Let's Rethink School Sites

Let's Rethink School Sites
Print this page By Teresa Blackwell Citizens should be concerned about the proposed school sites being funded by the bond. We need to put aside the politics and tactics used to pass the bonds long enough to consider where these schools will be located. What do you know about these sites? If you answered, “nothing really,” read on as I share information, pros and cons, and thoughts on them. Site 1 is out Hwy. 67 North at Ferguson Rd. This is a 43.74 acre site with a price tag of $380,000, or $8688. per acre. The Texas version of the “acreage plus” formula used by our school board is a base 5 acres plus 1 acre for every 100 students. A 600-student school would need 11 acres. Forty acres is excessive even by this formula. The pro to this site is accessibility, right on a major road. Con #1 - the road is a highway. This would require reductions in speed limits on this stretch of highway. Traffic control would necessitate a signal. This would bring slower and backed up traffic onto the highway as we head to work every morning. Con #2 is a possible gas lease that is not owned by the school district. One board member I talked with said he would look into this. I hope the board follows up as well fires are a fact and potential with every well drilled. Last month Palo Pinto county had a well explosion that burned for days. Do we want our children attending school next to this potential hazard? This would be the new Santa Fe Elementary and will cost 9 million dollars. The old Santa Fe could be renovated and brought up to code for approximately $2,450,000.00. That land is paid for. In 1993 enrollment was 434. This means we will spend $6,550,000. to add 166 students to the “learning tracks” of Santa Fe. Site 2 is off Main and down Kilpatrick, past the Johnson County Correctional Facility. This is a 30.311 acre site costing $394,043, or $13,000. per acre. “Acreage plus” rule calls for 11 acres. I see no pro to this site. Con #1 is it is three tenths of a mile from the jail. This is approximately 1550 feet. Do we have any sex offenders in our jail? California law states a sex offender cannot reside within one and a half miles of a public school. Texas law keeps them only 500 feet away from our children. Is this right? How about drug users just 1550 feet away from our children? Even if the Sheriff can secure the people inside the jail, you still have a steady flow of visitors to this area that we know nothing about. Con #2 would be the 6 large LP storage tanks located about 500 feet from the other edge of the property. Will these tanks maintain their integrity? Storage tanks have exploded - check the internet. Is this safe for our children? This will be the new Irving Elementary costing 9 million dollars. The old Irving could be renovated and brought up to code for approximately $2,744,000. It's land is already paid for. In 2000 the enrollment was 407. Today the enrollment is 335. Overcrowded? But let's spend an additional $6,256,000. Site 3 was on Hwy. 4 next to the cemetery. This purchase agreement was recently pulled by the school board due to an impending gas well on this land. They are now looking for alternative land for the new Adams Elementary at a cost of 9 million dollars. The old Adams could be renovated and brought up to code for approximately $1,700,000. In 1993 enrollment was 332 students. Since then a new complex was added which contains the library, computer lab, and third grade classrooms. Enrollment today is 310.Overcrowded? But let's spend an additional $7,300,000. Drive by these sites. If you find them appropriate for our children, O.K. If you don't find them appropriate, voice your concerns to the school board. Regarding “acreage plus” rules, I called T.E.A.Facilities Funding and Standards. The T.E.A. has no recommended site sizes and have not adopted any site size standards. They do have standards for individual classroom square footage. Turns out that “acreage plus” recommendations come from the Council of Educational Facilities Planners International. They are not a governing authority. They are an association of builders and architects headquartered in ritzy Scottsdale, AZ. applying standards that are stressing school districts across our country. Isn't this kind of like the fox guarding the hen house? I am not opposed to building new schools. The CISD was created in 1883 and is one of the oldest in our county. I think we should embrace that heritage and renovate the cornerstones of our early neighborhoods. To advance technologically we need only add wires and fiber optics to our existing buildings. Last year both Ft.Worth and Cedar Hill school districts did just that. This year Plano will be doing the same thing in their district. We are growing. Gerard Elementary is at an enrollment high of 466. You can see the boom in housing starts in this area. Wouldn't it make more sense to put a school there? Our Middle School sits on a 50 acre tract just across Nolan River that could accommodate another building. Let's look before we leap.

