenefit,andcoordinatingforsoundregionaldevelopment.
Itservesa16‐countymetropolitanregioncenteredaroundthetwourbancentersofDallasandFortWorth.CurrentlytheCouncilhas236members,including16counties,168cities,24independentschooldistricts,and28specialdistricts.Theareaoftheregionisapproximately12,800squaremiles,whichislargerthanninestates,andthepopulationoftheregionisabout7millionwhichislargerthan38states.
NCTCOG'sstructureisrelativelysimple;eachmembergovernmentappointsavotingrepresentativefromthegoverningbody.ThesevotingrepresentativesmakeuptheGeneralAssemblywhichannuallyelectsa17‐memberExecutiveBoard.TheExecutiveBoardissupportedbypolicydevelopment,technicaladvisory,andstudycommittees,aswellasaprofessionalstaffof350.
NCTCOG'sofficesarelocatedinArlingtonintheCenterpointTwoBuildingat616SixFlagsDrive(approximatelyone‐halfmilesouthofthemainentrancetoSixFlagsOverTexas).
NorthCentralTexasCouncilofGovernmentsP.O.Box5888Arlington,Texas76005‐5888(817)640‐3300NCTCOG'sDepartmentofTransportationSince1974NCTCOGhasservedastheMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO)fortransportationfortheDallas‐FortWortharea.NCTCOG'sDepartmentofTransportationisresponsiblefortheregionalplanningprocessforallmodesoftransportation.ThedepartmentprovidestechnicalsupportandstaffassistancetotheRegionalTransportationCouncilanditstechnicalcommittees,whichcomposetheMPOpolicy‐makingstructure.Inaddition,thedepartmentprovidestechnicalassistancetothelocalgovernmentsofNorthCentralTexasinplanning,coordinating,andimplementingtransportationdecisions.PreparedincooperationwiththeTexasDepartmentofTransportationandtheU.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,andFederalTransitAdministration."Thecontentsofthisreportreflecttheviewsoftheauthorswhoareresponsiblefortheopinions,findings,andconclusionspresentedherein.ThecontentsdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsorpoliciesoftheFederalHighwayAdministration,theFederalTransitAdministration,ortheTexasDepartmentofTransportation."
Table of Contents ProjectBackground............................................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................................2
TheSignificanceofSchoolSiting.............................................................................................................................................4
Challenges...............................................................................................................................................................................................5
Funding...............................................................................................................................................................................................5
LandAvailability.............................................................................................................................................................................5
LackofCoordinationamongAgencies..................................................................................................................................6
LackofGuidance.............................................................................................................................................................................6
OpportunitiesandSolutions...........................................................................................................................................................7
CoordinatedPlanning...................................................................................................................................................................8
1.EstablishaProcessforCollaborationandCommunication...............................................................................9
2.IdentifyNeedsandDevelopaSharedVision.........................................................................................................10
3.EstablishPoliciesandProcessesthatSupportInteragencyCoordinationandCommunitySchools
........................................................................................................................................................................................................11
StrategiesforSitingCommunity‐OrientedSchools......................................................................................................12
1.LocateFacilitieswithinNeworEstablishedNeighborhoods.........................................................................12
2.CapitalizeonExistingFacilitiesandInfrastructure............................................................................................13
3.ThoroughlyCompareMultipleSites..........................................................................................................................14
4.ReconsiderMinimumAcreageStandards...............................................................................................................15
5.LandBankFutureSchoolSites....................................................................................................................................17
6.CreateSaferEnvironmentsforStudentstoWalkorBike................................................................................17
ConclusionsandTakeaways........................................................................................................................................................21
References...........................................................................................................................................................................................22
AppendixA.TexasStatePoliciesthatImpactSchoolInvestment...............................................................................23
AppendixB.ExampleSchoolSitingProcess.........................................................................................................................27
Figure1:ElementarySchoolLocatedonBusyArterials....................................................................................................2Figure2:HighSchoolLocatedontheEdgeofTown............................................................................................................2
Figure3:ConsequencesoftheDecreaseinStudentsWalkingandBicyclingtoSchool........................................3Figure4:ComparingIncreaseinTexasSchoolDistrictEnrollment,CapitalOutlay,andDebt..........................5Figure5:SeparatebutParallelPlanningEfforts....................................................................................................................6
Figure6:ViridianMaster‐PlannedCommunity..................................................................................................................13Figure7:ModelElementarySchoolSite.................................................................................................................................20
1
Project Background
The North Central Texas Council ofGovernments(NCTCOG)wasawardedin2014a Transportation Investment Generating Eco‐nomicRecovery (TIGER)planninggrant fromthe U.S. Department of Transportation. Thegoals of the project were fourfold: (1)encourage interagency coordination, (2)advance long‐termplanning for school siting,(3)improvetransportationsafetynearschools,and (4) promote multimodal transportationoptions to schools. In advancing the secondgoal, this guidebook is the culmination ofresearchconductedintocurrentstateandlocalschool siting policies and practices andsummarizesmanyofthelessonslearned.
Aspartofthestudy,NCTCOGperformedthefollowingtasks:
Literature Review: Conducted an extensivereviewoftheliteratureonschoolsitingissuesand national best practices, and currentpoliciesthatimpactschoolfacilityplanninginTexas.
Stakeholder Survey: Created a survey, anddistributedittoattendeesofthefirstRegionalSchool Coordination Task Force meeting onDecember 9, 2015. The survey focused oncurrentpracticesandcommunityneeds.
City and School District Interviews:Conductedinterviewswithstafffromsixschooldistrictsand fivecities to learnaboutcurrentinteragency coordination and school sitingpractices,challenges,andopportunities.Theseschool districts and cities were intended torepresentthebroadrangeofcommunitytypesthat can be found throughout the Dallas‐FortWorth region, from urban to rural and fast‐growingtostablegrowth.
Workshop and Task Force Meetings:HostedoneworkshopinOctober2015withmembersof theRegionalTransportationCouncil—theindependenttransportationpolicybodyoftheNorth Central Texas Metropolitan PlanningOrganization— and school district superint‐endents and school board members. Localgovernmentandschooldistrictstaffandotherregional stakeholders were invited to attendthreeRegionalSchoolCoordinationTaskForcemeetings in December 2015, April 2016, andJuly 2016. The workshop and Task Forcemeetingswereintendedtoencouragedialogueonschoolsitingissuesatthepolicylevelandatthetechnicallevel.
“Schools in their development respond to their social, economic and
cultural environment. The forces of community life beat in on the process
of education and tend to shape it. Contrariwise, the educational urge has
a strength of its own, and in its own right beats back in an effort to
condition and shape the destiny of the community.”
- Walter J.E. Schiebel, 1996, Education in Dallas: Ninety‐Two Years of
History, 1874‐1966
2
Introduction TheDallas‐FortWorthmetroplexisoneofthefastest growing metropolitan areas in thecountry, putting tremendous strain on theregion’s infrastructure — including trans‐portation and school systems. The region’spopulation is projected to increase from 7.2millionin2017to10.7millionin2040.Duringthisperiod,thenumberofschool‐agechildren(5 to 17 years) is estimated to increase by750,000 — more than 50 percent. Toaccommodatethisgrowth,hundredsofschoolswillneedtobebuiltorrenovated.Thelocationofthoseschoolswillhaveatremendousimpacton how children get to school and on theregion’stransportationsystemoverall.
