|
University of Maryland College Park Office of Executive Programs |
|
Newswire Week 16 (1/13-1/19) |
|
|
|
LOCAL |
Questions and Answers With . . .(Yale Stenzler, Executive Director of State
of the Maryland, Public Schools Construction Program)
The Washington Post _ January
19, 2003, Sunday http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12195-2003Jan18.html |
|
Yale Stenzler has wielded
extensive influence in his 30 years as director of Maryland's Interagency
Committee on School Construction. He makes recommendations on how much state
money should go to school districts for their construction projects. Soon
after he turned 60 last year, he decided to retire. Stenzler, who will leave
his position at the end of the month, answered questions from staff writer
Theola Labbé. What is the most
important thing for schools to keep in mind as they design and build their
buildings? To understand their program,
what they want to do in the building. . . . It's not a question of simply
taking the building and saying, "Okay, let's make another one like
that." The person has to sit down and really analyze what the needs are. You've had to listen to
school officials and politicians from every county come and ask for school
construction money. Every year, sometimes all year. Do you ever get sick of
the wheedling? I don't look at it as whining. .
. . We have worked with every system to try and approve every project, and we
leave it up to them to justify it. Where we have raised questions or concerns,
it's up to them to answer those questions and remove those concerns and
problems. In some cases, that doesn't happen, and the projects aren't
approved. How has school
construction changed since you first started? There's more of an emphasis on
providing appropriate programs for students with disabilities . . .
pre-kindergarten programs in the schools . . . English as a second language.
We have computers and computer labs, which were not here in 1972. The change
in approach of instruction from a teacher mostly standing in front of the
class, and students responding, to more hands-on activities at every level.
We've gone away from the open-space school. So the building has, therefore,
changed to be able to enhance and support the programs and services. There's
a greater number of square feet per pupil required to support the program. .
. . Buildings are much more colorful than what they used to be. . . . Another
major factor is the actual cost of construction has significantly changed and
gotten higher. As your replacement comes
in, it seems the job is very difficult now because state money is tight and
districts have a lot of needs. How severe a situation does the successor in
this job face? We have been able, in the past
several years, to provide such a significant amount of funds for public
school construction projects that dropping back may be a little hard to
digest. But I think that everyone will understand that there are limitations
and [will have] to adjust the request accordingly. |
|
|
|
NATIONAL |
|
Public Educational
Facilities Bonds Deadline Approaching National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities _ January 14, 2003, Monday |
|
The
federal Tax Act of 2001 included a provision to allow states to issue
tax-exempt “private activity” bonds for qualified public educational
facilities (QPEF). These bonds can be used to construct, rehabilitate,
refurbish, or equip a public school facility. Bond proceeds are loaned to a
private, for-profit corporation (developer) who owns the school facility and
leases it to a public school. Each state is given a volume cap or allocation
equal to the greater of $10 per capita or $5 million. IRS code allows states
to keep their allocation for each year for up to three additional years.
However, states must complete IRS form 8328 before February 15, 2003 to keep
their 2002 allocation. See the
Charter Friends Network for more. |
|
|
|
ACROSS THE NATION |
Ohio
|
Lawmaker considers school sales tax for countiesThe Associated Press State &
Local Wire _ January 14, 2003, Tuesday http://wire.ap.org/public_pages/WirePortal.pcgi/us_portal.html |
|
A state
representative said he is close to proposing legislation that would set
ground rules for school districts to put a sales tax hike on county ballots. State
Rep. Bryan Williams said the proposal would allow districts to put up to a
1-cent sales-tax increase on the ballot to last for 10 years. The revenue
could be used for school
construction, operating costs or a property tax rollback.
