Category Archive: Legislative / Advocacy
-
Landmarks Testimony Before the Historic Review Commission on Proposed Legislation by Councilman Bob O’Connor to Restrict the Nomination of Religious Properties
January, 9th 2003
Given by Elisa Cavalier, Attorney and Landmarks Staff Member
We are here today to consider Council Bill 1148 proposed by Councilman O’Connor. Let’s look more closely at issue at hand. It is the ….
People — that have a faith
People– that have — and continue to –help to build religious structures in which to exercise their religion,
People (not the church as a separate entity)
who have a constitutional right through the First Amendment to the free exercise of religion … to express their religious views, to associate, and assemble for that purpose.People who have a right, through Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, “to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.”
It is for thePeople through the Declaration of Policy in Pennsylvania’s History Code that “the irreplaceable historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural heritage of this Commonwealth should be preserved and protected…[for] future generations.” [37 Pa. C.S. § 102]
and it is thePeople, as well as non-profit organizations, school boards, and businesses … ALL whom have the right under our existing ordinance to claim an ECONOMIC HARDSHIP as a remedy to application of the ordinance.
Yet it is the Church that claims that Pittsburgh’s preservation law interferes with the people’s right to the FREE EXERCISE of religion.
So what is there solution?
EXCLUDE the PEOPLE!!!
Our government and its laws are to be
OF THE PEOPLE
BY THE PEOPLE and
FOR THE PEOPLE.This legislation takes away from the people, — whether they are members of the congregation or the general public — the ability to participate in our democratic form of government. It prohibits PEOPLE to nominate religious structures for historic designation.
The proposed ordinance sets the church apart on a law of general applicability. Councilman O’Connor’s bill is inappropriate and should not be endorsed.
-
Sewickley considers historic designation
By Alisha Hipwell ,
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Wednesday, January 08, 2003Sewickley is known for its glorious collection of historic homes. They include the work of some of the area’s finest architects, like the team of Frank Alden and Alfred Harlow, who built the Carnegie Institute.
Few would argue with the logic that has created three historic districts in the borough to protect and preserve at least the outward appearance of many of those homes.
But Sewickley is not all historic homes and important architecture. Just ask anyone who has driven through town on Route 65, which is lined with apartment buildings and rows of modest brick bungalows.
So why would anyone think the whole town needs the protection of a historic preservation ordinance?
A Sewickley councilman is suggesting just that. Charles Hays, citing concerns about development in the borough, has called for council to study the idea of extending the purview of the borough’s historic review ordinance to include the entire town. Borough council plans to study the pros and cons of the suggestion at a special February retreat-style session.
“I think we’ve reached the point where it’s time to protect the entire community. … It may be time to see what the community thinks about this idea,” said Hays, who has frequently criticized projects he believes would damage the cultural and economic diversity of the community. “There may be a way for the community to have a little more control over what happens.”
The idea already has the backing of some members of the borough’s Historic Review Commission. Steve Davis, an Edgeworth resident and member of the commission, told council at its December meeting that the commission was in favor of the idea but would only pursue it with council’s blessing.
Sewickley would not be the first municipality to take such a step.
Michel Lefevre, chief of preservation planning for the state Bureau of Historic Preservation, said other cities, including Lancaster and Bethlehem, have protected virtually their entire towns with either historic preservation ordinances or less-restrictive conservation district ordinances.
“What municipalities have been saying is, ‘We have historic districts and it’s been working. Now we want to protect other areas but do it a little less stringently,’ ” Lefevre said.
“We’ve come a long way from the notion that the mansion on the hill owned by the important white guy is the only historically significant building,” he said.
Mary Beth Pastorius, a Beaver Street resident and former 10-year Historic Review Commission member, said members for years have been interested in extending the borough’s historic preservation ordinance to the entire town.
The idea is back in play because of an increase in commercial development projects in the borough in the last decade, developments that have given pause to even those community figures, like Hays, who are more likely to champion property owners’ rights than historic preservation.
“It’s a hot topic now because you have people taking existing properties, tearing them down and building larger facilities,” said borough Manager Kevin Flannery.
One project cited by both Pastorius and Hays is the construction of a Thrift (now Eckerd) drugstore on Beaver Street in the mid-90s.
