Business & Support Services

~ Support Services ~

STUDENTS FIRST

Arizona Takes on School 
Construction & Renovation

        by Philip E. Geiger, Ed.D.

(August 2001 School Business Affairs)

"The depressed physical environment of many schools . . . is believed to reflect society's lack of priority for these children and their education" (Poplin & Weeres, 1992).  The U.S. Department of Education has reported on several studies that indicate that students perform better in schools with improved physical conditions than students in poor physical plants.  According to another study, the physical condition of a school has a direct effect on teacher morale, sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness, and general learning environment (Corcoran, Walker, & White, 1998).  In addition, a study conducted of large urban high schools in Virginia revealed that achievement levels of students were 11% lower when they attended schools that were in substandard condition (Hines, 1996).

The condition of America's public school facilities has everybody talking.  According to the U.S. Department of Education, 75% of our nation's schools report the need for repairs and renovations.  Bringing these schools up to an overall good condition is expected to cost $127 billion (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).  The National Education Association (2000) estimates the cost to exceed $322 billion.  Regardless, the actual price tag is more than the federal government and most states are willing to spend.  However, the state of Arizona took the lead to address these concerns 3 years ago when it enacted the state's Students FIRST (Fair and Immediate Resources for Students Today) legislation.

Not unlike the equity suits under way in many states, Arizona's system of school capital finance was declared unconstitutional in 1994 (Roosevelt School District #66 vs. Bishop) because it failed to conform to the state constitution's "general and uniform" clause.  That system relied on the secondary property tax, driven by the property wealth of a school district, and general obligation bonding by local school districts.  Because of the lack of property wealth in some communities, Arizona's capital financing system prevented many poor students from accessing the same types of facilities and tools as children in more affluent areas.  Children who live in poor communities often have low levels of academic achievement and higher dropout rates (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997).

In 1996, the Arizona Superior Court imposed on the state a deadline of 2 years to develop a constitutional system of school capital finance or risk closure of k-12 public schools.  In 1998, Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull signed legislation that dramatically reformed the way k-12 schools are constructed in Arizona.  This initiative ended the 4-year legal and legislative battle and established Arizona as the nation's school finance reform leader.  Educators initially perceived this legislation - knows as Students FIRST - as a likely failure, believing the state would take forever to accomplish anything and doubtful that the state could be either "fair or immediate."  Since the program's implementation in 1999, the perception of the education community has changed dramatically.  Even those legislators who were opposed to "state takeover" of school construction would be hard-pressed to change the law today.

This legislation also created the School Facilities Board, which includes nine representatives of the public and private sectors.  A representative of a local taxpayer organization, a school board member, a school facilities director, an architect, an engineer, and several other categories of representation are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate.  The board also has an executive director, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate, who also serves in the governor's cabinet.  The executive director reports directly to the governor; the board is not a part of the Arizona Department of Education.  

The Students FIRST legislation established three funds for improving school conditions and meeting the building adequacy guidelines:  the deficiency corrections fund, the building renewal fund, and the new school facilities fund.  Contrary to the way the state legislature funds most initiatives, the Students FIRST law permits the School Facilities Board to advise the state treasurer once each year in December of the amount of money needed for each fund to meet legislative intent.  Those funds are then transmitted to the School Facilities Board beginning the following July.  No further legislative appropriation is required, and the School Facilities Board funds are the first allocation from the state's budget.  The board, of course, has carefully balanced the needs of the schools and the responsibility to Arizona taxpayers so this approach eliminates much of the politics and angst that often accompany such impressive, high-profile programs.

Statewide Facility Guidelines

The School Facilities Board is charged with adopting rules to establish minimum school facility guidelines, assessing school buildings against these guidelines, and providing monies to bring the buildings up to guideline standards.  On November 18, 1999, the board adopted the Building Adequacy Guidelines that now serve as the minimum standards for existing and new school facilities in Arizona.  (See http://www.sfb.state.az.us/sfb/sfbdoc/guiderev18.asp for complete document.)