Most of the school districts in a county would have to be in on any such
proposal to get it on a ballot. Williams, R-Akron, gave a summary to Akron
school board members Monday night. He said his proposal would eliminate many
of the concerns raised about the failed ballot issue in November that would
have boosted Summit County's sales tax for school construction costs. Opponents said it favored
the Akron school system. Williams
said his plan could give the Akron district a way to pay for its construction
plan, while also helping districts nearby with their specific funding needs. Summit
County's proposal would have raised the sales tax from 5.75 percent to 6.25
percent for 30 years. It would have generated roughly $1 billion during the
life of the tax - money that would have gone to the county's 17 school
districts on a per-pupil basis for repair and construction projects. Akron
Mayor Don Plusquellic, a supporter of the Summit County sales tax that was
voted down, said he doesn't think the 10-year duration in the Williams plan
would be long enough to sufficiently help Akron and other districts with
their construction needs. To fund
an expansive construction project, the Akron school district has until this
summer to raise $284 million in local money to claim $409 million from the
state. The district is also facing deadlines in February and May to get
issues on the May or August ballots. Williams
said the tax would last for 10 years - rather than 30 - but would be
renewable. |
|
New York |
|
State legal dispute
threatens major project The Buffalo News _ January 14,
2003 Tuesday http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030114/1020983.asp |
|
Plans to
reconstruct nine Buffalo public schools in the first phase of the district's
nearly $1 billion renovation and construction project face the possibility of
major delays as the result of a complex legal dispute in Albany. In a nutshell, it is unclear whether the bonding process is
governed by a 2000 law designed specifically for the Buffalo project, or
whether that law was superseded by legislation passed in 2001 that applies
more generally across the state. Local officials argue that the state should rule
administratively that the 2000 law applies, so Albany can pay the interest on
a $150 million bond that the construction board is ready to take to bid. But crippling delays could result if the state decides that the
State Legislature must amend the 2001 law or pass new legislation. Local officials stressed that they are working cooperatively with
state officials to resolve those issues, and that they could be worked out as
early as this week. If that happens, they said, the project could stay on
schedule. |
|
Arizona |
|
Top education officials
propose changes The Associated Press State &
Local Wire _ January
14, 2003, Tuesday http://wire.ap.org/public_pages/WirePortal.pcgi/us_portal.html |
|
Top education officials want to
change the way the state deals with underperforming schools and also revamp
the way the state pays for school
construction. Schools labeled underperforming
and facing state government intervention would get a reprieve under
legislation to be considered this year, officials said. "There is no opportunity to
give schools credit for making good progress but haven't gotten to where they
need to get to not be designated a failing school," said Ruth Solomon,
associate superintendent of education policy. "If we take these schools
who make all the effort to improve but they haven't gotten to the top yet,
all you do is slap them in the face." Along with the projected $1
billion budget deficit that faces the state next year, legislators are likely
to focus on key education bills. "Education is everybody's
top priority," said Sen. Toni Hellon, R-Tucson. Arizona law now says
underperforming schools must make substantial improvements or face state
intervention. New state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne wants
underperforming schools that show gradual improvement to be rewarded. In addition to changing how to
deal with struggling schools, Horne wants to give those schools extra time to
fix the problem before the state takes action. Actions that could be taken
against failing schools include allowing parents to get outside tutors paid
by taxpayers. A school that is ranked as failing could also be taken over by
the state. Two straight years of
underperformance earns a failing label. A school's performance is based on
how well students did on standardized tests and, at the high school level,
graduation rates. Students FIRST, the state's
school-building program, will also get a close look, though whether the
Legislature will act is uncertain, Solomon said. Horne will propose ending
state funding of construction for all new schools. In its place, local districts
would pay for new schools and poor districts would receive equalization
money. "We would save $400
million," Solomon said. "And it would make the people who are
asking for this construction accountable to the people." |
|
California |
Wage law threatens new school projects, may hinder economic plan
Knight Ridder/Tribune News
Service _ January 19, 2003, Sunday http://www.krtdirect.com |
|
A new
law signed by Gov. Gray Davis last fall could prevent nearly all of
California's school districts from building schools as quickly as possible, hobbling
his latest plan to boost the state's economy by accelerating school construction. The new
law says schools may only tap Proposition 47 school bond money if they have a
program in place to certify the contractors they hire are paying the
prevailing wage. But only two districts have such a program: the Los Angeles
and San Diego unified school districts. That
means 1,041 school districts still need to develop the programs by April 1
and then have their programs approved by the state Department of Industrial
Relations, which oversees 11 such programs. |
Articles compiled by Sujin
Bae
Graduate assistant for the School
Construction Funding Project
Van
Munching Hall University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1821