“With the parking lot in front and the design of the building — it’s not at all sympathetic to the historic character of the village,” Pastorius said.
Hays cited other projects, like the demolition of some older brick apartment buildings on Academy Avenue to make way for condominiums and the renovation of the former Connelly Motors building on Beaver Street into office and restaurant space.
More recently, a plan to tear down three apartment buildings located just outside a historic district at Beaver and Peebles streets and replace them with million-dollar condominiums created an outcry; residents have argued that the design of the four-story condominium buildings would be out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood.
Lefevre said similar concerns about development have prompted other municipalities to broaden their definition of “historic” and expand their preservation ordinances.
Such ordinances do not require state approval, something necessary for stringent classifications such as National Historic Landmark designation, but they do have to stay within the guidelines of state legislation which makes preservation ordinances possible.
Those guidelines let municipalities go beyond the familiar restrictions of zoning.
“What people now look at is a sense of place, created not by one, two or three buildings that are designated historic, but when a number of buildings, some less important perhaps, all contribute,” said Lefevre. He said zoning regulations frequently don’t address issues, such as architectural style, that are important to property owners.
While a historic ordinance applied to the entire town would not halt development, proponents of the idea say it would give the community a voice in the style of development allowed.
“It is the only way legally that a community can have a discussion about style and design,” said Pastorius.
Sewickley’s five-member Historic Review Commission reviews applications for exterior work on property in the three historic districts.
The commission reviews only work that requires a building permit and only work that is visible from a public right of way. It does not, for example, review exterior paint colors, but it does review new construction and demolition projects in historic districts.
The commission then makes a recommendation to council on whether a project should get a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Council can reject the commission’s recommendation, and has done so, most recently in the case of a proposed columbarium on the grounds of St. Stephen’s Church. The commission recommended that the project be granted a certificate, but council voted it down.
Proponents of giving the commission such power throughout the town — or of creating a similar process — argue that residents’ property values are affected not just by the structures that sit right next to them but by the ambiance of the entire borough.
“The only thing we’re trying to do is direct change so it helps everyone,” Davis said. “It’s not that we don’t want change, but that we want to guide it properly so we maintain the essence of Sewickley.”
There are practical issues to be considered, however, not the least of which is the amount of time and paperwork such a change would entail for a volunteer commission.
“How many hours of meetings would we need to have to keep up? We could have a bottleneck of bureacracy,’ said Charles Reist, a member of both council and the commission.
Flannery said any serious discussion of the issue also would have to examine the impact on the average homeowner and on business owners in the borough.
“Are you going to force community businesses to go to [the commission] if they want to change their sign out front?” asked Flannery.
Sewickley Chamber of Commerce President Don Reinhardt said he was aware of the idea and that chamber members planned to discuss it at their meeting Tuesday.
Lefevre said one option is for municipalities to create “layers” of regulation, with some layers more stringent than others, depending upon the character of the area and what kinds of work the borough wishes to regulate. But he stressed that public support for preservation ordinances is crucial.
Pastorius and Davis believe that support will come if homeowners accept the notion that individual property values are tied up with the overall look and feel of the town.
“On the one hand, the argument against a historic ordinance is that no one is going to tell me what to do with my house. On the other hand, what a historic ordinance gives you in exchange for giving up a little bit of freedom is protection,” Pastorius said. “You don’t have to worry about your neighbor doing something really inappropriate that ruins the look of the block.”
February’s study session is merely a first step. Should council decide to pursue the idea beyond that, it would be embarking on what Flannery described as “a lengthy process” involving a survey of homes, notification of the public, formal public hearings and a vote on an ordinance.
“We would have to give a very thorough explanation of the reasons behind doing this,” he said.
Alisha Hipwell is a freelance writer.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
O’Connor wants church owners to have control
By Stephanie Franken
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, January 5, 2003Pittsburgh Councilman Bob O’Connor fought to save his former church, but when the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh decided it had to close St. Philomena in Squirrel Hill 10 years ago, he acquiesced.
O’Connor said he believes parishioners or others shouldn’t stand in the way when leaders decide it’s time for a place of worship to close.