Historically, schools were located at thephysical and social center of neighborhoodsand communities. The location of theseneighborhoodschoolsprotectedchildrenfromheavyautomobiletraffic,andtheschoolsweresited to accommodate students walking orbiking to school. Since the 1970s, however,school planning has paralleled commercialdevelopment trends, leading tomega‐schools
located along highways and major arterialroadways on the edge of neighborhoods andcommunities,wherelandislessexpensiveandeasiertoassemble.
This trend in school siting is significant, asstudieshaveshownthatthefartherschoolsarelocatedfromresidences,thelesslikelyitisthatchildren will walk or bicycle to school.According to the 2009 National HouseholdTravel Survey, only 10 percent of school‐agechildren in the Dallas‐Fort Worth regionwalked or bicycled to school. Conversely, 72percent of children arrived at school in aprivatevehicle,and18percentinaschoolbus.Traffic congestion around schools hasworsened,whichinturnthreatensthesafetyofstudents,pedestrians,anddrivers,anderodesthesocialfabricofourcommunities.
Figure1:ElementarySchoolLocatedonBusyArterials
Figure2:HighSchoolLocatedontheEdgeofTown
As of 2016, 35 percent of public K‐12
schools in the metropolitan area were
located within 500 feet of a highway
or major arterial roadway.
3
Figure3:ConsequencesoftheDecreaseinStudentsWalkingandBicyclingtoSchool
As the number of children in the regioncontinuestogrowinthecomingdecades,thisgrowthmodelwillhaveincreasinglysignificantimpacts on traffic congestion, air pollution,transportation safety, health (particularlyasthma and childhood obesity rates),community cohesionand investment, and theamount of money schools spend ontransportation.The purpose of this guidebook is to provideschooldistrictsandlocalgovernmentsinNorthTexaswith steps that they can take to betteraligntheirrespectiveplanningpractices,buildcommunity‐oriented schools, and achievemultiple community goals — includingeducational,environmental,health,social,andfiscal.
Defining “Community‐Oriented” or “Community‐Centered” Schools:
While each school is unique because it serves
specific academic programs and communities,
literature points to several features that often
define “community‐oriented” or “community‐
centered” schools: (Sharp, 2008) (Kuhlman, 2010)
Provide high‐quality education
Located near the families they serve, allowing
large numbers of students to walk or bike to
school and encouraging frequent interactions
between parents, teachers, students,
administrators and residents
Accessible via multiple modes of transportation,
enabling students to attend extracurricular
activities without adult transport
Fit well within the neighborhood and have a
relatively small footprint
Act as a neighborhood anchor and support
community use of the school facility after
hours
Are well‐designed, fit the scale and design of
the surrounding neighborhood, and generate
public pride
Take advantage of existing resources,
including roads, infrastructure, and historic
buildings
Contribute to, rather than work against,
community planning efforts, thereby
supporting the efficient use of taxpayer dollars
Located near housing for a variety of income
levels that reflects the makeup of the
community it serves
4
The Significance of School Siting
To School Districts
StudentAchievement:Thelocationofschools impacts student achievementin multiple ways. Education and
student development is based on school,extracurricular andhome life.Whena school isnot ineasyreachofhomes, there is lesschancefor contact between parents and teachers.Studentsthatmustrelyonaschoolbustogettoand fromschool are less likely toparticipate inafter‐school activities. School accessibility hasbeenshowntoimpactstudentattendance(Fan&Das,2015)(Erbstein,2014).Furthermore,alargeschool,particularlywhenitislocatedoutsidetheborders of a neighborhood’swatchful eyes, canbreed feelings of anonymity and alienation thatcanleadtodisciplineproblemsandviolence.
StudentHealth:Thedeclineinwalkingand bicycling to school has beencorrelatedwithchildhoodobesityrates
tripling. The location of schools on busy roadsandtheincreasingnumberofparentsthatdrivetheir kids to school also results in greater airpollution.Approximatelyone‐thirdofschoolsarelocated in “air pollution danger zones,” puttingstudents at risk of having asthma and reducinglungfunction(Appatova,2008).
Student Safety: The majority of K‐12studentscannotdriveanddonothaveaccess to a vehicle. Many kids simply
enjoy the fun and freedom that walking andbicycling offer them. From 2012‐2016, 87percentofmotorvehiclecrashesthatresultedinanincapacitatinginjuryorfatalityofaschool‐agepedestrianorbicyclistoccurredonaroadwithaspeedlimitof30mphorgreater.Thelocationofaschoolcanhaveadirectimpactonthesafetyofitsstudents.
Funding:Finally,thelocationofschoolsimpacts school districts’ bottom lines.Texas state law requires school
districts to provide busing to students that livemorethantwomilesfromaschool.Thefurtheraschoolislocatedfromhomes,themorestudentsmust be bused. Student busing costs areincreasing while state funding has stayedrelatively flat, forcing schooldistricts topay forbusing with funds that might otherwise gotowardsotherimportanteducationalresources.
To Local Governments
Growth and Development: As publicinfrastructure, the location andphysicalconditionofschoolsisoneof
the most important determinants of neighb‐orhood quality, and community growth anddevelopment.
Traffic Congestion: The location ofschoolsinfluencesthetravelpatternsof students and parents. With
increasingnumbersofparentsdrivingtheirkidstoschool,schooltraffic isoftenthenumberonecomplaintreceivedbymanycities.Parentsafetyconcernsleadtoaviciouscycleofparentsdrivingtheir children to school more often andunwittinglycontributingtotheproblemoftrafficcongestionandsafety.
Community Cohesion: Traditionally,schoolsservedascommunityanchorsthat supported citizen interaction,
engagement,andpride.Themigrationofschoolsto disconnected locations and school sites thatresembledrive‐throughrestaurantsisonemorefactor weakening the ties that once broughtpeople together and strengthened neighbor‐hoods.
5
Challenges Through interviews and literature reviews,four major challenges to siting community‐orientedschoolswereidentified:funding,landavailability, siloed agencies, and lack ofguidance.
Funding
“ISDs don’t have adequate funding or a way
to get schools built fast enough. They are
complicated processes that have to happen
very quickly. Partnerships are essential.”
‐ School Architect in North Texas
School facilities represent the second largestsectorofpublic infrastructurespending,afterhighways. School district spending on capitaloutlayisincreasingatamuchfasterratethanstudent enrollment, accounting for inflation(seeFigure4)(Filardo,2016).Figure4:ComparingIncreaseinTexasSchoolDistrictEnrollment,CapitalOutlay,andDebt
To access the capital needed to buy land andbuild schools, school districts in Texas mustpassvoter‐approvedbonds.Although turnout
forbondelectionsisoftenverylow,inordertoreceiveamajorityofvotestoapproveabondproposition,schooldistrictsmustbalancetheirneedswithwhattheythinkthecommunitywillsupport.Schoolboardmembers,influencedbythevoterstheyrepresent,areoftenreluctanttoapprovebondsforthedistricttoacquiresitesandhold them for futureschooldevelopment(aprocesscalled landbanking)(UniversityofOregon, Community Planning Workshop,2005).Asonelocalschooldistrictstaffrecalledaschoolboardmembersaying,“Wearenotinthe real estate business.” Additionally, schooldistricts must balance spending on landacquisition, school construction andmaintenancewithotherdistrictpriorities,suchasnewtechnologyorspecialtyprograms.
