Acquiring a New Site

If acquiring a new site, the district may use one or more of the following legal methods: 

• Purchase from the owner. 
• Acceptance as a gift from the owner. 
• Condemnation of private property with purchase at fair market value (RCW 28A.335.220). 
• Receipt of surplus government property. 
• Lease of state-owned property. 

State laws affecting the securing of proposals for sale, appraisals, counteroffers, and options should be investigated thoroughly. 

Apart from land secured on acceptable leases, title to the real property of the site should be vested in the school district, with any or all encumbrances clearly stated in the title documents.  Any title that contains encumbrances should be accompanied by certification from the district’s legal counsel stating that such encumbrances will not interfere detrimentally with the construction, operation, and useful life of the school facility.

Recommended Acreage

Urban and rural sites have different space needs, so OSPI does not require a definite amount of space for the expected number of students.  However, in accordance with WAC 392-342-020 a site should have:

• A base amount of 5 usable acres, plus 1 additional acre for each 100 students. For school facilities with any students above 6th grade the base amount should be 10 usable acres plus 1 additional acre for each 100 students.

Use the above WAC to assure that the site will have sufficient space to offer a healthy environment, adequate space for the facility and educational program, parking, physical education and recreation, as well as satisfy requirements of the local jurisdiction.

Funding Site Acquisition

Sources of funding for site acquisition available to districts include:

• Passage of a capital levy.
• Passage of a bond issue for site acquisition.
• Transfer of funds from the general fund to the building fund.
• Outside sources (developer dedication, growth impact fees, or mitigation payments).
• Sale of district-owned surplus property.
• Non-voted debt.

Data Necessary in Site Acquisition and Assessment

Prior to design studies for site utilization and building placement, a survey of the physical site characteristics and a title search are necessary.  This site survey must be performed by a land surveyor registered in the State of Washington.  The site survey, a responsibility of the district, should contain the following information for the architect/engineer:

• Title of survey, property location, certification, and date.
• Scale and compass orientation.
• Tract boundary lines, courses, and distances, including all easements.
• Names of abutting property owners.  Benchmark with assumed elevation.
• Names and locations of all existing road right-of-ways on or near the tract.
• Location of roads, drives, curbs, gutters, steps, walks, paved areas and the like, indicating types of materials or surfacing.
• Road elevation for all improved roads on or adjacent to property improved gutter elevations on property line side.
• The survey should include opposite side of adjacent street information.
• Location, type, size, and flow of all existing storm and sanitary sewers on or contiguous to the tract, including top and invert elevations of all manholes and inlet and invert elevations of other drainage structures.
• Location, type, and size of all water and gas mains, meter boxes, hydrants, and other appurtenances.
• Location of all utility poles; natural gas and utility pipelines; cable TV, telephone, and power lines (with indication of nearest leads either on-site or off-site), and pertinent information and ownership of all utilities.
• Location of all existing structures on the site, including buildings, foundations, bridges, wells, walls, fences, and rock outcroppings.
• Location of all swamps, springs, streams, drainage ditches, wetlands, lakes, and other bodies of water including line of maximum flood plain if applicable.
• Outline of wooded areas; location of trees, identification of trees by type, identification of trees with trunks over 8 inches in diameter at waist height; and location and identification of any other significant flora and fauna.
• Elevations throughout the site sufficient to develop a complete and thorough contour map for site improvements.
• Construction of permanent property corners such as concrete monuments.

What makes a site feasible?

It depends.  A site that is not feasible would likely remain so despite multiple efforts to accommodate its short-comings, design around issues, resolve legal issues, or secure jurisdictional approvals – within what would be considered a reasonable cost and timeframe. Instead, the effort and expense would prove better spent on a different site with fewer issues or more advantages.

An existing site could become less feasible over time depending on how areas and land-use change near it, or due to changes in what the District needs in its facilities.  Ask what made it feasible when first constructed. Does the site have historical or cultural value to warrant extra effort or expense to preserve its continued service as a school or administrative facility?

It may not be possible to locate a site that will totally accommodate all needs.  The selection committee and community should discuss priorities and agree on what qualities are indispensable. 

SEPA Requirements and Process

The Washington State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120, and the SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-904, require all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals.  The act also requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. 

A portion of WAC 197-11-960 comprises an environmental checklist which must be answered as completely as possible.  The checklist assists agencies to determine whether or not a proposed school facility will require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.  This form does not supersede or void application forms required under any other federal or state statute or local ordinance. 