At least 25 churches and temples could be affected by a bill he proposed that would prevent the public from nominating places of worship for city historic status, which often blocks the closing of the buildings. The legislation would allow only the owners of the buildings to nominate the structures.
“When they closed my church, it was the worst thing that happened to me outside a death in my family,” said O’Connor, the father of a priest. O’Connor’s proposal is supported by the diocese. “We fought to keep it open. We tried to raise money. But in the end, it was not to be.”
O’Connor’s bill “deprives all church members and all citizens of the right to protect their buildings through the nomination process, and it leaves the decision solely in the hands of the owners of the buildings, which are generally the diocese or other church leaders,” said Arthur Ziegler, president of the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation.
A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for 4 p.m. Wednesday before the city Historic Review Commission, 200 Ross St.
The public also may comment at meetings scheduled for Jan. 14 and 28 before the city Planning Commission. Ultimately, the city council will get the final say.
The Historic Review Commission so far has received only a handful of comments, said Angelique Bamberg, the city’s historic preservation planner. All oppose the legislation.
Ziegler said the measure could open the floodgates for other groups.
“Under the general principle (of the bill), any group could say that historic designation poses a problem for them. Why churches, and why not schools or factories or individual houses?”
Today, any city resident may nominate a building to become a City Designated Historic Landmark. The designation prevents alterations or demolition of structures without approval from the Historic Review Commission.
To be eligible for the designation, a building must be linked to historical events or people, represent a noted architectural type or have archaeological significance.
Six houses of worship have the designation today. Twenty-five more are eligible. A half-dozen local houses of worship are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which does not protect a building against demolition by private landowners. At Rodef Shalom Temple in Oakland, completed in 1907 and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Executive Director Jeffrey Herzog said he has no problem with O’Connor’s bill.
“There is probably a difference of knowledge between the parishioners and the people who run the institution,” Herzog said. “In the case of the diocese, they would know whether a building is of significance as opposed to a parishioner, who would have an emotional tie.”
Pastor Michael Poloway, of St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church on the South Side, agrees.
“A parishioner could make a suggestion,” Poloway said, “but a pastor is in charge, not the parishioner.”
Stephanie Franken can be reached at sfranken@tribweb.com.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
-
Bill would restrict who is able to nominate churches as historic
Monday, November 25, 2002
By Timothy McNulty, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
City Councilman Bob O’Connor plans to introduce a measure today that he says would free churches and other religious structures from some of the city’s historic preservation regulations.
His amendment to the city’s historic preservation code would allow only the owners of religious structures to nominate them as historic sites. Currently, any city resident can nominate structures for historic designation.
If a site is designated historic, plans to externally renovate or demolish it have to go before the city’s Historic Review Commission before they can be implemented.
According to O’Connor, the designation makes upkeep of historic buildings too expensive for religious groups. Plus, he doesn’t think just anyone should have nomination power over religious structures.
“I would certainly not appreciate it if someone out of the blue nominated my church simply because they felt they should,” he said in a statement. “I believe that places of worship and their symbols such as altars, stained glass windows and statues, are sacred expressions of religious faith and should be respected.”
Historic nominations now can be forwarded by the mayor; members of City Council, the Historic Review Commission and the city planning commission; building owners, and people who have lived in the city for one year or more. O’Connor’s amendment would allow only the owners of a “church, cathedral, mosque, temple, rectory, convent or similar structure used as a place of religious worship” to nominate it.
His bill will be sent to the historic review and planning commissions for comment before a public hearing is held and, finally, a City Council vote is taken. He already has four co-sponsors — council members Twanda Carlisle, Alan Hertzberg, Jim Motznik and Gene Ricciardi — meaning if a vote were taken today, it would pass.
O’Connor has been working with religious leaders for more than a year on the proposal, but today’s timing is significant: It will not come up for a vote until early next year, when City Council’s most experienced and vocal preservationist, Jim Ferlo, will be serving in the state Senate. Ferlo won election to the 38th District seat on Nov. 5.
Ferlo wandered into O’Connor’s office yesterday to complain about the measure, saying it is a “bad bill” that could stand in the way of adaptive re-uses of vacant church buildings, such as for restaurants and apartment buildings.