Land Availability
AmongNorthTexasschooldistrictsthatweresurveyed and interviewed, the top threeconsiderations that school districts identifiedas significant for school sitingwere “Distancefrompopulationserved,” “Sizeofparcel,”and“Cost of land.” The school siting processtypically starts with school facility plannersfirst evaluating available sites to see if theymeetsizerequirementsandhavewater,sewer,androadaccess.Whensitesarenotavailableinternal to neighborhoods, or are not anadequate sizeorat aprice the schooldistrictcanafford,itwillbeforcedtopurchasesitesonthe neighborhood periphery or along high‐traffic roads. School districts and localgovernments shouldwork together to ensurethatschoolsitesareconsideredaspartofthecommunity development process, and asbuildable land becomes scarcer, employ
6
creative planning and siting strategies toaddressthechallengesoffindingsuitableland.
Lack of Coordination among Agencies
“Coordination with ISDs has always been a big
challenge. The coordination has always been
after the site has been donated/ purchased. I
have been told many times in my long career
‘… that is why they are called INDEPENDENT
school districts!’”
‐ City Traffic Engineer
School districts operate independently fromlocal governments.One city canbe servedby10schooldistricts,andoneschooldistrictcanserve10cities,eachwithdifferentregulationsandvaryingstaffcapabilities.Yet,thedecisionsofoneimpactthedecisionsoftheother.Figure5 illustrates their separate but parallelplanning efforts. From a school district’sperspective, changes in zoning and newhousing developments impact student enroll‐mentandschoolcapacities,andchangestothethoroughfare plan impact school access andstudentsafety.Thelocationofschoolsinturnimpacts traffic congestion and developmentpatterns.Figure5:SeparatebutParallelPlanningEfforts
School District Planners City Planners
Plan school locations Plan everything else in the community
Project student enrollment change
Project population and employment
change
Develop a strategic or operating plan (5‐10‐
year horizon)
Develop a comprehensive plan
(20‐year horizon)
Focus on transporting students by bus
Focus on all modes
of transportation
The reason for the lack of coordinationbetween these seemingly interdependentagencies is that incentives for coordinatedplanning are weak or nonexistent. Cities inTexasmayprepareandadoptacomprehensiveplanforthelong‐rangedevelopmentofthecitythat includes provisions on land use,transportation, and public facilities. Mostcomprehensive plans adopted by cities inNorth Texas only indicate the location ofexisting schools and include a goal tocoordinate with the school district on thelocationoffutureschoolsites.Theplansdonotinclude criteria for siting new schools orspecific strategies for collaborative planning.Althoughitmaytakemoreworkandresourcesinthebeginning, improvingcollaborationandcoordinationwillensuremoreeffectiveuseofthestaffandresourcesofbothagenciestomeettheir respective and shared goals. Ideas forenhanced coordination are outlined in thefollowingsections.
“The district planned for a middle school on a
collector street, but the city revised the
thoroughfare plan, changing the collector
street to a six‐lane arterial, creating traffic
and safety issues for the school.”
‐ School District Facility Planner
Lack of Guidance
TheStateofTexasprovidesrelativelyminimalregulation and oversight of public schoolfacility construction, except for prescribingminimum sizes for certain classroom types.Texas is one of only five states that providesfundingtoschooldistrictsforlandacquisition(in the form of the Instructional FacilitiesAllotment), but does not supply guidance ontheselectionofschoolsites.DuetothislackofguidanceattheStatelevel,theconstructionof
7
schools on large sites along major roadwaysand at the edge of communities is likely theresult of using outdated national recom‐mendations,agenerallackofeducationonbest
practices, and a lack of coordinated inter‐governmentalplanning.Assuch,thereisaneedfor greater guidance related to schoolconstructionandplanningintheStateofTexas.
Opportunities and Solutions Given the considerable challenges associatedwithschoolsiting,whatcanlocalgovernmentofficials and school districts do to facilitatebetterplanningdecisions?Thestrategies thatfollow are intended to address issues ofinteragencycommunication,trafficcongestion
and safety, future growth, and cost. Theimplementation of these strategies shouldreflect a community‐based vision that isresponsive to the educational, fiscal,environmental, transportation and socialcircumstancesforaparticularcommunity.
8
Coordinated Planning
Understand How School Planning Works in Your Community
One of the greatest barriers to improved coord‐
ination is a lack of knowledge by cities and ISDs of
each other’s processes. The following steps are
intended to help city and county transportation and
land use staff, and elected officials better
understand how school facility planning works in
their community (Sharp, 2008). For each school
district that serves your city or county:
1. Ask to review a copy of the school district’s facility master plan, if available.
Are the district’s school plans in line with the community’s comprehensive and capital
improvement plans?
Are the school planners and community
planners using the same demographic data?
Assess how the school district’s enrollment
projections compare with the city’s
demographic projections.
2. Get a handle on how school investments are
planned in your jurisdiction.
Understand the timelines, when key
decisions are made, and who the decision
makers are.
Get one of your staff to join the school district’s advisory committee on bond
elections and school construction.
3. Find out what state and local policies or rules drive school investment decisions in your town.
(See Appendix A for an overview of state
policies impacting school siting.)
Which school district rules are actually just
guidelines and can be more flexible in their
application?
Understand how new residential develop‐ment will impact enrollment in existing
schools and the demand for new schools.
Does the school district have a rule‐of‐thumb
for the number of students they expect for
each housing type?
Understand school district standards related to typical student capacity per school type,
minimum acreage for schools, etc.
“The city needs to understand the impact of changes in zoning.”
‐ School district official in North Texas
More than anything else, successful schoolsiting depends on regular communicationbetweenthelocalgovernmentsandtheschooldistrict. An ongoing, institutionalized processfor collaboration and communication is anessential part of achieving mutual goals forbothentities.Regularmeetings, frequentdatasharing, and amutually understood decision‐makingprocesscanallcontributetoincreasingtrust and awareness regarding concerns andchallenges. It is also important for commu‐
nication to involve the right personnel.Additionally, establishing a vision andidentifying policies and processes to supportcollaboration and achieving the vision willhelpfurtherlegitimizeandinstitutionalizethecollaborativeeffort.
The below steps provide a detailed roadmapforhowlocalgovernmentsandschooldistrictscanimproveinteragencycoordination.
9
1. Establish a Process for Collaboration and Communication
Local governmentmanagers and staff shouldworkwithschooldistrictsuperintendentsandstaff to establish a mutually agreed‐uponongoing and institutionalized process forcollaborationandcommunication,aswellasaprotocolforsharingobjectivedataaboutfuturedevelopments. Proactive and successfulcollaboration typically depends on regularmeetingsandcommunicationbetweenthetwoentities. This generally takes the form ofmonthlyorquarterlymeetingsamongstafftodiscussareasofmutualinterest(Sharp,2008).Topicsofdiscussionmightinclude:
Schoolfacilityplansandcityplans,includingthecomprehensiveplan,capitalimprovementprogram,andlocalareaplans
Criteriaforschoolsiting,andcomparingpotentialschoolsites
Plannedresidentialdevelopments Criteriafordeveloperset‐asidesor
donationsofsitesforschools
Demographicandenrollmentprojections
Jointusefacilitiesorotherpartnershipopportunities
Trafficcongestionandtransportationsafetyissuesatschoolsites
Effortstoenableorencouragestudentstowalkandbicycletoschool
Residentorparentcomplaints Relevantzoningprovisionsandthe
applicationsubmittalprocess
City managers and school district super‐intendents will need to identify the primarypoints of contact from the city and schooldistrict to be engaged in the ongoingcollaborativeprocess.Considerinvolvingthe
following:
Schooldistrictpersonnel(superintendent,directorofoperations,constructioncoordinator,campussafetymanager,directoroftransportation,chieffinancialofficer)
Cityand/orcountyplanners(zoningandpermitting,codeinspections,long‐rangeplanning,economicdevelopment)
Trafficengineers Parksandrecreationplanners Policeofficers
CrossingguardsAs many city and school district staff havenoted, it is less likely that collaboration willoccurunless there is leadership fromthetop,which requires good working relationshipsamonglocalgovernmentmanagersandelectedofficials, and school district superintendentsand board members. Communities that havesuccessful,ongoingcoordinationreporthavingjoint city council and school board meetingstwice a year. The topics discussed at themeetingstypicallyvariesdependingoncurrentissues, but may include future growth,transportation plans, educational initiatives,bond programs, joint facilities, and otherpartnership areas. However, those higher‐up
10
relationships are meaningless if they do notresult in policies and priorities that ensureeffective coordination happens at the stafflevel.
