About the "follow up letter" which appears to be instigated by Mrs. Tracy Brill and Mr. Randy Trani (cc'd to them). What did this accomplish? Did the County "take back" any of the information they shared originally above? No. They did not.
Is the information on the VOTE YES web site now TRUE? No it is not.
Did the letter from the County say anywhere that the building was safe or unsafe? No. It did not.
Is the building safe or unsafe? If it were UNSAFE then our administration has neglected their duties and should be terminated.
If it has so many maintenance issues (peeling paint - rusty pipes - hot/cold classrooms ) then allocate funds on a regular basis to fix those areas.
If it was only about the safety - and the fear of a potential earthquake - why not put the children in Springdale when we decided to open that school in 2012 after making it a priority. If we knew we could actually remove the building (which we do not from the State Historic Preservation Office -
http://corbettpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lettertortandcharlie.jpg ) then why not replace a building with another building of the same size and with the same use?
* If you want to blame someone for the condition of this building - that goes squarely to the admin and school board at this point. See below to that point and the safety/seismic issues.Do we NEED to replace one building with 15,000 sf of use with new 35,000 sf construction, and 2 buildings? Why change the use from a middle school to a high school? No, these are "wants" and they are to "sell" CSD to more out of the area students. It is clearly NOT for our 220 or so high school students.
A comment on the Corbett Post below that is to the safety issues. "Corbettonian" gave permission for me to share this.Corbettonian September 29, 2013 at 5:11 pmAfter receiving the flyers from the school, I have many questions. The safety of the school should never be a concern for the people whom occupy it.
SAFETYAccording to Corbett School Board Policy, the administrators should be routinely inspecting their buildings and documenting their findings. These findings then should be reviewed by the board. Two of the longest running board members should be well aware of the facilities needs. One is a general contractor, whom you would think would play a critical role in the routine inspections and documentation. The other is a retired fire fighter whom should know the importance of proper maintenance to avoid catastrophes. Are these two board members using their knowledge to protect the children?
Why is asbestos suddenly a concern? Asbestos should not be a concern as the school should have an asbestos management plan in place according to federal mandate;
http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos/school-buildingsThere should be a copy of this plan on file and available for the taxpayers to view.
Why is lead paint an issue now? Lead paint should not be a concern if the building maintenance has not been neglected. There are many resources for keeping facilities safe from lead;
https://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/HealthyNeighborhoods/HealthyHomes/LeadPoisoning/ChildCareSchools/Pages/maintainingfacility.aspxThe school should be managing this toxic threat as there are numerous negative consequences for those whom are exposed to lead in the air. Most of which are listed on one of the mailings sent out by the school.
The seismic stability of our facilities is a concern. Why was it not a concern back when the State first started it’s Seismic Grant Program;
http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/Pages/plans_train/SRGP.aspxThere has been two waves of grants given to public schools. Several of the schools were built with the same materials as ours with more square footage and were seismically upgraded for a fraction of the cost that the school is quoting. Is the school applying for the next wave of grants in the event that the bond does not pass?
If there was such a grave concern about seismic stability, why has it been kept secret for so long and why didn’t we move our kids to Springdale to keep them safe.In an article from 1981;
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19810927&id=drwzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1811,6025535A Portland architecture firm recommended the building be replaced by 1984 due to structural deficiencies so clearly it was known by the school that this was an issue.
Their records should show what measures were taken to remedy this problem. Come to think of it there should be documentation to show all of the maintenance and repairs that have been done in order to protect the occupants of the facilities. As taxpayers of the district, we have the right to access this information to know the school has not neglected their obligation to provide a safe environment for learning.
Another question I have is why has the school not done a thorough job of engaging the community if they are truly concerned about the safety of the occupants? I have spoken to numerous community members whom were unaware of the school’s needs and will not vote to pass a bond for 15 million dollars without sufficient information. I asked if they received the mailings and most just tossed them with the rest of the junk mail. There are numerous Corbett School Board Policies which state the importance of engaging the community and it seems as though the district has disregarded these policies and forgotten the community is their greatest resource.
Has the district even considered the historical significance of this building? Have they asked the community if they can demolish their history to pave the way for their future? I do not know that I want to give the school my hard earned money for the next 25+ years without some clear answers to these questions.
MORE TO THE SEISMIC ISSUESCorbettonian October 6, 2013 at 8:52 pm My continued search for answers to make an informed decision in this election has enlightened me to the following I thought I would share.