Referring to a battle O’Connor led years ago to keep St. Paul Cathedral outside the Oakland Historic District, Ferlo asked O’Connor if he was pushing through another “immaculate exception” for the Catholic Church. He also joked that O’Connor has a conflict of interest on church matters since his son, Terry, is a Catholic priest.
An ecumenical church group called Christian Leaders Fellowship is set to endorse O’Connor’s bill today, but the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh has long led fights over historic preservation.
The diocesan spokesman, the Rev. Ron Lengwin, has said the church believes in preserving its prominent old buildings but without being forced into it by government. Designation is also a government-mandated drag on finances, he said.
“We believe to force historic designation on a houses of worship carries a real threat of requiring them to divert limited financial resources from schools and social service agencies toward much more costly maintenance of buildings,” Lengwin said.
“It is an unwarranted intrusion in their function and mission.”
Mark DeSantis, chairman of the Historic Review Commission, argued that designations actually help church coffers, not hurt them. Private organizations, such as Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, can help with renovation costs, which city government cannot, and the designations themselves are a helping hand in fund raising, he said.
“Not only has designation not been a burden, but many of [the churches] use that designation as a way of directing funding and renovation efforts toward buildings that would otherwise have trouble attracting those funds,” DeSantis said.
He said he would make the case to City Council that the measure would inappropriately treat classes of building owners differently.
“I can’t imagine there is a worse thing for a community to do than identify two classes of citizens in any community. You either make laws that apply to everyone or make laws that apply to no one. It seems to me patently unfair to other types of property owners,” he said.
DeSantis said he was unaware of O’Connor’s legislation until late last week. He said he was “very disappointed” to hear the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese had been working on the bill, saying he and other preservationists have been working with the diocese at the same time to identify churches that could benefit from historic designation.
Tim McNulty can be reached at tmcnulty@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Bill would limit historic status designation
By Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, November 25, 2002The public would no longer be able to nominate houses of worship for historic designation status in Pittsburgh under legislation Councilman Bob O’Connor plans to introduce today.
Only the owner could seek such status, removing a significant hurdle the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and others face when they seek to close or raze a church.
Parishioners and community groups have been able to delay or thwart such closings by nominating churches for city historic status.
Once a building has been nominated, the owner cannot make significant changes to its exterior until the city’s Historic Review Commission reviews the application. If a building is designated as an historic landmark, the commission has jurisdiction over all proposed new construction, demolition and exterior work to the structure.
O’Connor’s legislation has the support of four co-sponsors: President Gene Ricciardi, James Motznik, Twanda Carlisle and Alan Hertzberg.
“I don’t think anyone has the right to put an undue burden on” the owners of houses of worship, said O’Connor, whose son is a Catholic priest and whose office has a picture of his son with the pope.
“I have always been on the side of churches,” O’Connor said. “I believe it really is a hardship on them.”
When St. Nicholas Church on the city’s North Side was designated an historic structure by City Council last year, it affected the diocese’s plans to sell the church to PennDOT ? and the transportation department’s Route 28 expansion project.
The Christian Leaders Fellowship, an organization representing 10 local bishops and denominational executives, supports the legislation, said the Rev. Ronald Lengwin, the Catholic Diocese spokesman who also works with the leaders fellowship.
“The position of the church is to preserve our churches,” Lengwin said. “We are absolutely for preservation, but the crux of the matter is if it comes down to maintaining the exterior of the church or providing funds to educate children in the faith or assist people with needs, we’re going to follow our ministry.”
While the proposed changes would afford religious groups a greater say over how their property is used, it also takes away public initiative to preserve historic structures for the greater good, said Cathy McCollom, spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation.
“In preservation, the designation of a building is the only safeguard there is,” McCollom said. “Any cathedral could come down.”
O’Connor’s bill seeks to make two changes to the city code. It would define religious structures as a “church, cathedral, mosque, temple, rectory, convent or similar structure used as a place of worship.” He also would add language saying the “nomination of a religious structure (for historic status) shall only be made by the owner(s) of record of the religious structure.”
The city’s Historic Review Commission and Planning Commission will have 30 days to review the legislation and report back to City Council. O’Connor then plans to hold a public hearing on the proposal before council votes on it.