Althoughitmaytakemoreworkandresourcesin the beginning, these measures to improve
collaborationwillhelpincreasetrustbetweenagencies, improve data sharing, ensure thatefforts do not fall victim to changes inleadershipor staff, andensuremoreeffectiveuseofthestaffandresourcesofbothagenciesto meet their respective and shared goals(Sharp,2008).
Case Study: City of Frisco and Frisco ISD’s Coordination Process
The City of Frisco and Frisco ISD have two staff
meetings each month and joint School Board‐City
Council meetings two times a year. The city has
separate meetings with each ISD because they
each have such specific issues. It tries to have the
meetings with all the ISDs on the same day if
possible.
The first staff meeting is informally called the ISD
Coordination Meeting. During this meeting, the
deputy superintendent and city engineering and
planning staff meet to discuss proposed school
sites and the pros and cons as well as the ultimate
costs for each site development option, when
roads and utilities will be available to sites, and the
Capital Improvement Program. The ISD usually
gives the city at least two site options to provide
feedback on (though the city has not always
approved of the site that was eventually selected).
The second staff meeting is called the School
Safety Meeting (also known as the “Operations
Meeting”). This meeting may be attended by a
number of people from the school district,
including bus operations and campus security, as
well as the deputy police chief, crossing guards,
and several city engineering staff. At this meeting
staff discuss current operations, where students
should cross and where to place crossing guards,
complaints, safety concerns and what needs to be
done, if a new school principal has concerns, etc.
Traffic engineering staff help the ISD create traffic
management plans for every school, with
consideration of walking and bicycling. In May of
each year city engineering staff meet with the
principals of any new schools to tour the traffic
circulation plan for the school and discuss any
concerns the principal may have. Other ad‐hoc
staff meetings include pre‐submittal meetings and
joint‐use meetings with the Parks Department if
the school district is looking at a site that is large
enough for a park.
Topics of discussion at the Joint School Board‐City
Council meetings are generated by current issues
such as growth, road plans, and partnership
opportunities.
2. Identify Needs and Develop a Shared Vision
Once a process for communication andcollaboration has been developed, localgovernmentsandschooldistrictsshouldworktogether to develop a shared vision foreducation, school facility planning andinteragencycoordination.Establishinga
shared vision can clarify roles and help allparties better understand each other’sperspectives and overlapping needs. Thisprocess of developing a shared vision —particularly when it is incorporated into abinding document like a comprehensive plan—canfurtherinstitutionalizecoordinationandaddlegitimacytotheprocess.
11
3. Establish Policies and Processes that
Support Interagency Coordination and
Community Schools
Localgovernmentsandschooldistrictsshouldreview theirpolicies andprocesses to ensurethey foster interagency collaboration andsupport community‐oriented schools. Thefollowing are some specific measures thatcommunitieshaveaddressed:
Incorporateintergovernmentalcoordinationregardingschoolfacilitiesintothedevelopmentofthecomprehensiveplan,mastertransportationplan,andcapitalimprovementplan.
Workwithschooldistrictstoidentifyfutureschoolsites.
Putmeasuresinplacetoensureschoolcapacityandschooltransportationareconsideredinthereviewprocessforresidentialdevelopments.
Ensurethatsubdivisionordinancesandroadstandardsareconsistentinrequiringacontinuoussidewalknetworkwithintwomilesofexistingorproposedschools,andontheminimumwidthofsidewalksnearschools.
Reviewzoningordinancestoensurethey
donotactasbarrierstotheconstructionofcommunity‐orientedschools,orinhibittherenovationofexistingfacilities.Examplesincludelargesetbacks,excessiveparkingstandards,andheightrestrictions.
Streamlinethepermittingprocessorgivetheschooldistrictpriorityinplanningandpermittingtohelpshortenconstructiontimesandreducecosts.Thiscouldbecontingentuponthedistrictmeetingcertainlocationanddesignobjectives.
Waivepermittingfeesforschoolfacilities.
Case Study: City of Frisco Policies and Processes
The following are examples of the City of Frisco’s
development policies and processes that encourage
interagency coordination and community‐oriented
schools.
A Frisco ISD Deputy Superintendent served on
the Advisory Committee for the city’s 2015
Comprehensive Plan.
Appendix 3 of the Comprehensive Plan (“Land
Use”) includes recommendations for the siting
of elementary, middle, and high schools.
Appendix 4 of the Comprehensive Plan
(“School District Impacts”) includes an analysis
of the impacts of changes to the future land
use plan on school districts and future school
site needs.
The City of Frisco Planning Department
encourages all developers to reach out to
the school district.
The ISD has to meet requirements for the
site plan, but there is more flexibility on
design and landscaping requirements. The
city reviews the façade and other design
treatments to a certain extent, but not as
thoroughly as commercial properties.
12
Strategies for Siting Community-Oriented Schools
NCTCOG promotes the use of the USEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)School Siting Guidelines (2011), which weredeveloped in consultation with the U.S.DepartmentsofEducationandHumanHealthandServices.TheEPASchoolSitingGuidelinesemphasize:
Meaningfulpublicinvolvement
Comprehensiveevaluationofprospectivelocationfortheirpotentialimpactsonthehealthandsafetyofchildrenandteachersandontheenvironment
Renovation,upgrade,adaptationandexpansionofexistingfacilities,wherepossible
Multi‐modal,activetransportationoptionstoandfromschools
Promotingenvironmentaljusticeinhowschoolsitingdecisionsaremade
Identifyingopportunitiesforschoolstoservemultiplecommunitypurposes(e.g.,emergencyshelters,communitycenters,jointschoolandpubliclibraries,gymnasiums,playingfields,theatersandcommunitygardens)sothatschoolscanbecomeahubforthewholecommunity
Comprehensiveassessmentofcosts,includinglong‐termcostsoflocalgovernment,schoolagencies,andhouseholds,ratherthanjustone‐timeconstruction/renovationcosts
The followingareanumberofstrategies thatcities and school districts can employ todevelopcommunity‐orientedschoolfacilities.
1. Locate Facilities within New or
Established Neighborhoods
Schoolsshouldbelocatednearthecenteroftheattendancezoneand“natural”walkingarea.
