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.
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.
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.
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?
We’ve heard from some members of the community that the school district has deliberately let the building deteriorate in order to justify a new facility. Certainly the building has had to compete with other district facilities for scarce funds, and the district has had to make hard choices. But to state sabotage has occurred, while good bar-room conversation, is to choose to ignore the facts. For example, the older (1926 model) boiler had a replacement boiler installed in 1992 and the newer (1946) boiler had a replacement burner installed in 2001. The tubes in both boilers were replaced in 1997. Condensate handling pumps in the boiler room were new in 1996. Water closets and urinals had new flush valves installed in 2006. Major roof work over portions of the building was accomplished in 2002 and 2006, and still another section is programmed for repair in 2009/2010. This roof work is over a portion of the building retained within the proposal (thank goodness). In the previous five years the district has spent over $50,000 in building repairs from the general fund and over $161,000 in building improvements from the operating capital fund. From another perspective, the gas and electricity bill for the middle school for the 2006/07 school year was $119, 326.
About the only alternative that would make the current middle school facility useful and desirable from a long-term perspective is a complete gutting which, according to a 2007 independent study, would cost about $24 million. In that case, then, the district would have a rehabilitated middle school, and could then move onto addressing the remainder of the district’s facility shortfalls with another referendum, or worse yet, robbing operational funds to meet those facility needs. Moreover, doing so would deprive the district of the opportunities for savings created by the establishment of a common middle school/high school campus. For instance, fixing up the old building would mean there would still be two kitchens and cafeterias to staff and operate instead of one. The district would still have to operate duplicate spaces and services at both the high school and middle school for the media center, Art, Band, Choir, Industrial Technology and Family and Consumer Science. The teachers for these classes would continue to be paid for driving back and forth between the two schools instead of for teaching all day at one site. The classrooms associated with these subjects would continue to sit idle for half the day. There would still be two principals and two offices instead of one. Buses would still have two drop points and extra miles to drive and to be paid for.
The citizen-developed proposal being put before voters considered these and other alternatives, and concluded that the current proposal makes the best use of hard-earned taxpayer money. The proposal will save the district money because we can stop throwing money after an aging and deteriorating building. It will provide facilities worth much more than their cost. It will provide the structures needed for modern educational programs. The best parts of the current middle school—the granite wing, gym and 1992 addition—will be retained in educational use. A modest $2 million investment at the current facility will yield a facility worth $9 million.
There is a cost to the district for voters to say “no” to the building proposal. The current middle school is an aging building with numerous issues of concern or deficiency. These issues will need to be addressed in the very near future, whether the economy improves or not, because the building will not improve itself. To vote “no” is to choose to throw good money at a building that is aging and inefficient, and to ignore the remainder of the district’s facility needs! Voting “yes,” on the other hand, will make your tax dollars do so much more by building a new middle school, updating the high school and extending its life span, freeing up space in all three elementary schools, and keeping the best parts of the current middle school, and all of this gets accomplished in a single referendum. There is tremendous value and savings in the proposal and the cost to the average taxpayer is $10, or less than you’d pay for a pizza, per month. We encourage you to vote “yes” to save more of your money.
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
Comments