These guidelines include everything from square footage requirements for specific programs to lighting and carbon dioxide levels.  Minimum classroom space is based on a specific number of square feet per student, modified by grade level.  The higher the grade level, the more space provided.  For example, in Grades 4 through 6, each student is allocated 28 square feet of classroom space but 90 square feet of overall school space.  This formula helps keep classes small despite growing enrollment.  Every classroom is supplied with an erasable white board, projection screen, storage area, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC).  Every school must have a two-way internal communications system, fire alarm system, library or similar research area, covered area for students to eat lunch (remember, this is Arizona so many students eat outdoors), an auditorium or similar area to accommodate one-third of the student body at any one time, administrative space, and appropriate facilities for science, art, physical education, and health programs, depending on the grade.  Generally, Grades K-6 are allocated 90 square feet per student, Grades 7-8, 100 square feet per student, small high schools (under 1,800 students) 134 square feet per student, and large high schools 125 square feet per student.

New School Construction

New schools are allocated funds based on a square footage formula, with the cost per square foot modified annually to the construction index for the state.  Rural school districts receive a additional 5% of the formula amount.  During the fiscal 2001 school year, elementary schools (K-6) received $97.43 per square foot; middle schools receive $105.05 per square foot; and high schools receive $119.09 per square foot.  In addition, the state provides 100% of the cost of land acquisition and additional costs for both unknown conditions and special grading or soil conditions.

The School Facilities Board has been working with local developers to encourage their participation in the project.  To date, developers have given local school districts more than $60 million of buildable land at 49 different sites.  Last year the state legislature approved a law to give each developer who made such unconditional donations a 30% state tax credit and to give local school districts a 20% payment of the fair market value to supplement their school construction formula.  The School Facilities Board has also taken a "hard line" approach to locating schools inside planned unit developments only when the developer has made a donation.  Otherwise, the school is built elsewhere in the community.  Arizona laws permit no impact fees for school construction.

Because Arizona is rapidly expanding, numerous housing developments are being built.  The criteria to determine district eligibility for monies from the new school facilities fund are based on an annual evaluation and approval of district enrollment projections and the additional square footage needed to maintain adequacy standards in a district.  When a district falls below the square footage requirements or is projected to do so over the next 2-3 years, the district is approved for a new school, fully funded by the state.  The School Facilities Board distributes new facilities monies to school districts based on the following formula:  (number of students) x (square footage) x (cost per square foot) = allocation.  To date, 112 new construction projects have been approved at a cost of more than $1 billion in state funds; 86 of those are new schools.

Once approved by the School Facilities Board, there are no elections, no local bonds, and no delays.

Deficiency Corrections Process

The deficiency corrections fund is used for identifying and correcting deficiencies in existing school facilities.  Deficiencies might take the form of a quantity (square footage) deficiency or a quality deficiency, but all must be corrected by law no later than June 30, 2003.  To date, 5,963 "hard construction" deficiency projects have been identified with a price tag of over $740 million.  The total deficiency corrections program is estimated at approximately $1.1 billion.  

During its most recent session, the state legislature gave the School Facilities Board additional authority to improve the speed, efficiency, and effectiveness of the deficiency corrections process.  Now, the local school board hires its own architect using a School Facilities Board architectural agreement, but the bidding and the management of the projects are the responsibility of the School Facilities Board, which has only 20 full-time employees.

To oversee the construction projects, the School Facilities Board has contracted with nine project management firms selected through a competitive request for proposal process.  Each bid package of approximately $30 million is assigned a project manager who coordinates all the work and people involved in the various projects, incorporating multiple-district projects.  In an effort to track all aspects of the projects, the School Facilities Board has selected Project Talk software by Meridian Project Systems.  This program enables everyone involved in the projects - architects, school superintendents and board members, project managers, and School Facilities Board personnel - to communicate about the construction under way.

Technology is an important part of education, and computers are a part of everyday learning.  To ensure regular access to computers, the School Facilities Board has implemented a computer-to-student ration of 1:8.  Through a partnership with Qwest Communications, every classroom will have an adequate number of computer drops to connect all the district's computers through a local area network (LAN) running at 100 mg.  The LAN will be connected to the district's internet service provider, making each computer internet accessible.  To ensure the ratio of at least 1:8, the School Facilities Board purchased 36,000 computers for approximately $45 million through Arizona's schools as part of the deficiency corrections project.  