The district may ascertain if it is the appropriate lead agency having jurisdiction over the proposed facility (action) and may decide if a project is exempt from SEPA requirements.  If a district determines it does not have exempt status, it may have its architect/engineer or consultant complete the environmental checklist.  The lead agency must consider the checklist information and ascertain whether or not the action will have a significant effect upon the quality of the environment. 

If a threshold determination by the lead agency declares the proposal to be non-significant and there are no appeals, the district may proceed with the project.  A copy of the Determination of Nonsignificance – or, Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance – and a copy of the completed environmental checklist must be transmitted to the Environmental Review section, Department of Ecology, for permanent recording of the determination.  

If a determination of significance is issued by the lead agency, a draft EIS and a scoping form must be prepared, reviewed by all appropriate authorities and published. 

The district’s compliance with the requirements of Chapter 197-11 WAC must be certified to OSPI. 

Occasionally, public hearings must be conducted on the EIS, and a final EIS with public comments would be required.  Guidelines for preparation and review of the EIS are available from the Environmental Review section, Department of Ecology. 

Growth Management Act 

The Growth Management Act (GMA) has significant importance to districts in the counties which are planning under the act.  Districts will obtain maximum benefit from the GMA by actively participating in the planning process with the city or county planning authority. 

Growth management planning may benefit districts by providing information and location of planned growth in the community, guidance in locating school sites, and perhaps financial assistance for new school construction in the form of impact fees.  Disadvantages of growth management planning are that districts may find themselves restricted in locating new schools and in obtaining necessary zoning approvals. 

The GMA requires cities and counties to designate urban growth areas (UGAs) as limits of services such as water, sewer, and streets.  Locating school facilities within the UGAs may be limited either directly through land use regulations or indirectly through restrictions on utilities.  School facilities outside UGAs, that require water and/or sewer service, may need extraordinary measures such as service lines dedicated solely to (and paid for by) the district.  School facilities not listed in the capital facilities element of the local comprehensive plan may not be approved. 

At least two of these elements, land use and the capital facilities plan, are critical to school districts. The GMA requires comprehensive plans to include:

• A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land for public facilities, which includes schools. A capital facilities plan element consisting of:
  • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations of facilities and their present level of service.
  • A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities based on their proposed level of service.
  • The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities.
  • At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and will clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes.
  • A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 

If a district is considering a site near, on, or outside its Urban Growth Area, it should consult with city and county planning agencies and with its land use attorney. 

Local jurisdictions are authorized to impose impact fees for school facilities.  The ability of a local jurisdiction to assess impact fees for school districts are dependent upon the adoption of a capital facilities plan element and an enabling ordinance.

OSPI will review proposed school sites, including existing ones, and ask the following questions: 

• Is the site’s size and shape adequate for the grades to be served? 
• Will the site support the educational program? 
• Is the site located conveniently for the majority of pupils? 
• Is the site near other community services such as a library, parks, and museums? 
• Is the site located near existing educational facilities? 
• Will the surrounding zoning and development enhance the school site? 
• Can the site be shared with other community facilities (parks)? 
• Is the site expandable in the future or will it support expanded facilities? 
• Is the topography conducive to desired site development? 
• Is the general environment aesthetically pleasing? 
• Does the land drain properly and are other soil conditions good? 
• Does the site have desired trees and other natural vegetation? 
• Have tests been made to determine underground conditions (Geotech)? 
• Is the site easily accessible for service vehicles? 
• Are the road and traffic patterns surrounding the site suitable? 
• Is the site safe? 
• Is the air quality healthful? 
• Is the site free of industrial and traffic noise? 
• Is the site served by public agencies (police, fire, etc.)? 
• Are adequate water and sewer services available at the site? 
• Are there any easements of any nature affecting the use of the site? 
• Will site development costs be excessive? 
• Has the site been assessed for impacts to cultural resources regarding EO 21-02? 
• Are any of the following energy sources available at the site? 
  • Gas 
  • Electricity 
  • Solar 
  • Geothermal 
  • Other 

OSPI staff will also consider a general evaluation of the site, including any adverse answers to the above questions. The above questions are meant to gather both the District and consultant team’s knowledge of the site as well as the OSPI site reviewer’s impression. The District and OSPI both face an important consideration as to whether the proposed school site is feasible, and to identify potential risks.