Andrew Conte can be reached at aconte@tribweb.com or (412) 765-2312.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © The Tribune-Review Publishing Co
-
Panther Hollow Bridge, Schenley Bridge, Highland Park Gate Piers (Welcome & Horse Tamers) to be Designated Historic by City
On February 6th, 2002, the Historic Review Commission voted to recommend to City Council that the Panther Hollow Bridge and the Schenley Bridge be designated as City Historic Structures and that the Highland Park Gate Piers (Welcome & Horse Tamers) be designated as City Historic Objects.
It determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the two nominations meet the criteria for designation as defined in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
These recommendations, together with recommendation of the City Planning Commission, will be transmitted to Council for its review and for Council’s final decision.
-
Surface Transportation Policy Project and Zero Population Growth Testimony
Remarks of Ronald C. Yochum, Jr.
Assistant for Public Policy and C.I.O.
PHLF
August 18th, 1998My name is Ronald Yochum from Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation. I am here today to thank the professionals at the Surface Transportation Policy Project and Zero Population Growth for their comprehensive and factual study on the Southern Expressway.
I would like to comment on the two premises of building this highway:
- The highway will bring development to the region.
- The highway will give better access to the region.
Quite frankly, the premises are flawed.
First, on development. No permanent or new jobs will be created in the City by this highway. For example, according to the Urban Land Institute, a typical metropolitan area in the United States, such as Cleveland, Ohio, may capture as little as 4 percent of new development within the city or older suburbs. The vast majority of new development (96%) is on farmland.
I see no concrete data on employment. I see no concrete data on companies that will relocate here from outside of our region. I see no concrete data on retaining a viable population in our city as opposed to populating our precious farmlands with thousands of cardboard-cutout houses. The only thing that I see here that is concrete is the highway.
The total $3 Billion, 200 Million dollar expenditure of this highway, if invested at a conservative rate, could employ over 2,600 high-skilled workers with an average salary of $42,000 a year from age 21 until retirement.
Where is the logic here? Highways are not generators of wealth for depressed communities. Highways bypass depressed communities to go where the money and the educated work-force is. Think of I-279 and Cranberry Township. Think of the economic wealth that is there. It wasn’t generated. It wasn’t created. It was transferred directly from the Pittsburgh Metropolitan area in a phenomenon called “urban flight”. Do you see any transfer to the North Side or East St. Valley? NO!
Stable communities south of Pittsburgh including Brentwood, Whitehall, Baldwin, Mt. Lebanon, will suffer population loss on a scale unprecedented in their history. As a result of the highway, there will be a vicious circle of diminished property values and higher taxes. Why? The most affluent residents will migrate to the new suburbs, new residents will choose not to live in dying communities, property values will decrease due to lack of demand, and property taxes will rise because there will be less tax revenue due to urban flight and the decrease in property values. After all, the public infrastructure does not shrink proportionally with the decline of population. Just ask the Mayor why he recently tried to create a special fee for garbage removal, a service that traditionally was paid for by your property and wage tax.
And the trail of destruction doesn’t just stop at the older suburbs. Just outside our County lies precious farmland. Thousands of acres of this farmland will be tilled under and planted with suburbs in place of crops while the heart of our great city loses more if its lifeblood population. Fragmentation of our community will become more evident with greater distances between homes, work, recreation areas, schools, race, class and income. The highway’s impact is wholesale destruction disguised as progress. We are killing our city’s, we are killing our older suburbs, we are killing our farmland.
I’ve heard the comment that we cannot prosper in the world economy without good highway access. What does that mean? This region right here built our country. This region right here was responsible for supplying our soldiers and allies in the effort to defend our great country from tyranny in World War II. Today, our City is a leader in the high technology field and computers. Today, our City is one of the world’s premier medical center. All of this occurred without relying on the overabundance of highways that bypass our city. We have rivers, we have rail, we have air. And today we have many highways to service our city. We do not have to build more roads with the empty promise of more prosperity. In fact, San Francisco experienced a commercial and residential revival only after the Embarcadero Freeway was torn down! This flies directly in the face of the current philosophy. Our infrastructure is in place, but it is in need of extensive reinvestment. We must improve and maintain our existing roads which over 36% of are considered in “poor” condition. Improvements in alternative transportation methods, such as light rail to the East End, would alleviate much of the need to build “traffic-reducing” superhighways.
