ERIC ED471913: The Development of Educational Facilities through Joint Use Mechanisms.

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 471 913

EF 006 020

TITLE

PUB DATE
NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS

The Development of Educational Facilities through Joint Use
Mechanisms .

2000-01-18

8p.; Produced by the New Schools Better Neighborhoods Joint
Use Working Group.

For full text:

http : //www. nsbn. or g/ joint use /ed_facili ties . html .

Reports - Descriptive (141)

EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

^Educational Facilities; Educational Facilities Planning;
Flexible Facilities; School Construction; ^Shared Facilities

ABSTRACT

This paper was prepared as an outgrowth of a Getty Center
symposium sponsored by New Schools Better Neighborhoods (NSBN) and its
partner organizations in May 1999. The subject of joint use, generically
meaning the development of K-12 education facilities in combination with
other facilities such as parks or libraries, was broached at the Getty
Symposium as one of several means of accelerating and enhancing new school
construction. Accordingly, a working group was formed under the guidance of
NSBN with the charge to research, evaluate, and formulate recommendations
regarding joint use. This is the first in a series of products prepared by
the Joint Use Working Group. The paper is an overview of the subject and a
point of departure for further study. It discusses the benefits of joint use,
such as additional student housing, cost savings, and community enrichment
programs and services, as well as its constraints, such as conflicting or
non-aligned goals of the partners, operations and maintenance issues, and
regulatory constraints. Also explored are themes of joint use, such as the
school district as community developer, leveraging community goals, and
adaptive re-use of existing structures. (EV)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.

EF 006 020

n

The Development of Educational Facilities Through Joint
Use Mechanisms

http://www.nsbn.org/jointuse/ed_facilities.html

5 New Schools/ Better Neighborhoods
£ Joint Use Working Group
p January 18 , 2000

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Description of The Joint Use Opportunity

III. Themes of Joint Use

IV. Findings and Next Steps
Project Assessment Summary

Joint Use Working Group

Alex Rose, Co-chair, Continental Development/Urban Land Institute

Steve Ross, Co-chair, Playa Vista/ Urban Land Institute
Paul Hernandez, Moderator, New Schools / Better Neighborhoods
Jeanette Justus, Jeanette C. Justus Associates
Susan B. Davis, Cox, Castle & Nicholson
Amy Arnold, City of Los Angeles
Anne Ferree, Gensler Architects
Kate Diamond, Siegel Diamond Architecture
Micheal B. Lehrer, AIA, Prop. BB Oversight Committee

I. Introduction

This paper was prepared as an outgrowth of the Getty Center symposium sponsored by New
Schools Better Neighborhoods (NSBN) and its partner organizations in May, 1399. The
subject of joint use, generically meaning the development of K-12 education facilities in
combination with other facilities such as parks or libraries, was broached at the Getty
Symposium as one of several means of accelerating and enhancing new school construction.
Accordingly, a working group was formed under the guidance of NSBN with the charge to
research, evaluate and formulate recommendations regarding joint use. This is the first in a
series of products prepared by the Joint Use Working Group.

1

u S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
. > CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as
' received from the person or organization
originating it.

□ Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY

Jerome Lewis

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

2

■»

This paper is an overview of the subject and a point of departure for further study. Several
case studies of functioning joint use projects in California have been researched by the
members of the working group. Each project was evaluated through telephone interviews
with project representatives, usually school district staff, and analysis of written agreements
upon which the projects are based. The primary focus of the case study analysis was to
learn from the experiences of those who have gone before, from their successes as well as
from actions they would do differently if they had the chance to start again.

In addition to the case studies, the working group monitored the deliberations of the State
Allocation Board in its evaluation of joint use. The SAB is presently considering joint use as
one of a number of cost reduction strategies for new school development as required by SB
50. Education Code provisions relevant to the subject of joint use have also been evaluated.

Finally, the Joint Use Working Group has engaged in a number of brainstorming discussions
as a means of framing up the issues and challenges of this important topic. The
brainstorming sessions have informed the paper as a whole and were particularly relevant to
the section on Themes of Joint Use.