I followed the link that the school provided to read the seismic reviewhttp://corbett.k12.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Facilities-Assessment-Part-2-Rommel.pdfOn page 3 of this report the engineer states,
“our site visit consisted of limited observation of readily-accessible areas of the structures. We have not performed any material testing or remote sensing.” Then on the same page they reiterate that their evaluation was based on limited observation.
I found another document for the facilities assessment written by the architects
http://corbett.k12.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Facilities-Assessment-Part-1-Rommel.pdfOn page 13 it says there is no way to structurally upgrade the existing structure to meet building code requirements. On pages 9 and 10 of the engineer’s report (1st link) it lists 11 required improvements for restoring the building for historic reasons. I do not believe an engineer would put their stamp on something if it was not safe for the occupants. So I am left questioning the validity of the whole assessment as the architect says one thing and the engineer says another.
Also on the most recent flyer it says the engineers “used 20 codes tests to evaluate the building. The building failed 13 tests, three did not apply, and it met the remaining tests.” I do not recall seeing any of these tests or the results. Were these not available to the public?I then found this document related to visual screening for seismic stability distributed by FEMA
http://www.oregongeology.com/sub/projects/rvs/O-07-02-AppL-FEMA154_Handbook.pdfIt is a long report but there is quite a bit of information that makes me wonder if our building really is Unreinforced Masonry like the school is suggesting.
On page 97 it says hollow clay tile are fragile, unreinforced, and without structural value, and usually are used for non-load bearing walls.
On page 108 it says because the steel frame in an older building is covered by unreinforced masonry for fire protection it is easy to confuse this type of building (steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill) with Unreinforced Masonry bearing wall structures.
On page 125 it says when a building has many exterior solid walls constructed from hollow clay tile, and no columns of another material can be detected, it is probably not an Unreinforced Masonry bearing wall but probably a wood or metal frame structure with Unreinforced Masonry infill.
I am left wondering if the Corbett Union High School building built in 1923 is steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill like the FEMA document suggests it could be or unreinforced masonry like the school is suggesting it is. I am also curious why we did not test further as there is a difference in the costs for seismic upgrades between the two. It is extremely hard to make an informed decision when it seems like there is information missing.
The latest flyer said the new building would be smaller at approximately 20,000 -22,000 square feet, but the assessments referenced above reports the current square footage at over 15000 sq ft. The Corbett community advocates website report is different from the school as well.
http://corbettcommunity.com/issues-101/2013-bond-faqs/They report it as 15,000 sq ft and that the facilities committee recommended building a slightly larger replacement (approximately 20,000 sq ft). All of this leaves me confused as the school is supposed to be providing accurate information to inform the voters, but everything I am finding does not seem to add up.
In my searching I also found this statement about the need for accurate information written by Dr. Randi Trani
http://corbett.k12.or.us/2012/12/21/facilities-assessment-and-community-engagement/He says:
-If the information is inaccurate, …, then the rest of the process will be built on a faulty assumption. This type of error could destroy the communities confidence in the district for decades as well as the educational experiences of hundreds of children.
I agree with this and I feel like a visual inspection does not provide me with the most accurate information I need to make a 15 million dollar decision. In my many years of learning I have found it is always best to do my research and avoid making decisions based on assumptions.
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCEI was searching around some more trying to answer some of my questions about the historical significance of the Corbett Union High School and I came across an Oregon Law relating to state agencies in control of property 50 years or older. It says the agency must consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if proposing a demolition to a building which is eligible for the National Registry.
http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/SHPO/docs/ORS_358653_factsheet.pdfSo I followed up with the contact listed on the link above to find out what the results of the consultation were between the SHPO and the Corbett School District and to my surprise the school has not contacted the SHPO. They asked if I would like them to send a letter and I said that I would. The letter was sent on 10/01/2013 to Dr. Trani and the board chair. I expect to see it on the agenda for the board meeting this month.
So what will it mean if we pass the bond and give the district 15 million dollars and we then can’t demolish the existing school? We have an extra school to maintain and need more money to fix it because it’s dangerous? We probably then have to fill it with more students to afford to maintain it. I really think having the answer to what we can do with the Corbett Union High School is important before voting to give the district a 15 million dollar bond. Last thing we need is a new bigger school and the old dangerous one.