Hand in hand with improvements to our infrastructure, we must improve the overall competitiveness of our City by working with companies that are located here. We must find creative ways to keep existing businesses from leaving while bringing in new businesses. We have acres of undeveloped land right here in our City. Redeveloping existing abandoned industrial sites such as the former J&L site on the South Side, the Metal Source site in Manchester, the Strip District, and other commercial areas should be priority # 1. We should be focusing our resources on restoring our neighborhoods and vitality to our cities and older suburbs.
We need to spend $3.2 billion on education, skill training, infrastructure enhancement, neighborhood restoration, and tax reduction instead of new, unnecessary highways. That will make us healthy and prosper.
We must invest our limited resources intelligently.
-
PA Department of Education Construction Guidelines Get Reviewed by Senate and House Committees
By Ronald C. Yochum, Jr.
PHLF
June 29, 1998Testimony of
Ronald C. Yochum, Jr.
Member and Secretary, Board of Directors, School District of Borough of Bretnwood
and
Assistant for Public Policy, Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation
before the
Pennsylvania Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee
and the
Pennsylvania Senate and House Education Committees—-
Chairman Argall,
Members of the Joint Committees
I am very honored to have the opportunity to report to you today the negative effects the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Basic Education Circular of December 1990, or the “BEC”, had on the Brentwood School District. I will begin with a brief background.
Brentwood, Pennsylvania, located 5 miles south of downtown Pittsburgh, is a very close-knit traditional community; an old trolley suburb with elements of a small town atmosphere infused with 1920’s to 1950’s-style suburban living. People who come to live in Brentwood generally stay, as well do their children and their children’s children. Every house is within walking distance from the other. We have two neighborhood elementary schools located at each end of our Borough and one Middle-High School facility in the center. The elementary schools are within walking distance of everyone’s home, making it convenient for working families with small children. Generations of Brentwood citizens have attended our elementary schools. They are part of our identity. They are a part of our community. They are part of our soul.
Early, in 1991, the former Brentwood School Board set out to bring our schools up to current standards. At the time, the school construction consultants who performed the requisite feasibility study for the district informed the Board that the only really viable option available was to close, abandon, and ultimately demolish the two elementary schools and consolidate them into a K thru 12th education complex. I was saddened to hear that the elementary school that I attended was going to close. But I figured that there was some good reason. So I inquired.
Two of the main reasons for such a drastic solution was that the Pennsylvania Department of Education, through the BEC, would not reimburse any cost of the renovation of the elementary schools because:
1. The renovation costs would exceeded 60% of the “replacement” value of the building, and
2. Our building contained sections of framing that were made of wood.
At the the time, I could not understand why these rules existed, especially when many older abandoned schools are turned into housing.
The previous School Board felt that there was no easy solution to the problem, so they took the advise of the “experts”; which also happened to be the path of least resistance. Overnight, the Department of Education, through their arbitrary guidelines in the BEC, effectively tore the heart out of our community. Plans were drafted for the K thru 12th education complex and the wholesale destruction of our beloved neighborhood schools.
As a result of the School Board’s apparent surrender to the BEC, an unprecedented grass-roots movement arose to save our neighborhood schools, which I joined. Spontaneously, a bipartisan coalition called the Concerned Citizens of Brentwood Borough ran a slate of candidates dedicated to saving our neighborhood schools. The outcome was that all five Save Our Schools candidates, including myself, won with an unprecedented 70%+ of the popular vote, unseating the incumbent Board that was committed to closing, and ultimately demolishing our neighborhood schools. The community spoke, the new board had the mandate, and the responsibility to save our neighborhood schools. At the time the Department of Education was saying that they wanted to give more control to local school boards. We felt that we had a real possibility to save our schools in spite of the arbitrary guidelines of the BEC.
We took office in December 1995 and immediately set out to find a solution. We, as did the previous board, hired a school construction consultant to perform the requisite feasibility study that the PlanCon process requires. Unfortunately, our consultant informed us of the same BEC rule that would prevent us from renovating our elementary schools. However, we were adamant about saving our schools.