By Teresa Blackwell

Citizens should be concerned about the proposed school sites being funded by the bond. We need to put aside the politics and tactics used to pass the bonds long enough to consider where these schools will be located. What do you know about these sites? If you answered, “nothing really,” read on as I share information, pros and cons, and thoughts on them.

Site 1 is out Hwy. 67 North at Ferguson Rd. This is a 43.74 acre site with a price tag of $380,000, or $8688. per acre. The Texas version of the “acreage plus” formula used by our school board is a base 5 acres plus 1 acre for every 100 students. A 600-student school would need 11 acres. Forty acres is excessive even by this formula. The pro to this site is accessibility, right on a major road. Con #1 - the road is a highway. This would require reductions in speed limits on this stretch of highway. Traffic control would necessitate a signal. This would bring slower and backed up traffic onto the highway as we head to work every morning. Con #2 is a possible gas lease that is not owned by the school district. One board member I talked with said he would look into this. I hope the board follows up as well fires are a fact and potential with every well drilled. Last month Palo Pinto county had a well explosion that burned for days. Do we want our children attending school next to this potential hazard? This would be the new Santa Fe Elementary and will cost 9 million dollars. The old Santa Fe could be renovated and brought up to code for approximately $2,450,000.00. That land is paid for. In 1993 enrollment was 434. This means we will spend $6,550,000. to add 166 students to the “learning tracks” of Santa Fe.

Site 2 is off Main and down Kilpatrick, past the Johnson County Correctional Facility. This is a 30.311 acre site costing $394,043, or $13,000. per acre. “Acreage plus” rule calls for 11 acres. I see no pro to this site. Con #1 is it is three tenths of a mile from the jail. This is approximately 1550 feet. Do we have any sex offenders in our jail? California law states a sex offender cannot reside within one and a half miles of a public school. Texas law keeps them only 500 feet away from our children. Is this right? How about drug users just 1550 feet away from our children? Even if the Sheriff can secure the people inside the jail, you still have a steady flow of visitors to this area that we know nothing about. Con #2 would be the 6 large LP storage tanks located about 500 feet from the other edge of the property. Will these tanks maintain their integrity? Storage tanks have exploded - check the internet. Is this safe for our children? This will be the new Irving Elementary costing 9 million dollars. The old Irving could be renovated and brought up to code for approximately $2,744,000. It's land is already paid for. In 2000 the enrollment was 407. Today the enrollment is 335. Overcrowded? But let's spend an additional $6,256,000.

Site 3 was on Hwy. 4 next to the cemetery. This purchase agreement was recently pulled by the school board due to an impending gas well on this land. They are now looking for alternative land for the new Adams Elementary at a cost of 9 million dollars. The old Adams could be renovated and brought up to code for approximately $1,700,000. In 1993 enrollment was 332 students. Since then a new complex was added which contains the library, computer lab, and third grade classrooms. Enrollment today is 310.Overcrowded? But let's spend an additional $7,300,000.

Drive by these sites. If you find them appropriate for our children, O.K. If you don't find them appropriate, voice your concerns to the school board.

Regarding “acreage plus” rules, I called T.E.A.Facilities Funding and Standards. The T.E.A. has no recommended site sizes and have not adopted any site size standards. They do have standards for individual classroom square footage. Turns out that “acreage plus” recommendations come from the Council of Educational Facilities Planners International. They are not a governing authority. They are an association of builders and architects headquartered in ritzy Scottsdale, AZ. applying standards that are stressing school districts across our country. Isn't this kind of like the fox guarding the hen house?

I am not opposed to building new schools. The CISD was created in 1883 and is one of the oldest in our county. I think we should embrace that heritage and renovate the cornerstones of our early neighborhoods. To advance technologically we need only add wires and fiber optics to our existing buildings. Last year both Ft.Worth and Cedar Hill school districts did just that. This year Plano will be doing the same thing in their district.

We are growing. Gerard Elementary is at an enrollment high of 466. You can see the boom in housing starts in this area. Wouldn't it make more sense to put a school there?

Our Middle School sits on a 50 acre tract just across Nolan River that could accommodate another building.

Let's look before we leap.