Category Archive: Preservation News
-
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.
-
FIGHTING FOR OUR OLDER SCHOOLS – AND COMMUNITY SOUL
By Neal R. Peirce
America’s maladies of giantism and mindless standardization aren’t just matters of the craze for bigger highways that paved the way for Wal-Mart and McDonalds and their imitators, erasing the distinctiveness of our communities.
Our public schools are being impacted just as gravely. Grand old structures continue to be mindlessly demolished, replaced by nondescript, low-slung buildings in seas of parking lots on the outskirts of towns.
And not always by accident. Just as there’s a highway lobby — the asphalt and concrete gang, engineers and state highway departments — there’s a powerful lobby for tearing down old schools and building anew. It includes school construction consultants, architects, builders, and their rule-writing allies in state departments of education.
Take the school construction saga of Brentwood, a working class old trolley suburb about 5 miles south of Pittsburgh. In 1995, the local school board was talking of closing the two elementary schools and attaching them to the existing middle- and senior high school in a single giant K-12 education complex.
Ronald Yochum, a professional working with the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, thought that was a terrible idea. So did several others who ran with him for the school board, promising to save Brentwood’s neighborhood schools. They unseated the incumbents with a 70 percent vote.
Once elected, they faced a mountain of Pennsylvania Department of Education space minimums and code requirements. A school building consultant was hired, who reported the two old schools were substandard, that they should be demolished and replaced with new structures costing $11.2 million.
The consultant was asked– What about comprehensive renovations instead of demolition? His reluctant answer: Maybe you could do it. But you’d have to put a stucco shell on that old building to get satisfactory energy efficiency. The job would cost, he estimated, $8.6 million.
Yochum and his board allies wanted nothing of a plan that would destroy the building’s historic aesthetics. So they located a local architect who wasn’t wired into the Pennsylvania school-building game. With him, they devised a plan to renovate the two old schools in a way that preserved the aesthetics of the facade and interior, insulated the walls and roofs, rewired the rooms for Internet technology, and met every state building requirement. The final cost: $5.9 million, just over half the consultant’s first figure.
Even then, the price was $850,000 more than it had to be to satisfy a state regulation mandating steel and concrete wherever the old structures had wood load-bearing walls and wood floors. The state regulators wouldn’t budge on their rule, even though the revamped buildings would have full fire sprinkling. The rule, says Yochum, makes it difficult to rehabilitate any school building more than 30 or 40 years old.
Similar stories, says Constance Beaumont of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, are being echoed across America, in one state after another. In her book, “Smart States, Better Communities,” she identifies typical “guidelines” — from the Council of Educational Facility Planning, for example — which escalate from at least 10 acres of land for every elementary school to 50 acres for community colleges, plus extra acres (based on total enrollment) for playing fields and lots of parking spaces.
Another guideline recommends against renovating any school if the cost is more than 50 percent of total replacement. States don’t need to adopt these guidelines — but they frequently do. Communities that want state school aid are forced to abandon still-serviceable historic buildings.
The result: “school sprawl” that makes towns less attractive and marketable, feeds exurban growth, forces many students from their bikes onto buses, removes students from the lively daily flow of town life, and indeed simply feeds the isolation many of today’s teenagers feel.
J. Myrick Howard of Preservation North Carolina charges that his state’s Department of Public Instruction not only promulgates “ridiculous” acreage and size standards for new schools but has adopted regulations which actually limit preventive maintenance of fine old school buildings. It’s “poor stewardship of public resources,” says Howard.
Maryland appears to be the grand exception. Recently backed up by Gov. Parris Glendening’s campaign to restrain sprawl, a set of counter-guidelines — for preservation — are being enforced by Yale Stenzler, director of the state’s public school construction program.
And with clear results: From 1991 to 1997, the percentage of Maryland’s school construction funds supporting renovations and additions to existing schools — rather than new structures — soared from 34 percent to 82 percent.
“Older school buildings can be renovated and revitalized to provide for the most up-to-date educational programs and services.” says Stenzler. Remade schools in existing neighborhoods “will encourage families to stay, … to use the existing roads, parks, libraries, public facilities.”
Will other states start shifting course? Maybe, with progressive (and smarter) governors. But more guerilla action at the school district level, like Brentwood’s, may be vital to convince the public of how much is really at stake.
©1997, Washington Post Writers Group.