I am personally aware of many old buildings that are in use today. The Pittsburgh neighborhoods of Manchester and Birmingham are hot spots of very successful renovations of older buildings. Even this building can be sited as an old building with a very bright future. Why was it that two of my elementary schools were unsalvageable in the eyes of the Pennsylvania Department of Education? Why is it that the Department of Education feels that wood is so bad when it is good enough for the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry and the National B.O.C.A. codes?
Finding a solution was our responsibility, and coupled with signals coming out of the Department of Education that they wanted local school boards to have more autonomy, we sent our consultant back to the drawing board, however, this time with conceptual renovation plans devised by the new board. Our plans addressed all requirements of space, Americans with Disabilities Act, Labor & Industry, technology enhancements, and energy conservation. The cost for our plan was nearly $7,000,000.00 less to implement than to replace the existing structures with new buildings, with the caveat that we replace all the wood structure with steel and concrete. (see visual)
Seeing that there was more hope that our buildings could be restored, we hired and architect whose business was not monopolized by school construction projects and more importantly, had extensive experience in rehabilitation and reuse of older, more challenging buildings. We felt that there was more chance that an architect not “hooked in” to the school construction business would be more apt to fight for the District and find acreative solutions to the challenges we faced.
We began the renovation process by submitting documents to the Department of Education called PlanCon A. In the submission, we clearly requested a variance from the BEC guidelines. (see visual) We indicated that our renovation plans met all of the requirements of both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Labor and Industry and the 1996 BOCA Code as adopted by the Borough of Brentwood for continued use of existing structures. Our plans even included fire suppression systems that were not required by any building codes.
However, this was not acceptable by the Department of Education. On February 3rd, 1997, the Chief, Division of School Facilities at the Department of Education, told both our architect and our Superintendent of Schools that there was “no way” that we were getting a variance.
Because of our efforts to get the schools fully renovated and open by September in time for classes, we reluctantly had to accept the Department of Education’s emphatic turn down. On February 4th, the day, we sent a letter asking that our PlanCon A submittal eliminate the request for variance for ordinary construction because of our conversations with the Department of Education the day before. (see visual)
On March 11th, 1997, I received a letter from the Department of Education saying that PlanCon A was approved contingent on the removal of the ordinary construction. (see boards) There was no explanation from the Pennsylvania Department of Education as to why the BEC superseded all the appropriate codes, formulated by agencies charged with the authority and having the experience to do so.
There is some good new here. In spite of the negative impact of the BEC, our schools have been fully renovated, fully updated with the most advanced technologies in computers, networks, the internet, energy efficency (we didn’t have to resort to putting stucco on our buildings). Our buildings will proudly serve the District for many years to come.
I would like to ad that at a meeting in December of 1997 regarding this BEC rule, after our buildings were renovated and after we spent the money, the Department of Education said that their office “frequently grants” variances for partial ordinary construction. At that meeting they didn’t even know if we applied for a variance.
And finally, I would like to briefly summarize for the Joint Committees the impact of the arbitrary BEC guideline of the Pennsylvania Department of Education on the Borough of Brentwood: (see visual)
• Almost caused an unneeded substantial investment in demolition and new construction.
• Construction was delayed because district had to remove all wood “ordinary construction” and replace it with steel and concrete even though district met all Pennsylvania Labor and Industry and National B.O.C.A. building code requirements and in spite of requests for a variance from the Department.
• “Punch list” items had to be completed while school was in session, causing inconvenience for students and teachers.
• Caused the Brentwood School District to pay premium labor prices in order to get the schools open for classes. Even with crews working round-the-clock, opening was delayed until mid-September.
• Total additional monetary impact to the taxpayer due to the arbitrary Pennsylvania Department of Education “Basic Education Circular” requirements:
Demolition $173,000.00
Cast in place concrete $116,400.00
Cold form metal framing $187,559.00
Insulation $ 16,000.00
Gypsum assemblies $ 76,700.00
Architects’ fees $ 42,724.00
Interest to be paid $362,085.00
Total Monetary Impact $974,468.00
Members of the committees, I again thank you for your time. I thank you for addressing this very important issue.