New Neighborhoods:
School facilities can be integrated as anchorsfornew,walkableneighborhoods.Forexample,Viridian in Arlington is a 2,000 acre master‐planned community that employs NewUrbanism principles such as large frontporchesandparkinglocatedbehindhomestocreatewalkableneighborhoods.Hurst‐Euless‐Bedford ISD worked with the developerHuffines Communities for several years toprepare for the addition of an elementaryschool, which opened in 2014. As shown inFigure6,theschoolislocatedacrossfromtheViridian Town Village, giving it a centrallocation in the community. The PlannedDevelopment was written such that Viridianwould have an elementary school andeventually a middle school after a certainnumber of houses were built and one waswarranted.As a result, thedevelopershad toplanforwheretheschoolswouldbelocated.Toensurethatschoolfacilitiesarelocatedinternaltonewdevelopments,theremustbeproactive
13
Figure6:ViridianMaster‐PlannedCommunity
Source: ViridianDFW (www.viridiandfw.com)
coordination between the school district,developers,andlocalgovernment.
Established Neighborhoods:
SeveraloftheoldercommunitiesintheDallas‐Fort Worth region such as Richardson andArlington are experiencing regeneration andinfill of housing, leading to existing schoolsbecomingovercrowded.Finding largeenoughparcels in existing neighborhoods can be agreatchallenge.Therearetwowaysthatthefootprintofschoolsitescanbereducedtofitsmallinfillsites.Thefirstisbybuildingmulti‐storiedschoolsorbysharingnearbycommunityfacilitiesinsteadofbuilding separate libraries, gymnasiums, orathletic fields. Additionally, with moreintegrated neighborhood sites, less on‐sitequeuingspaceforstudentpickupanddropoffbycarneedstobeprovidedatschools.Ifinfill
sitesarenotavailable,buildingonanexistingsite may require demolishing existingbuildings. In either case, school districts andlocal governments should work togetherproactivelytoaddressthechallengesoffindingsuitable land, and ensure that there iscommunity engagement at all stages of theprocess.
2. Capitalize on Existing Facilities and
Infrastructure
Giving preference to locations near existingpopulations and close to facilities andinfrastructure that support school programswill help to minimize transportation andinfrastructurecostsandtheirrelatedeconomicand environmental impacts. In particular,school districts should avoid selecting schoolsitesthatwillrequirenewinfrastructuresuchasroads,waterorotherutilities.
14
3. Thoroughly Compare Multiple Sites
When comparing multiple sites for a newschool,includealife‐cyclecostanalysistofullyexamine the true costsof eachoption, and tohelpdeterminethebestsolutionfortheschoolsystemandthecommunityovertime.Thelife‐cyclecostanalysisexaminesnotonlytheinitialcosts of a particular building system orcomponent,butalsolong‐termtransportationimplicationsinselectingaschoolsite.Becausetransportation operations are funded from adifferentpoolofmoneythanareconstructioncosts, they may receive inadequateconsiderationduringthesiteselectionprocess.Thelong‐termvalueoftransportationsavingscanoffsetsomelargercapitaloutlaysthatmaybe required during site selection andconstruction (CEFPI, 2004). The EPA’s SmartSchoolSitingTool‐SiteComparisonWorkbookprovides an easy way for school districts tocompare the one‐time capital costs and long‐term maintenance and operation costs ofmultipleschoolsites.
Renovation versus New Construction
In addition to life‐cycle costs, communitiesshouldalsothoroughlyevaluatethebenefits
Locating schools close to the greatest number of students can reduce the need for student busing and the associated costs, as well as make it more likely students will walk and bicycle to school.
andcoststotheschooldistrictandcommunityof renovating an existing school versusconstructinganewschool.Certaincosts,suchas demolishing the existing building (ormaintenanceandsecurityiftheoldschoolwillbe left vacant), building new infrastructure,and land acquisition are not typically part ofthecalculation(Kuhlman,2010).Demolishingand abandoning schools in existingcommunitieshavealsobeenshowntodecreaseproperty values. Researchers in Michiganfound that average home property valueswithinahalf‐mileofanopen,stableelementaryschool rose at a three percent higher annualrate than they did in similar neighborhoodsaroundaclosedelementaryschool(McClelland&Schneider,2004).Creative architects experienced in buildingrehabilitationtechniquescanprovideguidanceon adapting an older school to meet today’sneeds, such as by knocking down walls tochangethesizeofclassrooms,installingrampsand elevators to improve accessibility, andadding skylights to cheer up a dark room.Schoolofficialscanreachagreementswithparkagencies, nearby churches, and otherinstitutions to share playing fields, parkingspaces,andotherthingstheschoolneed.School districts often feel pressured todivertmoneyawayfrommaintenancetopayforotherdistrictprioritiessuchasnewtechnologyanddeveloping new programs (one North Texasschooldistrict reported$4billion indeferredmaintenanceneeds),butitisimportanttofundregularmaintenance and repair so that smallrepairs do not turn into bigger renovationprojectsorresultinthecostlyconstructionofanewbuilding.
15
Case Study: Woodrow Wilson High School, Dallas, TX
Student Enrollment (2016): 1,704
The original Woodrow Wilson High School building
was constructed in 1927. A 40,000 square foot
addition was completed in 2012. The school shares
the use of the City of Dallas‐owned baseball,
softball, and soccer fields across the street at
Randall Park. The high school shares an 18 acre site
with J. L. Long Middle School, which opened in
1933.
“Woodrow is seen as a community school.” – Gene Lyons, 1979, Texas Monthly
Maintenance has also been shown to impacteducational outcomes. In an analysis of 226schools in the Houston ISD, Branham (2004)found thatstudentswere less likely toattendschoolsthatwereinneedofstructuralrepairs,usedtemporarystructures(i.e.,portables),andhad understaffed janitorial services(presumably impacting the cleanliness of theschoolfacility).When a historic school cannot be preservedandreusedforeducational,economic,orotherreasons, school districts and/or localgovernments should implement plans for thebuilding’s adaptive reuse to avoid demolition
and ensure it does not become a source ofblight in the neighborhood (Beaumont &Pianca,2002).4. Reconsider Minimum Acreage
Standards
Of the six school districts interviewed duringthe springof2016, allbut twohadminimumacreage standards that they used during thesite selection process. The standards rangedfrom8‐14acresforelementaryschools,20‐35acres formiddle schools, and40‐75 acres forhighschools.
16
Thesestandardsusedbylocalschooldistrictsfollowclosely to thestandards recommendedbytheCouncilforEducationalFacilityPlannersInternational(todayknownastheAssociationfor Learning Environments) from 1953 to2004.Thosestandardswereasfollows:5acresfor elementary schools, 20 acres for middleschools,and30acresforhighschools,plusoneacre for each 100 children in full‐timeenrollment. Over time, these standards wereviewedaspromotingsprawlandtherelocationof schools to the edge of communities, andwere removed in 2004 in favor of a moreflexibleapproach.
An assessment of educational programs,extracurricular activities, parking ordinances,and other factors can help educational andcommunity leaders identify the appropriatesiterequirementsforaschool.Forexample,acentrally‐located school that is easy forstudents and citizens to walk or bike to canreducethelandneededforparking,busdrop‐off and circular traffic (CEFPI, 2004). Thefollowing are some additional ways inwhichschoolsbeaccommodatedonlessacreage:
The six acre site that E.M. Daggett Elementary and Daggett Park sit on is owned by Fort Worth ISD. The City of Fort Worth leases the park from the School District for public use. A voluntary neighborhood association contributes funding for landscaping and gate maintenance.