Although Qwest is the general contractor, Cisco Systems is the primary equipment vendor.  In addition to providing equipment, Cisco will donate 15 full Cisco Academies, one in each county in districts where the administration has also agreed to specialized training through a Gates grant administered by Arizona's K-12 Center, a part of Northern Arizona University.  This web-based program is designed to train high school students to design, build, and maintain computer networks and prepare the students for industry certification.  

Building Renewal Funds

Fifty percent of America's schools report at least one building feature as being less than adequate, and 29% have inadequate HVAC systems (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).  The building renewal fund's purpose is to maintain the adequacy of existing school facilities.  These monies can be used for major renovations and repairs of a building, for upgrades to building systems (e.g., heating, cooling, plumbing, etc.) that will maintain or extend the useful life of a building, and for infrastructure costs.  Monies from this fund cannot be used for new construction, remodeling of interior space for aesthetic purposes, exterior beautification, demolition, soft capital items, or routine maintenance.  These funds are in addition to the capital funding provided by the Arizona Department of Education's maintenance and operating budget state aid. 

A building's square footage, age, recent renovations, and student capacity are variables used in the building renewal calculation.  The School Facilities Board distributes building renewal monies to school districts in two equal installments, in November and May of each year.  Since 1999, over $280 million has been distributed to districts from this fund.  Each year, the fund amount increases and more than $130 million will be distributed during the next school year to Arizona's 228 school districts.

It's Working

In an Arizona Republic article, Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, which pressed the 1991 lawsuit through the Arizona Supreme Court in 1998, stated that Arizona earns good marks for its work (Flannery, 2000).

"This is kind of beyond my wildest dreams," Hogan said.  "If you'd told me three years ago we'd be where we are today, I'd have said you're crazy."

References

Corcoran, T., Walker, L.J., & White, J.L.
    (1998).  Working in urban schools.
    Washington, DC:  Institute for Educational Leadership

Flannery, P. (2001, April 29).  Suit triggered
    gigantic spending - All schools will meet 
    standards.  Arizona Republic.

Hines, E. (1996).  Building condition and 
    student achievement and behavior.
    Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
    University, Blacksburg.

National Center for Education Statistics.
    (2000), June).  Conditions of America's
    public school facilities:  1999.  Washington,
    DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

National Education Association.  (2000,
    May 3).  Modernizing our schools:  What
    will it cost?  Washington, DC:  Author.

Poplin, M., & Weeres, J. (1992).  Voices
    from the inside:  A report on schooling
    from inside the classroom.  Claremont,
    CA:  Institute for Education in Trans-
    formation, Claremont Graduate School.

Roosevelt School District No. 66 v. Bishop,
    179 Ariz. 233, 877 P.2d 806 (1994).

U.S. General Accounting Office.  (1997),
    February 5).  School finance:  State efforts to
    reduce funding gaps between poor and 
    wealthy districts.  Washington, DC:  Author.

Philip E. Geiger, Ed.D., is a nationally
recognized education consultant residing
in Scottsdale, Arizona.  He is currently the
executive director of the Arizona School 
Facilities Board and a member of ASBO's
editorial board.      

SCHOOL FACILITIES BOARD STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT
 - District Assessment Report

District Name:    Flagstaff Unified School District
County:              Coconino
CTD #:               030201
District Total:    14,629,164

School:  Project New Start

School:  Manuel DeMiguel Elementary

School:  Sturgeon Cromer Elementary

School:  Lura Kinsey Elementary

School:  Eva Marshall Elementary

School:  W. F. Killip Elementary

School:  South Beaver Elementary

School:  T. R. Weitzel Elementary

School:  C. W. Sechrist  Elementary

School:  J. Q. Thomas Elementary

School:  N. V. Christensen Elementary

School:  Leupp Public School

School:  T. M. Knoles Elementary

School:  Flagstaff Middle School

School:  Mount Elden Middle School

School:  Flagstaff High School

School:  Coconino High School

School:  Sinagua High School

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT    

BUILDING RENEWAL PROJECTS BY CATEGORY & SCHOOL
  - Fiscal Year 2001/2002

Return to FUSD home page

Send comments to Support Services Webmaster