II. Description of The Joint Use Opportunity
A. Benefits

In their struggle to provide cost effective and adequate student housing in a way that
promotes quality of life in the community, school districts are exploring more joint use
opportunities. The potential benefits are multiple and can be categorized as
opportunities that provide:

Additional Student Housing

Cost Savings, either in capital facilities and/ or in ongoing operational cost
Community Enrichment Programs and Services

1. Additional Student Housing

A primary benefit to joint use agreements is to provide additional student
housing. This is especially true in areas where existing schools are
overcrowded and land to build new schools is scarce. School districts in urban
areas have by necessity become creative in their search for places to build
and expand school facilities. Joint use increases those opportunities. Through
partnerships with the private sector and with other public agencies, schools
have been built on park, museum, college, commercial and other school sites.

One example of a public-private partnership in a community that is almost
entirely built-out is the Mendez Fundamental Intermediate School. Currently
completing construction on a site that shares space with a renovated
shopping center, this Santa Ana Unified school project provides school
facilities constructed on top of a shopping center parking structure. Mendez
has not proven to be an inexpensive school to build. However, it does not
displace any housing, and this in and of itself is extremely important in the
Santa Ana community. Besides some relief from overcrowded school housing,
the community also benefits from the redevelopment of an underutilized

3

2

shopping center.

The Center for Advanced Research and Technology, jointly constructed and
operated by two unified school districts provides another example of a
creative way to provide additional student housing when limited space is
available. The project serving the Clovis Unified and Fresno Unified school
districts, will serve 1500 half-time high school students in a state-of-the-art
technology learning center. These students will also be enrolled in
comprehensive high schools where they will be able to participate in sports,
theatre arts and all the activities provided by traditional high schools. The
Center for the Advanced Research and Technology is being built on 9 acres, in
an existing manufacturing building. The two districts have established a Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) to operate and maintain the school. The JPA will
contract with each district to provide services such as human resources, food
services and fiscal services. Each district will be relieved of some high school
over-crowding as 750 students from each district enroll in the specialized school.

2. Cost Savings

Traditionally, joint use has been seen as a mechanism to save capital and
sometime operations costs to the taxpayer. In 1998, the California legislature
signed into law SB 50, representing comprehensive school facility and finance
reform. Within SB 50, the State Allocation Board is required to adopt
guidelines to achieve costs reductions in school construction. Joint use
recommendations are mandated to be included in the cost reduction guidelines.
Cost saving benefits frequently come from the shared use of land, such as the
combination of schools and parks or of two schools sharing field space.

Districts also build combination school/city library facilities and theaters on
school campuses. This saves the community from the construction of two
separate facilities.

Measuring the amount of cost savings is complicated, since joint use projects
often are funded by a combination of various funding mechanisms and
sources and are regulated by various entities. The ultimate facility may not
result in school district savings, especially since districts must follow higher
construction safety standards that are carried over to community facilities.

This puts the school district in the position of often funding the projects
themselves to ensure these standards are met. The savings is realized in the
overall costs, which would be considerably higher if the same facilities and
services were provided to the community without joint use agreements.

3. Community Enrichment Programs and Services

The provision of more and better services to the community is often the
greatest benefit of joint use. The services may be providing after school use of
school playgrounds, theaters and libraries. Schools get the use of fields and
other athletic facilities, theaters and libraries during school hours.

The joint use library on a school campus is an excellent example of the
enrichment of the school children and the community. A city/ county library
can offer student access to the county-wide system on campus and much
greater resources than secondary schools can offer. The hours can be
extended for easy access for students after school.

4. Other

Sometimes, joint use provides other benefits. One community in northern
California incorporated a joint use project advocated by the community into
their general obligation bond strategy. When the community voted general
obligation bonds to build school facilities, they also got tournament level
athletic fields. The district was able to leverage the general obligation bonds
to get state funding to construct new facilities and modernize existing schools.
The new fields are maintained with user fees. A local community athletic
association runs the concession. The secondary school students also use the
fields during school hours and the community benefits after school and on
weekends. National tournaments are attracted to community.