Useofmulti‐storybuildings Sharedathleticfacilitiesorreduced
buffersaroundathleticfields
Joint‐useoroff‐siteathleticfacilities Sharedparkingwithadjacent
institutionaluses
Off‐siteorroof‐topplayareas Off‐site,aboveground,orunderground
parkingstructures
Case Study: Joint Use Facilities in North Texas
Perhaps the most high‐profile example of a joint
use facility in North Texas is the Cowboys training
facility in Frisco, known as The Ford Center at The
Star. Opened in 2016, it was a joint project of the
Cowboys team, the City of Frisco, and Frisco ISD;
and is the first time a NFL training facility is sharing
space with local schools. The facility will host Frisco
ISD football and soccer games, as well as other
special events (Wigglesworth, 2016). The
partnership with the city and Cowboys meant
Frisco ISD did not have to build its own third
stadium, and the school district will not incur
ongoing maintenance and operations costs at The
Ford Center, resulting in savings of $250,000 to
$300,000 annually (Frisco ISD, 2016).
While Frisco is unique in having a NFL team as a
partner, other communities in the region are using
joint use facilities to save money, provide students
with more enriching opportunities and citizens
with access to more services. In Fort Worth, use of
city parks is how Fort Worth ISD supports its tennis
program; while in Irving, community recreation
programs use the middle school basketball
facilities. In Venus, the high school library, which is
located near the center of town, serves as a joint
community library.
17
5. Land Bank Future School Sites
Onewayschooldistrictscanbetterprepareforfuture growth and ensure there is adequateland available for new schools is by landbanking. Land banking adds certainty to thedevelopment process and allows betterintegrationofschoolsintoneighborhoods.Theprimary ways school districts do this is byincluding money in each bond measure topurchaselandforfutureschools,andthroughdeveloper donations and set‐asides. SeveralschooldistrictsintheDallas‐FortWorthregionare takingthisproactiveapproachtopreparefor future demand, including Denton ISD,FriscoISD,andHighlandParkISD.Developer donations and set‐asides can helpensure that there will be adequate schoolcapacity to support new developments;however, the landsetaside isoftennot inanideal location. School districts should workwithcitiestodevelopproceduresforacceptingland donated or set aside by developers toensure that the sites meet both the schooldistrictandcommunity’sgoals.
6. Create Safer Environments for
Students to Walk or Bike
Therearethreethingsnecessarytoensurethatstudentscanwalkandbicycletoschool:
A. Schoolsarelocatedclosetothestudentstheyserve.
B. Thestreetsintheareasurroundingtheschoolarewell‐connectedandthereisgoodconnectivitytotheschoolsite,therebyreducingtraveldistancesandincreasingaccessibility.
C. Therearesafewalkingandbicyclingroutestoandfromtheschoolforallstudents(USEPA,2011).
The following are widely accepted siteselectioncriteriathatcommunitiescanusetoachievethesegoals.
A. Locate schools close to the students they serve.
Locateschoolssuchthatalargeportionofthestudentbodyliveswithinone‐halfmilefor elementary schools and one and one‐halfmile forhighschools(USEPA,2011).Ways to achieve this goal are outlined inprevioussections.
B. Maximize connectivity of the surrounding neighborhood and to the school site to reduce travel distances and increase accessibility to the school.
Develop a well‐connected street systemaround the school. The streets in theneighborhood around the school shouldconnecttoeachother,allowingstudentstoeasilyanddirectlygettoschool.
Use trails, sidewalks, or bike paths toconnectneighborhoodstotheschool.
Locateschoolsawayfromhazardoustrafficconditions. Railroads and major streetssuch as arterials and highways aredangeroustocross.Locatingschoolsaway
More than 80 percent of pedestrians die when hit by vehicles traveling at 40 mph or faster. Less than 10 percent die when hit at 20 mph or less (Safe Kids Worldwide, 2015).
18
fromthesebarriersmakestheschooleasierto access bywalking and bicycling. If theonly site available for an elementary ormiddleschoolisalonganarterialstreet,theschoolshouldfrontontoasidestreetandnotdirectlyontothearterialstreet.Thereshould be direct access from thecommunitytotheschoolwithouthavingtowalkorbicyclealongthearterialstreet.
Consider the feasibility of establishing aschoolspeedzoneonadjacentstreetswhenselectingsites(streetsshouldhavepostedspeedlimitsunder30mph).
Schools should have access from two ormorestreets.Schoolsshouldnotbelocatedattheendofacul‐de‐sacorhaveonlyoneprimaryvehicleaccess.
- Elementary school siting should avoidstreetsthatcarryhighvolumesoftrafficandhigherspeeds.Elementaryschoolsshould be located on at least onecollector street inside theneighborhood,withadditionalfrontageonto local streets for neighborhoodaccess (Institute of TransportationEngineers,2013).
- Middleschoolsshouldbelocatedinsideneighborhoods, with access from atleast two collector streets, as well asadditional frontage onto local streets(ITE,2013).
- High schools should have access fromtwo minor arterial streets, andadditionalaccessfromcollectororlocalstreets.Whenaparentloopconnectstoanarterialroad,itshouldbealignedtoanexistingorfutureintersectionsothata four‐way stop canbe easily installed(ITE,2013).
Remove barriers such as fences aroundschool/playing fields. If fences are asecurityissue,includeseveralgatessothatpeoplehave free access to the schoolandassociatedfacilities.
C. Ensure that safe routes to and from the school are available to students.
When evaluating multiple school sites,consider the completeness of the localsidewalk or trail network that will servetheschool.
Ensurethattherearesidewalksalongbothsidesofallstreetssurroundingtheschool.Sidewalksshouldbeofanadequatewidthtoaccommodatepeakdemand(6feetwideor more), and separated from traffic bygrassorstreettrees.
Provide pedestrian and bicycle access totheschoolfromasmanysidesaspossible.
Re‐engineer nearby intersections andstreetcrossingstopromotesafepedestrianaccess to and from schools. Ensure thereare clearly defined pedestrian crosswalksat all locations that studentswould likelycrossthestreettoaccesstheschoolsite.
Ensure that school site design safelyaccommodates students arriving anddeparting by all modes of transportation,andprioritizessafeaccessforchildrenwhoarewalkingandbicycling.
19
Providegoodpedestrianandbicycleaccesson the school site by placing racks nearentrances, designating pedestrian pathsthatareseparatefromautomobilepick‐upanddrop‐offzones,andprovidingcrossingguards.
Orientschoolentranceswithsidewalksandmarkedpedestriancrossingstoencouragepedestrian travel from nearbyneighborhoods. Parking lots and busqueuinglanesshouldbeplacedatthesidesorrearofschoolfacilities.
Manage bus and automovements so thatthey do not create safety conflicts withpedestrians and bicyclists. Provide directaccessfromsidewalkstoschoolentrancesthatdoesnotforcestudentstowalkacrossabusoranautolane.Designon‐sitepark‐
ing so as not to create a barrier forpedestrians to the main entrances of theschools.
Figure 7 provides a good example of anelementary school in the North Texas regionwithdesirablecampuslayoutandconnectivitytotheschool.
20
Figure7:ModelElementarySchoolSite
For this school, all students live within aroughly one mile walking distance of theschool. Thewalking boundary is the same asthe attendance boundary in that no studentshave to crossbusyorwidearterial streets toget to theschool.Mostof thestreetsareonamodifiedgridpattern,providinggoodwalking,bicycling, and vehicular connectivity to theschool.Theschoolfrontsontoonecollectorandtwo local streets, there is pedestrian and
bicycle access from three sides of the school,andsidewalksexistonbothsidesofallstreetsinthesurroundingneighborhood.Schooldistrictsandlocalgovernmentsshouldworktogethertoestablishlocationanddesignstandardsfortransportationaccesstoschools,with an emphasis on walking and bicyclingaccess.
