On April
7 voters in the ROCORI School District will be asked to approve a 20
year bond proposal of no more than $29,990,000 to build a new ROCORI
Middle School and make needed enhancements to other district
facilities. The proposal is district-wide in scope and the outcome of
the referendum will affect every child in the district. This is the
fourth in a series of articles designed to help voters as they study
the issues in support of making an informed decision.
The Good
- The
current middle school facility was built in 1926. Additions were made
in 1946, 1960, 1965, 1974, and 1992. Taken together, the cumulative
square footage of the facility is over 117,000 square feet. Throughout
its history, the facility has served the communities well. It exudes a
homey and old-fashioned character and there is much fond history
associated with the facility.
- The “granite wing” is unique and
striking and the gym is in good shape and has excellent flooring.
There is ample parking close to the building and the windows open and
have screens. Its location next to St. Boniface School provides a
connection for support of federal programs. As a stand-alone facility
it offers autonomy and a distinct sense of place from the other
facilities in the district. There are adequate playing fields located
on the property.
- Additionally, a spacious Senior Center is located in
the building, offering outstanding opportunities for intergenerational
learning. All levels are accessible by elevator. Every student has a
locker. The entire facility is paid for, and as a building it is
spacious and a location it isn’t too bad.
GIRLS LOCKER ROOM LEAKS IN THE CEILING
The Bad
- But
as an educational facility it’s inadequate. The facility reflects the
six distinct and different additions, resulting in confusing
circulation patterns. Although it does contain a lot of square footage,
a large amount of that space is simply unsuitable as instructional
space. Over half of the classrooms are undersized for the number of
student using them. Those classrooms that are of sufficient size have
undesirable features such as vinyl partitions between rooms which
results in limited sound insulation.
- The core of the building—the 1926
original facility and 1946 addition, house most of the classrooms. All
of the widows are single pane glass. Pathways through the building are
bewildering. The narrow stairways and hallways inhibit student travel
within the building. The flow of students in the 1926 building goes
directly into four classrooms that were configured from the original
gymnasium. These four classrooms might be unique in the state of
Minnesota, in that they offer balconies with shag carpeting hung on the
railings to serve as acoustic barriers, yet which still allow students
to listen to four teachers simultaneously.
- True to its old-fashioned
character, the building allows students on one side of the building to
wear their coats to class while those on the other side open the
windows to avoid breaking a sweat during class because of the
inconsistent temperatures throughout the building provided by the
antiquated HAVC system.
- The lunch room, created from a concrete
basement storage room, has outstanding acoustical features—every sound
from every student at lunchtime is both echoed and amplified. Because
the intercom system is original, there is no single room communication.
- The media center, located in the basement of the original structure,
does not have air ventilation. The restrooms are not handicap
accessible.
- The girl’s locker room opens directly into a main hallway.
Water draining from the courtyard seeps down the walls of the girl’s
locker room. The central location of the building ensures a good deal
of vehicle traffic by the building throughout the day.
- The detached
location, away from other district facilities, prescribes that buses
have one more drop point and extra miles to travel.
RED TAGGED Boiler Options
The Ugly
- There
is insufficient usable space to house the sixth grade, depriving our
kids of the many benefits garnered from a grade 6-8 arrangement. The
school’s layout and design are not adaptable to modern teaching and
learning practices and inhibit our children’s learning.
- As a
place for middle school age kids to spend their day it somehow meets
its annual safety inspection requirements. We don’t know how, and can
only attribute it to the efforts of the dedicated maintenance and
teaching staffs. The building is only partially fire sprinkled
(basement, chemistry labs and commons are only areas fire sprinkled).
- The narrow hallways, steep stairways, and confusing circulation
patterns present evacuation hazards. Although protected by an access
card system, multiple entrances provide opportunities for unwanted
access. The office does not have the opportunity to visually observe
the primary front entrance. There is asbestos in the boiler room, pipe
joints, cafeteria floor, and flooring under the carpeted areas. Air
quality is marginal.
- The exterior building façade needs
reconstruction due to water intrusion.
- The mechanical systems are
simply failing.
- One boiler, ironically the newer of the two boilers—a
1946 model, has been red-tagged as unsafe for use and is completely
offline.
- The plumbing and piping is antiquated and beginning to fail.
Plumbing valves are failing. The science classrooms do not have sink
drains. Children must empty slop buckets that catch drain water beneath
the sinks. The electrical system, including the main electrical
disconnect switch, distribution panel board, motor control centers,
panels and branch circuiting are beyond useful life. Wiring devices are
beyond useful life. Energy efficiency is a term which cannot be
applied to the current middle school in any form because dollars
literally fly out of the windows.
EXTERIOR BRICKS NEED $120,000 REPAIR ON 1926 & 1946 ADDITIONS
To simply fix what needs
fixing on the maintenance list, according to a professional estimate
made in 2007, would take approximately $12 million. If any parts of the
building experience significant improvements or remodeling, those parts
must be brought to current code, and the Minnesota Department of
Education will not approve major projects where the remodeling work
exceeds 60% of the cost of new construction. We are close to that
threshold, and if no action is taken soon we lose our opportunity to
choose. Do we invest in a facility that is aging and less than adequate
and that would still have a short life span or do we choose to invest
in a new middle school facility?
For more information and to voice your opinion please visit: www.NewROCORIMiddleSchool.com
The writers are concerned parents of school-age children and co-chairs of the Build a New Middle School Referendum Committee.
By Barry Venable and Pat Salstrand
Recent Comments