B. Constraints

Along with the benefits of joint use, come a complicated assortment of obstacles and
challenges that must be overcome to realize a successful project. These constraints
can be categorized as follows:

Conflicting or non-aligned goals of the partners

Operations and maintenance issues

Regulatory constraints

1. Conflicting or Non-aligned Goals of the Partners

School districts, cities, counties, community colleges, and private sector
partners attempting joint use partnerships are often confronted with turf
issues, difficulties in implementing joint use agreements and assorted battles
along the way. A recent workshop among school community representatives
addressing joint use outlined a number of ways to avoid these issues,
including:

Obtain support of the joint use project by the policy makers
Identify specific benefits and relative value of the project to each party
Document benefits in a formal agreement

Determine governance of joint use facility up front and document in the
agreement

Outline a process to resolve inter-jurisdictional conflicts in the formal
agreement. These conflicts can be expected.

Obtain approval of the formal agreement by the policy makers

4

ERIC

5

2. Operations and Maintenance Issues

Typically, operations and maintenance issues revolve around hours of use,
responsibility for maintenance, security and cost of maintenance, especially
when facilities are heavily used by the district and the community. Successful
joint use projects seem to result through well developed agreements that are
clearly understood by both parties and from on-going communication between
the partnering entities. Monthly and sometimes weekly coordinating meetings
have been helpful in many of the projects documented in the case studies.

In one of the case studies, the Sweetwater Union High School and the City of
Chula Vista collaborated on the joint use of a library and high school . Here,
the library was built and maintained on the high school campus by the
District. However, the City operates the library from 3 until 10 PM weekdays
and on weekends and summers. Each weekday there is a school-city library
staff turnover at 3 PM. Security is one area that has not been worked out to
the satisfaction of the community. Because of security reasons, the general
public is not allowed in the library when high school is in session.

3. Regulatory Constraints

All construction projects in today's world are regulated by a multitude of laws
to protect the safety of the community and the environments. The regulations
governing the construction of schools, other public buildings and private
buildings each have different policy goals and legislative histories. Joint use
projects often involve regulatory compliance beyond the familiar world of the
entity with whom the school district is partnering. An example is the Field Act
that establishes a higher construction standard to address earthquake safety
in all school facilities. A theater, auditorium, multipurpose center built by a
city, but to be used by the district for classes or school activities must be built
to Field Act standards. On the other hand, local ordinances, often not required
by school districts, become relevant as joint use projects are implemented. As
a case in point, Elk Grove Unified is currently planning a joint use library with
the Sacramento Public Library Authority. This project comes under the county
art-in-public-places ordinance. The JPA formed to build and operate the
library, however, does not have funding to provide the art required.

Regulatory constraints not only complicate construction projects, they can
also effect the operations of joint use facilities. For example, school districts
have run into conflict with libraries as they address school library policy and
the Library Freedom Act. Districts are typically more restrictive of access to
library reading materials and the internet than are libraries.

III. Themes of Joint Use

Building schools in conjunction with other compatible, synergistic facilities represents an
opportunity for school districts to leverage their limited resources in meeting their new
facilities goals. The opportunity is of even greater importance in urban districts where
available land is scarce.

5

V 6

We believe that those charged with building new schools will benefit from considering joint
use in the context of the following themes or paradigms:

A. School District as Community Developer

New Schools Better Neighborhoods, as the name says, is predicated on the idea that
schools and neighborhoods can and should have a positive influence each other. While it
may not be self evident, school districts are in the community development business
when it comes to building new facilities. As such, it may be useful to think like a
company that is in the business of building new communities. Successful community
building is driven by many factors. A few precepts that may be relevant:

1. Land is a limited resource. It must be handled with respect and a strong sense
of economy. Look for ways for the project site to serve multiple functions.

2. Consider the community. No project happens in a vacuum. The neighbors of a
project site are your constituency. Explore how your goals may overlap with those
of your neighbors and pursue alliances.

3. Create value. Schools that enhance their neighborhoods create value in terms
of improved quality of life and property values. The ability of a new school to
create value may be a function of the other facilities that come with it, such as a
library or park.

4. Create projects you'll be proud to show your grandchildren. School districts are
in the "placemaking" business when it comes to creating new facilities. Building
schools in conjunction with parks, libraries, museums, hospitals, fire stations, or
performing arts centers is an enormous opportunity to create places that enhance
neighborhoods and the larger community.

B. Leveraging Community Goals

1. Look for common ground.

Look for common ground with your community. School facilities that address a
community goal as well as a new school facilities goal are prime opportunities for
joint use. The case studies include examples school districts collaborating with
public and private entities to achieve their respective goals. Whether the shared
use is a softball complex or a performing arts center, the result is a new school
facility with lower initial cost, lower operating cost or both.