21
Conclusions and Takeaways Schools and the communities they serve areintrinsically linked. The type of developmentandthemakeupofthehouseholdsintheareaaround schools (both neighborhood andcharter)determinestheenrollmentofaschooland the needs of its students. A school’saccessibility can impact student attendancerates and participation in extracurricularactivities, and parental involvement. On theother hand, school quality impacts thedesirabilityofaneighborhoodandcommunity;and school location impacts demand forinfrastructureandservices, trafficcongestion,publichealthandsafety.For too long, school facility planning andcommunity planning decisions have beendisconnected, resulting in schools located ontheedgesoftownorschoolsthatareisolatedfrom their neighborhoods, students that face
dangerwhentheyhavetocrossbusyroadstoget to school every day, increasing trafficcongestionandairpollution,andcitizensthatno longer participate in the casual socialinteractionsthatoncebroughtpeopletogether.When school districts and local governmentsovercome barriers and institute meaningfulpartnerships, they not only use tax dollarsmoreefficiently,theyalsomeettheirrespectivegoals of delivering quality education andservingthecommunity’sinterests.Whileeachcommunity will have different priorities andfollow different processes, the strategiesoutlined in this report are intended to assistschool districts and local governments withdeveloping a framework for institutionalizedcoordination and planning for community‐orientedschools.
22
References Appatova,A.S.(2008).ProximalExposureofPublicSchoolsandStudentstoMajorRoadways:ANationwideUSSurvey.
JournalofEnvironmentalPlanningandManagement,51(5),631‐646.
Beaumont,C.E.,&Pianca,E.G.(2002).WhyJohnnyCan'tWalktoSchool:HistoricNeighborhoodSchoolsintheAgeofSprawl.Washington,D.C.:NationalTrustforHistoricPreservation.
Branham,D.(2004).TheWiseManBuildsHisHouseUpontheRock:TheEffectsofInadequateSchoolBuildingInfrastructureonStudentAttendance.SocialScienceQuarterly,85(5),1112‐1128.
CEFPI.(2004).SchoolsforSuccessfulCommunities:AnElementofSmartGrowth.Scottsdale,AZ.
Erbstein,N.(2014).FactorsInfluencingSchoolAttendanceforChronicallyAbsentStudentsintheSacramentoCityUnifiedSchoolDistrict(SCUSD).CenterforRegionalChange,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.
Fan,Y.,&Das,K.(2015).AssessingtheImpactsofStudentTransportationonPublicTransit.CenterforTransportationStudies,UniversityofMinnesota.Retrievedfromhttp://hdl.handle.net/11299/180133
Filardo,M.(2016).StateofOurSchools:America'sK‐12Facilities2016.Washington,D.C.:21stCenturySchoolFund,U.S.GreenBuildingCouncil,Inc.,andtheNationalCouncilonSchoolFacilities.
InstituteofTransportationEngineers.(2012).SchoolSiteSelectionandOff‐siteAccess.SafeRoutestoSchoolNationalPartnership.
InstituteofTransportationEngineers.(2013).SchoolSitePlanning,Design,andTransportation.Washington,DC.
Kuhlman,R.(2010).HelpingJohnnyWalktoSchool:PolicyRecommendationsforRemovingBarrierstoCommunity‐CenteredSchools.NationalTrustforHistoricPreservation.
McClelland,M.,&Schneider,K.(2004).HardLessons:CausesandConsequencesofMichigan'sSchoolConstructionBoom.Beulah:MichiganLandInstitute.
McPhate,M.(2016,May11).That'sRight,$63MillionforaFootballStadium...forHighSchoolers.RetrievedfromTheNewYorkTimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/sports/high‐school‐football‐stadium‐texas‐63‐million.html?_r=0
Passmore,S.(2002).EducationandSmartGrowth:ReversingSchoolSprawlforBetterSchoolsandCommunities.Miami,FL:Funders'NetworkforSmartGrowthandLiveableCommunities.
SafeKidsWorldwide.(2015).Don'tGetHitbyaCar.RetrievedfromSafeKidsWorldwide:https://www.safekids.org/howtowalk/
Sharp,M.(2008).Localgovernmentsandschools:Acommunity‐orientedapproach.WashingtonDC:ICMAPress.
UniversityofOregon,CommunityPlanningWorkshop.(2005).Planningforschoolsandliveablecommunities:TheOregonschoolsitinghandbook.OregonTransportationandGrowthManagementProgram.
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2011).SchoolSitingGuidelines.Washington,DC.Retrievedfromhttps://www.epa.gov/schools/school‐siting‐guidelines
Wigglesworth,V.(2016,January15).DallasCowboysaimtomakefans,communitypartoftheteamatnewhomeinFrisco.RetrievedfromDallasMorningNew:http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community‐news/frisco/headlines/20160115‐dallas‐cowboys‐aim‐to‐make‐fans‐community‐part‐of‐the‐team‐at‐new‐home‐in‐frisco.ece?_ga=1.144030198.299662879.1463080614
Wixon,M.(2016,January7).AlleightFriscoISDteamstoplayeachotherat'TheStar'inquadrupleheadertoopen2016season.RetrievedfromDallasMorningNews:http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/high‐school/high‐schools/2016/01/07/eight‐frisco‐isd‐teams‐play‐star‐quadrupleheader‐open‐2016‐season
23
Appendix A. Texas State Policies that Impact School Facility Investment TheTexasEducationAgency(TEA)isthestateagency that oversees primary and secondarypubliceducationintheStateofTexas.TheworkofTEAand theentirepublic school system isdrivenbylawscreatedbytheTexasLegislatureandtheU.S.Congress,andadministrativerulesadoptedbytheCommissionerofEducation,theStateBoardofEducation,andtheStateBoardforEducatorCertification.
School Siting and Construction Regulations
Compared to other states, particularly fast‐growth states, the State of Texas providesrelativelyminimalregulationandoversightofpublic school facilities, and no guidance onschool site selection. Regulations that oftenhave an impact on school siting includerequirements for school facility planning andminimumschoolsizestandards.SchoolFacilityPlanning
InTexas, school districts are encouraged, butnot required, to create a long‐range capitalfacilities plan prior to making major capitalinvestments.Long‐rangeschoolfacilitiesplansareacompilationof information,policiesandstatisticaldataaboutschooldistrictstoplanforfacility needs for either pupil enrollmentgrowthordecline.SchoolSize
NeithertheTexasAdministrativeCodenortheTexas Education Code have prescribedminimum acreage requirements for schools.ClassroomsizesaredefinedinTitle19,Section
61.1036oftheTexasAdministrativeCode,butvariances are allowed depending on thecircumstances of the facility andwhether thedistrict chooses toopt foranontraditionalorinnovativeschooldesign.
Funding for School Construction
Theprimarywayschooldistricts fundcapitalprojects in Texas, including the construction,acquisition,andequipmentofschoolbuildings,andthepurchaseofnecessarysitesforschoolbuildings,isbysellingvoter‐approvedgeneralobligationbonds.Theproceedsofbondsissuedby school districts may also be used, amongother things, to pay for the cost of acquiring,laying,andinstallingpipesorlinestoconnectwith the water, sewer, or gas lines of amunicipality or private utility company.Although turnout for bond elections is oftenvery low, bond propositions need to beapprovedonlybyamajorityofthosevotingintheelections.Topayoffthedebtissuedforcapitalprojects,school districts levy an Interest and Sinking(I&S)propertytaxofupto50centsper$100assessedpropertyvalue.Asof2015,16schooldistrictsintheDallas‐FortWorthregionhadhitthe50‐centlimit.Theformofstateaidforpublicschoolfacilitiesfalls into two broad categories: constructionaidanddebtserviceaid.Twenty‐sevenstatesfund construction; seven states, includingTexas, fund debt service; and 11 states fundboth. States that provide debt service aidgenerally have limited review of projects
24
seeking funding — limited to determiningwhetherthedebt iseligibleandtheproject isqualified.However,debtservicehelpsdistrictsaccessgreaterfinancingbyissuingbonds.InTexas,theInstructionalFacilitiesAllotment(IFA), which comes from state general fundrevenues, reimburses school districts for aportion of thedebt service costs of newdebtissued for the construction or renovation ofinstructionalfacilities.TheIFAisawardedforqualified projects: site acquisition for a newschool, infrastructure and utility extensions(with the exception of off‐site roadwayimprovements), classrooms, libraries, andother instructional facilities. There is nocriteria for project approval beyond that itmustbeaqualifiedprojecttype.Tobeeligiblefor funding, school districts must submit anapplication to TEA after receiving voterapproval of the bonded debt, but before theproposedbondsare issued.After the closeofthe application deadline, TEA ranksapplications according to school districtproperty wealth, although there are certainexceptions. The legislature did not providefunding under this allotment from 2012 to2015.Forthe2016‐17fiscalyear,$55.5million
was made available;1 however, this wassignificantlylessthanthe$150millionthatwasallocatedwhentheprogramwasauthorizedin1997.2Thestate’sExistingDebtAllotment(EDA)canalsohelpdistricts retiredebt.TheEDA is flatfunding,distributedtoallschooldistrictswitheligible outstanding bonded debt. Bothallotments provide state support for debtservice that is equalized on the basis of localproperty tax wealth to provide a guaranteedyieldoftaxeffort.Followingtheopeningofanewschoolcampus,schooldistrictsandcharterschoolsmayapplyfor the state’s New Instructional FacilityAllotment (NIFA). This allotment providesdirectaidtoschooldistrictsforfurnishingandequipping new campuses through areimbursement of up to $250 per student inattendanceinthefirstyear,and$250foreachadditional student in the second year. Thelegislaturedidnotprovidefundingunderthisallotment from 2011 to 2014; however,funding was made available for the 2015 to2016schoolyears.3
1 Texas Education Agency. (2016). Instructional facilities allotment program. Retrieved from: http://tea.texas.gov 2 Texas Association of School Boards. (2008). Funding school facilities. Retrieved from: https://www.tasb.org/Legislative/Issue‐Based‐Resources/documents/funding_school_facilities.aspx
3 Dawn‐Fisher, L. (2015, July 10). Deadline extended for new instructional facility allotment (NIFA); online application for funding. Retrieved from: http://tea.texas.gov
25
Can impact fees be used to pay for new school sites and facilities?
Impact fees are exactions through which
developers are required to pay for the
infrastructure improvements required to serve the
new growth. Although most local governments
have long required developers to pay for such on‐
site improvements as street paving and utility lines
within a subdivision, impact fees go farther. A
community may assess a developer for a share of
the cost of a larger facility such as a major arterial
roadway or other public infrastructure or service
that will serve the development. Adopted in 1989
and amended in 2001, the Texas impact fee
enabling act allows local governments to collect
impact fees on new developments for the purpose
of providing roads, water, sewer, and storm water
facilities. Schools, however, are not an eligible
facility for impact fees. In general, cities may not
grant public funds to school districts to use in
constructing buildings within city boundaries,
unless it will serve a public or municipal
purpose.4,5,6
State Policies Guiding the Local Regulation of School Facilities
Thefollowingareaseriesofcommonlyaskedquestions by communities in the Dallas‐FortWorth region regarding the extent to whichlocal governments can regulate schoolfacilities.
Can school districts be required to pay for off-site roadway improvements?
Section 11.168 of the Texas Education Codeprohibitsaschooldistrict fromentering"intoan agreement authorizing the use of schooldistrict employees,property, or resources forthe provision of materials or labor for thedesign, construction, or renovation ofimprovements to real property not ownedorleased by the district." Section 11.168 wasamendedbythelegislaturein2011(H.B.628)to expressly provide that a district is “not[prohibited] fromentering intoanagreementfor the design, construction, or renovation ofimprovements to real property not ownedor
4Kelly, E. D. (2004). Managing Community Growth. 2nd Ed, p. 63‐645Mullen, C. (2015, January 3). State impact fee enabling acts. Retrieved from http://www.impactfees.com.
leased by the district if the improvementsbenefit real property ownedor leasedby thedistrict.” “Benefits” aredefined to include thedesign, construction, or renovation of high‐ways, roads, streets, sidewalks, crosswalks,utilities,anddrainageimprovementsthatserveorbenefitthedistrict’sproperty.
Section395.022(b)oftheLocalGovernmentCodeprovides:
(b)Aschooldistrictisnotrequiredtopayimpactfeesimposedunderthischapterunlesstheboardoftrusteesofthedistrictconsentstothepaymentofthefeesbyenteringacontractwiththepoliticalsubdivisionthatimposesthefees.Thecontractmaycontaintermstheboardoftrusteesconsidersadvisabletoprovideforthepaymentoffees.
6Tex. Local Gov’t Code Ann., Title 12, § 395.001 et seq.
26
To what extent must school districts comply with city development regulations?
School districts are generally exempt from acity’s location‐based requirements— at leastto the extent that a school district is notprevented from building facilities within anarea zoned residential. However, schooldistrictsdohave tocomplywithcitybuildingcodes and regulations that are reasonablyrelatedtothehealth,safety,andwelfareofthecommunity, and that promote aesthetics andthemaintenanceofpropertyvalues.
Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. V. City of SunsetValley (1973) found that municipalitiesmaynotwhollyexclude/zoneoutfacilitiesoperated by a school district from itsboundaries.7
City of Addison v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.(1982)concludedthatschooldistrictsmayplace any facility within an area zonedresidentialandisgenerallyexemptfromacity’slocation‐basedrequirementsaslongas thedistrict isnot actingunreasonablyorarbitrarily.8
In1986,theattorneygeneralopinedthatso long as a city’s specific use permit
proceduresdonottotallyexcludeaschooldistrictfacilityandarereasonablyrelatedtotheprotectionofthehealth,safety,andwelfare of the community, the schooldistrict must comply with the permitproceduresandconditions.9
In 2009, Attorney General Greg Abbottopinedthatahomerulecitymayenforceits reasonable land developmentregulations and ordinances against aschool district for the purpose ofaesthetics and maintaining propertyvalues.10
Are open-enrollment charter schools subject to a city’s zoning ordinance?
Under Education Code Section 12.103, “anopen‐enrollment charter school is subject tofederal and state laws and rules governingpublic schools and to municipal zoningordinances governing public schools.”However, Section 12.103 goes on to providethat“acampusofanopen‐enrollmentcharterschool located in whole or in part in amunicipality with a population of 20,000 orless is not subject to a municipal zoningordinancegoverningpublicschools.”
7 Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Sunset Valley, 502 S.W.2d 670, 673 (Tex. 1973) 8 City of Addison v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 632 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Tex. App.‐‐Dallas 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
9 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM‐514 (1986)10 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA‐0697 (2009)
27
Appendix B. Example School Siting Process