2. Community Initiated.

Sometimes, the idea of joint use can be initiated by the community itself.

Consider the Clovis Unified School District case study involving a shared
education center and softball complex initiated by community sports field
advocates.

C. Adaptive Re-use of Existing Structures

1. Building Recycling.

Consider adapting existing, available buildings for single or joint use projects.
Under utilized or vacant office or industrial buildings may offer opportunities to
produce new classroom capacity faster, cheaper or both. Consider, for example,
the Otis Parsons School of Design occupying the former IBM building near LAX or

6

7

»

Loyola Marymount University acquiring the former Hughes Aircraft headquarters
building in Westchester. While these facilities were not public schools subject to
Field Act requirements, they are instructive of a potential source of new school capacity.

2. Revenue Potential.

The re-use of existing facilities as a joint use may create the opportunity to offset
costs through the generation of revenues to the district. Consider the office
building examples where a portion of the building is used by the district for
classroom space and a portion is leased to users such as childcare or health club
operations.

IV. Findings and Next Steps

The environment is excellent for exploring and developing joint use opportunities. Through
SB 50 and the flexibility of this legislation, joint use is made easier. The State Allocation
Board and Office of Public School Construction are openly encouraging districts to work with
other entities. Local government and the private sector are aware of school construction
funding and recognize the opportunity to get facilities built that would serve a broader
community as well as the district. Still there are a number of challenges that must be
addressed and resolved. The New Schools Better Neighborhoods Joint Use Working Group
will next turn its attention to strategies and actions necessary to deal with the issues raised
in this paper, including:

1. Joint use facilities, while providing an overall cost savings to the taxpayer, may cost
school districts more than a facility built solely for school use;

2. Negotiating joint use agreements followed by ongoing communication between
partnering entities are staff time intensive;

3. It is easier for districts to stay in the comfort zone of building schools within its world
of regulatory constraints;

4. It is easier for other entities to stay in the comfort zone of constructing buildings
without the additional regulatory constraints that accompanying school construction;

5. While SB 50 encourages joint use, it also establishes the new requirement that school
buildings using state construction funding can only be built on sites that are owned by
school districts;

6. Clean-up legislation to address funding for "district-owned sites only" may provide
that only publicly owned sites can be used for state funded school construction. This
would eliminate many public-private opportunities for joint use;

7. School districts are becoming increasingly concerned not only about the cost
effectiveness of building joint use, but of the long term cost and commitment districts
must make to operate and maintain community facilities.

David Abel, Managing Director david@nsbn.org www.nsbn.org

811 West Seventh Street, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 629-9019 Facsimile: (213) 623-9207

7

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

Planning Delaware's School Needs:

Issues of Location, Design and Infrastructure

Author(s): OCXICW (L

Mj DC> d.U

v~Dgl\a& €r\a<? JL\

Corporate Source: University of Delaware
Institute for Publice Administration

> o

Publication Date:

rmrch cfioc>|

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and
electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction
release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY

&

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

Level 1

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 2A documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

-s*-

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

2A

Level 2A

T

Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media for
ERIC archival collection subscribers only

The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

3

&

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

2B

Level 2B

t

Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination in microfiche only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.

If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

Sign

here,

please

/ hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this
document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and
its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other
service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Signature: 1 .

Printed Name/Position/Title:

UooCs/ T>irec+oc

OrganizilKrVAddress: CvSs^-fuL-tS- "Pu\C>U C HdlYMniSf--

( 6 cavxarA Hrx i V ra

<\e lOact , tse t q -nip- "i 350

FAX:

E-Mail Address^ »

\i.£uxs a) cdeX-zrtiL

Date: ) — , 1

iv p Jo ^

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: National Institute of Building Sciences

1090 Vermont Ave., NW #700
Washington, DC 20005-4905

or fax to 202-289-1092

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:

O

ERJC°88 (Rev. 2/2001)

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility
4483-A Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone:
Toll Free:
FAX:
e-mail:
WWW:

301-552-4200

800-799-3742

301-552-4700

info@ericfac.piccard.csc.com

http://ericfacility.org